Scott County leaders approve advertising a $240,000 renovation for former City Hall; special meeting set to sort funding

Scott County commissioners and councilors on Tuesday reviewed floor plans and a preliminary budget to renovate the former Old City Hall, commonly referred to in the discussion as the Graham Building, and agreed to advertise a roughly $240,000 project with a special meeting planned to finalize funding.

Paul of Temple & Temple presented floor plans and a cost estimate, telling the board: "We are assuming that the electrical, the plumbing, the HVAC ... are all in good working order" and that much of the work is interior—selective demolition, new partition walls, a secure public check-in counter, expanded public restrooms and limited flooring replacement. He estimated a design/permitting review of several weeks and construction of about five to six months if the building is unoccupied.

The presentation outlined specific upgrades including blocking some exterior entrances to create exit-only routes, installing exit-only hardware and counter glass at public-facing counters; the plan also budgets tuck-pointing on masonry walls and limited new flooring in areas affected by construction. Paul said IT wiring and "home runs" were not included in the current budget and recommended an IT contractor review prior to final bids.

Greg Prince, president of the county commissioners, described the proposal as a sound starting point: "I think it's a good starting plan," he said, and urged the board to move forward on permitting and procurement so work can begin as soon as funding is confirmed.

Finance staff told the board the reported unappropriated general fund balance is currently $300,000 and noted roughly $490,000 exists in restricted opioid funds, which may not be usable for this project. A council member urged staff to verify those balances before any appropriation: "We need some semi-concrete numbers out of the general fund to look at," the council member said.

Board members discussed advertising the full estimated amount so the county could run a public procurement cycle; participants agreed to advertise the full $240,000 and hold a special meeting (proposed June 10) to review finance staff’s confirmed balances and decide how much to appropriate. Participants also discussed the option of advertising only for permitting and initial design tasks (an amount Paul said would require about $15,000–$20,000 to start the state review) if the county prefers a phased approach.

The board did not take a formal appropriation at the meeting. The council portion recessed and adjourned by a 6–0 vote later in the evening; commissioners also adjourned after the advertising and scheduling discussion.