Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Circuit court outlines $1.9M renovation for historic courthouse; county staff say structural fixes must come first
Summary
The Thirteenth Circuit Court presented plans to expand courtroom and jury space at the historic courthouse with a $1.9 million construction estimate; county staff and the judge emphasized that structural and water‑intrusion repairs are the higher immediate priority and should be routed through the facilities master plan/CIP process.
Circuit Court Administrator Trina Girardin and Judge Hamlin presented an informational session on proposed renovations to the third and fourth floors of the county’s historic courthouse. The court requested space reconfiguration to expand the courtroom and jury room, add ADA‑compliant spaces and include a holding cell and increased conference/meeting space.
Girardin presented blueprints from environmental architects and said the renovation construction estimate is about $1.9 million (construction costs only). She said the plan would nearly double the size of the courtroom and enlarge the jury room to meet ADA needs and soundproofing requirements. Judge Hamlin and the court team described operational challenges in the existing space: cramped jury rooms, shared bathrooms for jurors, limited private meeting rooms for attorneys and no adequate holding space for inmates during criminal days.
County staff and the court agreed that structural issues—crumbling brick, water intrusion, and an inconsistent heating/air system—are pressing concerns. Tower Pinkster’s facilities master plan (FMP) and facility staff identified larger structural and masonry repair needs and recommended addressing those through the CIP/FMP process first. County administration said the FMP is a recommendation and that the board can modify prioritization but noted that large capital costs for a historic building will require deliberation and possible bonding or inclusion in a future CIP.
No vote was taken; the presentation was informational and staff said they will work with the court to identify structural fixes for CIP submission and to clarify whether renovations belong in the FMP or CIP. Commissioner discussion focused on distinguishing urgent structural repairs (stop water intrusion, address failing masonry and HVAC controls) from broader renovation desires, and on timing relative to the county’s capital improvement planning.
Next steps: County staff will coordinate to scope and price the structural repairs that the court and staff agree are highest priority and submit them through the CIP/FMP process for board consideration.
