Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Admin Building topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Architects show 32,700‑sq. ft. plan for new county administration building; estimate puts cost near $10 million before site work
Summary
Wilson and Company presented a schematic design for a roughly 32,749‑sq. ft. County Administration Building; architects estimated construction at about $300–$350/sq. ft. (approx. $9.7 million) excluding site and furnishings. Commissioners and department heads questioned size, storage needs and funding phasing.
Wilson and Company architects presented a schematic design for a proposed single‑story Torrance County Administration Building at the Sept. 11 meeting and gave commissioners an early cost estimate that prompted questions about scope and funding.
Architect Scott Nice said the programed building would total about 32,749 square feet and that “for a single‑story office building in this region, with these types of materials, the average cost is somewhere around $300–$350 a square foot,” producing a preliminary construction estimate near $9.7 million before site work and furnishings. The plan groups publicly facing departments near the main entrance, places hearing chambers with about 144 seats near the lobby, and includes substantial record storage and program space for the Assessor, Clerk, Treasurer, Planning & Zoning and other departments.
County Clerk Linda Jaramillo told the Commission that election equipment and permanent records drive storage needs and described the warehouse now used for elections (12,000 sq. ft.). Department heads and commissioners debated whether some vault/storage needs could be offsite or modular climate‑controlled storage to reduce core building square footage and cost. Commissioner Samuel Schropp urged design choices that reduce long‑term operating costs (insulation, solar readiness and durable materials) while acknowledging sticker shock. Chair Ryan Schwebach said the county has borrowed $10 million for the project but that the Commission must identify how to fill any funding gap and asked the design team to present phased or reduced options.
Architects said many finish and program choices can be adjusted during design development to lower cost without changing the building’s functional layout. No construction contract or bond vote was approved at the meeting; commissioners asked staff to return with price‑breakdown options and phased alternatives in a future agenda packet.
