Presenter briefs Senate panel on Newport Courthouse replacement; site search continues
Loading...
Summary
Buildings and General Services summarized a multi-year Newport Courthouse replacement project, saying past land proposals were unsuitable, the city is exploring a redevelopment district, and appropriations list $11,720,819 (described as bond money in testimony) plus $750,000 in cash to advance planning and design; no site has been secured.
The Senate Institutions committee on Feb. 5 heard an update from Buildings and General Services (BGS) on the Newport Courthouse replacement project, including site search challenges and funding in the proposed capital budget.
“For the record, I'm Joe Rager, director of design and construction with Buildings and General Services,” the presenter said and described a multi-year effort to identify property suitable for a new courthouse. He told the committee that previous land proposals were either too small or too far from downtown and that the city is exploring a redevelopment or “pit” district that may affect where the courthouse could be placed.
Rager said staff are considering whether a new facility could combine judiciary functions with probation and parole and the state's attorney's offices while keeping separate public entrances for security. He noted adjacent property owned by Fairpoint and that an old jail on a nearby parcel has been demolished; he added the county courthouse parcel could accommodate a relocated courthouse but said there have been no formal discussions with the county on such a move.
On funding, Rager said the project has long been listed in appropriations and testified that the appropriations include $11,720,819, which he described in testimony as bond money, plus $750,000 in cash to pay for purchase, planning and design work. When asked whether a site has been secured, Rager said no and declined to discuss some background matters, but said he was encouraged that progress may occur this year. The transcript records committee discussion but no formal vote or site selection decision.
The committee recorded the presentation and closed the item with no recorded motions; next steps in the transcript were limited to continuing site evaluation and keeping the project in the proposed capital budget.

