Last  week, the committee appointed by the county commissioners to analyze courthouse options released part one of their report.  This week we examine three of the 11 options presented to committee members by professionals contracted to study Gasconade County’s government needs.

Private funding was used to pay for the  analysis.

Option 1 renovates the existing courthouse and then configures it to house the administrative function. The property (to the west) between the courthouse and the bridge would be purchased. A new building would be designed and constructed to house the judicial function in this building. Entering from the west, a road would be built to provide access to both buildings with a circular drive and parking between the buildings.

Another scenario had been considered that would put the judicial function in the existing courthouse. That scenario was rejected because there was not sufficient space in the courthouse to accommodate the judicial requirements. In addition, the administrative function would require only one elevator, whereas the judicial function would require two. Although this scenario is receiving additional scrutiny to prove earlier conclusions, the placement of the administrative function in the courthouse is more flexible.

The current  courthouse is a stately structure that embodies over a century of county history. This option preserves that history and continues the county government on its current site, although expanded.

It is our estimate that this option would take between 40,600 and 47,100 GSF (gross square feet). It should be noted that the GSF used here is the NSF (net square feet) previously discussed, with the addition of walls, hallways, and public space such as restrooms.

A total of 18,600 GSF would be in the current courthouse and between 22,000 and 29,500 GSF would be in the new annex building. These sizes are expressed in ranges because we have not yet configured the buildings with a precise floor plan. This will be done in the next  phase, which will give us a more exact determination of the space required.  

Several categories of cost were estimated. These included site preparation that considered land purchase, excavation, road construction, and paving for parking. We allowed $1 million for site preparation.

Soft costs included architectural fees, engineering fees, and various types of site and construction related testing. We estimated a range of $800,000 to $900,000 for soft costs.

Construction costs were estimated at $4.2 million for the renovated courthouse and between $3.8 million and $5 million for the administrative annex. We added between $800,000 and $900,000 for a construction contingency.

These costs result  in a total of  $10.6 million to $12 million for Option 1.

Option 2 would be a totally new building on a site to be purchased. This would provide the most efficient workspace as the building would be designed specifically for our needs. It would also provide more space for access and parking as a larger plot of land (between three and 10 acres) would be purchased.

We estimate between 35,800 and 45,900 GSF would be required. This is somewhat lower than Option 1 since a new building can be designed more efficiently than the renovation of an existing one.

Corresponding costs on this building would include site preparation ($900,000), soft costs ($600,000 to $800,000), construction costs ($6.2 million to $8 million), and construction contingency ($600,000 to $800,000).

These costs total to a range of $8.3 million to $10.5 million for Option 2.

Option 3 is the renovation of the 3-5 center in Owensville.  This option would be attractive for expansion, as only part of the building would be required for current  needs,  and the size of the property, which would provide ample access and parking.

We estimate between 42,400 and 46,500 GSF would be required. This is the largest of the three options and again reflects the inherent  inefficiency of  renovating  existing space.

Corresponding costs include site preparation ($400,000), soft costs ($400,000 to $600,000), construction costs ($4.2 million to $5.7 million) and construction contingency ($400,000 to $600,000).

These costs total to a range of $5.4 million to $7.3 million for Option 3.

Conclusions

Because of the need for more space and the condition of our current courthouse, we must continue to address this issue.  While costs are a concern, they will only go up as we delay. In the meantime if we have a fire or other calamity we might get forced into a hasty decision that might not be in our best long term interests.  

We need to proceed with the next  phase of architecture which will give us a floorplan for each option, a site layout, and even building elevations. We will then have the data to better estimate sizes and associated costs.

We will keep  our citizens informed  by the release of all current information to our county newspapers and be prepared to make public briefings as requested.   

We need to begin looking at funding options. All three of the proposed options are a significant expense to the county. If there are any approaches that will lessen the impact to the taxpayer, we need to find them.

Since there is merit in all three of the options being considered, we need to  continue to refine and cost each of the options.  If one of the options does  not emerge as an obvious solution, then perhaps, we will need to ask our citizens in the fall election which of the three they want the county to pursue. (Committee members include Gerald Ebker, Jim Decker, Don Lenauer, John Bartel, and Steve Mueller).