Sounding like they were returning to square one, members of the Courthouse Construction Advisory Committee and Commissioner Rob Jones discussed Friday the need to look at “outside-the-box” ideas for renovating the courthouse.
During their April meeting, the Advisory Committee talked with the commissioner about moving some county departments currently housed at the Main Street courthouse. They also spoke of what a structural assessment of the marble building may find.
County voters approved a $34 million SPLOST referendum in February 2008 that included a $17-million courthouse renovation, but the project has been stalled by the slow economy and concerns the county’s parcel on Main Street isn’t big enough for an enlarged building and parking. The price of the courthouse has been steadily reduced in public discussions from that original figure.
At Friday’s meeting, the Advisory Committee discussed how results of a structural engineering study (expected to be complete before the next meeting) could drastically change the project.
Commissioner Jones told the committee he had contracted with a company to provide a detailed analysis of the marble courthouse, and that analysis should be finished by the next meeting, May 29.
Jones said the company will review the structural soundness of the building. He cited concrete columns that support the building as a main concern. He said the company, Mactec, will core-drill these columns to determine if there is steel support in the concrete and to check their general condition. Jones said, at this point, the county doesn’t know the quality of the concrete that was used, where it came from or how it was mixed. He said it may have been mixed using local convict labor.
Jones said they need to assess the building and then look at options based on its soundness.
For the first time during these committee meetings, the option of demolishing the building and salvaging only its marble siding was broached. The commissioner said they need to be confident of the building’s structural soundness before spending a great deal of money on renovation.
Jones said the structural assessment, “should give us an overview of what we have going forward.”
Tom Eubanks, who is managing the project for the county, said the assessment will almost certainly find some asbestos and other environmental issues. He said they would also look at what parts of the courthouse are historically significant.
Committee member Frank Martin, a former commissioner, speculated the assessment would find a buried fuel tank on the property, which would have to be removed. Martin said the removal will be expensive, but it’s better to find it now than after construction begins.
Friday, committee members expanded on an idea first tossed-out in a work session last month: Can some offices currently housed in the main courthouse be moved to new locations permanently?
By spreading departments to different sites, the county could build a smaller courthouse and better accommodate Superior Court functions at the Main Street site. However, members of the committee said they must weigh any potential construction savings against the costs of providing security at different sites.
Several committee members have speculated that if the Probate and Magistrate courts could be moved to a building recently purchased by the county (adjacent to the County Admin Building), it makes the idea of a renovated courthouse on Main Street more manageable.
The 8,200 square foot former doctor’s building beside the Admin Building was purchased as a temporary location for court offices while construction is underway on the Main Street courthouse. Plans call for the doctor’s building to be rented to DFACS after two years when construction of the new courthouse is scheduled to be complete.
Committee member Mimi Jo Butler, said, “If we only keep the judicial departments – the judges, the clerk and their support - and took out the Magistrate and Probate courts, then we won’t need as big of a building [in the downtown location].”
As an alternative, Jones suggested moving the Juvenile Courts permanently to the new building beside the Admin Building. Moving juvenile departments near to DFACS offices would seem to offer some advantages, Jones said.
Another idea, presented by Jones, is to build a small, affordable building adjacent to the jail that could serve as investigative offices for the sheriff and a place for probation offices also.
Jones said that would greatly help with future parking at the main courthouse. He said more than 100 probationers must report to the probation office on some weekdays for drug tests.
There was limited discussion on the need to determine security implications and costs of adding different court locations. According to his research, Eubanks said there are few definite rules on what is required for courthouse security other than the chief judge and sheriff need to determine what is adequate.
Martin said with the slow economy, the one-time budget of $12 million for courthouse construction is looking closer to $8.5 million. Having different locations and being able to do “phased construction” in two different locations makes a lot of sense, he said.
Committee Chairman Sanford Chandler said it was encouraging to see the different options. “These look like some great options, and it makes sense to look at different options,” he said.
Chandler said he would like to see the options drawn up in some form of presentable “ Plan A, Plan B, Plan C.”
“We don’t really have plans that we could show and get public input,” he said.
Jones said he hadn’t had an architect draw up different options, because that is expensive.
Committee member Terry Long said with the courthouse structural assessment and space assessment they should be able to look at the different options. “We have to be realistic with the budget,” he said. “We can reach for the sky, but we have a set budget.”
Butler said they need to balance the wish lists of the judges and departments with the needs of the general public.
“For someone recording a deed, that is more important to them than somebody’s kid who is up in juvenile court,” she said. “We need to make something work for all of the county.”
Among other points discussed:
• The committee voted to recommend the county proceed with “construction management at risk” style of construction. This would have a contractor handle the project and also guarantee a price. Martin noted they are going to accept a procedure, not name a company. Eubanks said this style of construction only works if the architect is on-board with it, which may pose a problem as an architect has already been hired. He said they would need to re-negotiate with the architect.
• The committee indicated they will recommend every effort be made to use local contractors but will not propose specific targets or quotas. In the discussion, they agreed to leave it to the commissioner to deal with legal issues and implementation of a policy to discriminate in favor of local companies.
• It was announced that Jan Oda had resigned from the committee. Commissioner Rob Jones will name a replacement.
• The committee will meet next on May 29th at 1 p.m. at Appalachian Technical College.
|
|
