Consultants propose $65M five‑priority facilities plan including new county complex and courthouse upgrade

Oakley Fine Architects presented a master plan that ranks county facility needs into five priorities and a multi‑decade phasing approach. The firm recommended a new consolidated county government complex (priority 1) of about 68,000 gross square feet on roughly 4–5 acres to house administration, finance, HR, tax, IT, development services, elections and meeting chambers. Consultants estimated construction and furnishing for that consolidated building at roughly $35M and, including soft costs and contingency, up to about $40M (land costs excluded).

Priority 2 focuses on courthouse renovations and repurposing nearby county‑owned buildings; the firm proposed using space freed by relocation (for example, registering deeds) to expand judicial and court‑support areas while preserving historic courthouse exterior character. The architects estimated the priority‑2 renovation package at about $8.5M–$9.7M for phased interior improvements and ADA/safety upgrades. Priority 3 calls for consolidating child support with the main DSS office (small targeted expansion estimated at ~$1.1M total project cost). Priority 4 recommended roughly 6,000 sq ft of secured equipment storage at the emergency management site (estimated ~$1.1M total), and Priority 5 recommends a courthouse addition/annex (demolish a small adjacent building, add up to ~22,000 sq ft) estimated at about $10–12.2M depending on scope.

Taken together, the five priorities were estimated at approximately $65.44M in construction and related project costs, not including land acquisition. The consultants presented two candidate sites for the consolidated complex (Cooperative Extension/Loop Road and the Mary Potter School site) and noted constraints such as underground geothermal infrastructure or topography that would affect site work and costs. They recommended phasing, shared meeting space, and investments to reduce leased space over time.

Commissioners discussed next steps including targeted site surveying, further cost refinement, and integrating the facilities plan into the county’s capital financing and debt strategy. The consulting team highlighted potential cost savings from removing older, maintenance‑intensive buildings and from consolidating services for residents into a one‑stop campus.

Ending: Staff will bring refined cost estimates, site surveys and possible financing scenarios to the board for further review during FY27 capital planning.