The Gasconade County Courthouse Analysis Committee made their final presentation to the county commissioners at the regularly scheduled commissioner’s meeting on June 5.  Since their last presentation in January they have been working with two architectural firms to determine the most appropriate designs, floorplans, and building elevations for each of the three options. These details were then used to determine costs for each of the designs.

OPTION NO. 1 (below) is adding a U-shaped annex to the existing courthouse to provide street-level access.

OPTION NO. 2 (above) to be constructed new on a site yet undetermined.

OPTION NO. 3 (right) is renovating the existing OES 3-5 Center and adding an addition onto the back side.

Option 1 (use of the existing courthouse) continued to provide the most challenge. The challenge was not so much the courthouse, as it was the site of the current courthouse. The steep drop-offs in nearly every direction provided unique engineering issues. Four different designs were considered before one emerged as the best solution.

Although all four resulted in very similar costs, the one selected was superior in access to the current facility, minimal disruption of the courthouse interior, and minimal obstruction of the current courthouse external appearance.

The unique feature of this design is the construction of a U-shaped annex contiguous to the East, South, and West sides of the current courthouse and at the level of the current courthouse basement. This annex would house all county administrative functions  and one of the two courtrooms. The other courtroom would remain where it is currently located on the second floor of the current courthouse. The Prosecuting Attorney, Sheriff, and Circuit Clerk would also be located in the current courthouse.

As expected, this will be the most expensive of the three options. With appropriate contingencies and land cost this will cost approximately $14 million. While this may not be affordable as a public project, its elegant appearance (see architect’s rendering), and stately featuring of the existing courthouse, make this an attractive option for drawing funds from the private sector to offset the public requirements.

Option 2 (totally new building) is proposed as a single story, masonry building with a metal roof (see architect’s rendering).

It has a very modern appearance and a very efficient floor plan. With appropriate contingencies and land cost this option will cost approximately $10 million.

Option 3 (remodeled OES 3-5 Center) uses about 75 percent of the existing building. The gymnasium, cafeteria, and band hallway will be walled off from the courthouse and are being studied by other entities for separate use. Only the courthouse area was considered in this analysis. In addition to the existing facility, a judicial annex will be constructed to house the courtrooms and judges offices. It is estimated that this option will cost approximately $6 million (see architect’s rendering).

Noting that it is difficult to describe the full detail in each option in a concise newspaper article, the committee offered to brief any public group that would like more information. Those briefings will include detailed floorplans showing the location of each function as well as access to the buildings. 

Requests for a presentation can be made to any of the committee members or to Gerald Ebker at: gerald@ebker.com or by calling (573) 437-2902. 

After the presentation, the committee noted that it had completed all that it had volunteered to complete and was therefore disbanding. As a final word, they again noted that it is imperative that action be taken on the courthouse. Potential liability issues will only increase and the result could be disastrous for the county. To do nothing is not an option!