Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Architects present multi-option plan to repurpose former jail and renovate courthouse; costs range widely depending on scope
Summary
Intrepid Architect presented reuse and renovation scenarios for the vacated jail tower and adjacent courthouse, outlining baseline systems replacement estimates in the multi‑million-dollar range and higher costs for full upfits; commissioners asked for more granular, phased cost comparisons and comparables for new construction.
Intrepid Architect presented a multi-part work session March 3 examining options to reuse the largely vacated seven-floor former jail and to renovate the adjacent courthouse.
The firm described a test-fit exercise showing the jail tower can accommodate flexible office layouts (roughly 40 private offices per floor in a hypothetical fit) but emphasized significant challenges: the building’s plumbing and mechanical systems are largely obsolete; basement plumbing and floor drains create moisture risk for below‑grade spaces; and evidence storage needs (including some heavy, high-density storage) raise structural and floor‑load considerations. The architect said that replacing core MEP systems is not easily done piecemeal and that a baseline repurpose — focused on systems replacement and shell upgrades — could be in the range described in the presentation (the speaker cited a low-end systems-replacement estimate and a higher-end, full-upfit estimate; transcript figures were given as a range and should be verified in written estimates).
Architects also reviewed the courthouse building’s life-safety and accessibility liabilities: atrium smoke-control issues, noncompliant restroom configurations, curtain-wall glazing and roof aging. They recommended prioritizing life-safety, security and ADA fixes and warned that crossing certain renovation thresholds (for example, touching more than 50% of a building’s area) triggers code requirements that can substantially raise project cost.
The consultants ran a test fit for the county-owned 800 Corporate Drive office (≈20,000 sq ft) as an alternate option to consolidate veterans services, planning, inspections and environmental health. They presented rough renovation ranges (presentation range roughly $7–$12M for the 800 Corporate Drive reuse depending on finish level and scope) and suggested new-construction comparables for sheriff facilities can escalate higher (engineers’ escalated comparisons for a recent sheriff’s facility were included as a frame of reference).
Commissioners asked follow-up questions about sheriff response times if operations were consolidated downtown, evidence-storage requirements and the costs and time implications of demolition plus rebuilding. Architects committed to deliver refined PDFs, itemized cost estimates and a video walk-through for commissioners. The board recessed for lunch and planned to review the materials when provided.
Next steps: staff and architects will provide written estimates, comparables and a walk-through video; commissioners requested focused cost comparisons between targeted infrastructure replacement, phased renovations and new construction before deciding on a preferred approach.
