'The Money Pit': Madison commissioners advocate for more urgent plan for new courthouse
MARSHALL - In a release earlier this month, Madison County Manager Rod Honeycutt announced the county's courthouse operations would be moved to the North Carolina Cooperative Extension - Madison County Center for three months while the courthouse was being renovated.
But in the Madison County Board of Commissioners Oct. 10 meeting, some commissioners are wondering why the county is spending so much money to have the courthouse — one of the oldest in the state, as it was completed in 1908 — renovated at all, when the county already agreed in December 2022 to build a new courthouse within the next five years.
In February 2022, the county formed a focus group aimed at determining the most appropriate use of the $3.8 million issued to the state for courthouse renovations/repairs. The nine-member work group consisted of the clerk of court and two designees, the district attorney or their designee, presiding Madison County judge, the sheriff or their designee, one community member and two Madison County Board of Commissioners members.
Roughly one year later, on Feb. 7, 2023, District Attorney Seth Banks appeared before the commissioners to report on the committee's building maintenance and repair recommendations.
In that meeting, Banks presented the group's recommendations, which included mold remediation, new flooring and interior paint, a new metal stairway for emergency egress and a retractable ladder, as well as a roof assessment for water mitigation and improved fire and burglary alarm system.
The group also recommended the county not exceed $500,000, but according to Honeycutt, the costs are estimated to be $539,000.
While the county renovates its courthouse, the courthouse will be out of commission to the public, and the Extension Center will serve as the site of courthouse operations through at least Feb. 1.
In the December 2022 commissioners meeting, Superior Court Clerk Mark Cody said the focus group's primary objective was to determine whether the funds would be best suited for a new construction or for renovations to the existing facilities.
Scheduled renovations
With these renovations, plus an additional more than $600,000 spent on an architectural assessment performed by Karen Gravel at Asheville-based architectural consulting firm Lord Aeck Sargent, some Madison commissioners used the county's Oct. 10 meeting to question why the county is electing to renovate the courthouse rather than just build a new one.
According to Honeycutt, the estimated $539,000 in expenditures for renovations includes:
Moving and storage of items out of the current courthouse.
Purchase of furnishings for the temporary courthouse at the Extension Center.
Retrofitting office spaces in the Extension Center.
Renting office spaces for the district attorney and staff.
Purchasing a new metal detector for the Extension Center, which will then be added to the courthouse.
Conducting asbestos mitigation in the old courthouse.
These additional renovations are estimated to cost more than $180,000, according to Honeycutt.
According to Honeycutt, Cody and the county Maintenance Director Jesse Roberts recommended an additional $120,000 for hot water on the top floor, office renovations to include adding countertop spaces and performing wall removals, as well as adding LED fixtures throughout the building.
"So, we're looking at $845,000 to complete the renovations — $300,000 over what the committee recommended, and I'm requesting that you allow us to proceed in publishing an RFP," Honeycutt said. "I can't tell you that it's going to be $845,000 until we get somebody to come back in here and say, 'Here's what it's going to cost.'"
More: Repairs force courthouse to move Repairs force Madison courthouse operations to move to Extension Center for 3-plus months
More: County OKs courthouse w/in 5 years Madison County OKs plans for new courthouse within 5 years
More:County forms courthouse focus group Madison commissioners approve formation of 9-member courthouse funds focus group
Honeycutt said the transfer of files from the 12 offices at the courthouse to the Extension Center would cost $70,000.
"There are years of files, we're talking tractor trailers worth of files, that have to be moved," Honeycutt said.
"Because of the sensitive nature of the documents, it has to be very secure in storing," Wechtel said.
All funding for the renovations will come from the $3.8 million allotment from the state, Board of Commissioners Chair Matt Wechtel said.
Still, in order to carry out the committee's recommendations, the county is going to have to spend more than the $500,000 spending cap offered by the committee, according to Honeycutt and Wechtel.
Board discussion
A number of commissioners, including Jeremy Hensley, objected to the county's spending and said the county would be better served devoting the funding to a new courthouse.
"Here's where I'm at with this. We got $3.8 million," Hensley said. "We spent $62,000 on an architecture firm, and the previous commission board put together a committee to go in and see what we want. They come back to us in February and say, 'It's not worth it. You need a new courthouse. And they put a cap on it at $500,000. When you go to remodeling a 100-year-old building, you've got to put a cap on it. You just can't have an open checkbook and do whatever, because I've remodeled before. If you paint this wall, you'll say, 'Oh, we might as well paint this wall.' It's a never-ending thing."
Hensley said he'd rather the county take the state funding and come up with a plan for a new courthouse.
"At the end of the day, that's what we need, is a new courthouse," Hensley said. "We've known this for 10 months now, nine months now. And we're no closer today than we were 10 months ago in getting a new courthouse. We've wasted time, and time's something we're not going to get back.
"I think we need a plan more than we need new paint on walls."
Board Vice Chair Michael Garrison, who served on the committee, said the focus group had no expectations of moving out of the courthouse during renovations.
"It's $186,000 that we didn't ask the architects about," Garrison said. "The architects' estimate was based upon the fact that work was going to be done while we were there. There was a lot of discussion as to was it possible to have court and do the work, and of course at that time we just didn't have the answer to that.
"So, the $500,000 actually was a good target. We were within $39,000."
Garrison said the board was surprised by some additional costs, including the construction of a stairwell on the outside of the building for an emergency exit.
"That's $100,000, that is more far more than what anybody's estimated, including the architect," Garrison said. "Since we are going to have to move out of the courthouse, there's $186,000 that wasn't included, and also the $120,000 for staff recommendations. Those weren't included."
Hensley also objected to the proposed nearly $200,000 allotment for a paint job.
According to Garrison, one of the big concerns of the work group was the responsible stewardship of the state's allotment of funds, adding that the group used the word "triage" when asking itself, "What is it going to take to make this courthouse safe for five years until we can get a new one built?"
"I can tell you, having served on the committee, the idea was .... I don't even like the word 'renovation,'" Garrison said. "We spend $1 million renovating a building, and then we're going to ask the citizens of Madison County to build a new courthouse, the first question is going to be, 'Why should we build a new courthouse? We just spent $1 million renovating the old one."
According to Roberts, as of Oct. 10, the only work that has started is mold remediation testing.
Garrison likened the renovations to "putting lipstick on a hog."
"This is just to get us through safely for five years so that our staff there are safe, so that their health is not impacted by it, so that people can come and go safely should there be an emergency," Garrison said. "Everything was done just to triage just to get us through until we get a new courthouse."
Commissioner Alan Wyatt used the analogy of a "money pit" in referring to the courthouse.
Hensley recommended the board cap renovation spending at $500,000, but Wechtel said "that won't get it done."
Commissioner Bill Briggs said he felt maybe the county should reassess what needs to be done on the courthouse.
"You can always add, 'I want this, I want this.' If we're going to get a new courthouse, we need to save all the money we can to get a new courthouse," Briggs said.
Board attorney Donny Laws suggested the county think about prioritizing the list of renovations.
"You could bid out all of these things separately as additions, in addition to the bid," Laws said. "Then your contractor can then bid on each separate item, and then when the bids come in, you can prioritize which items that you want within your budget." That would keep you from having to re-bid anything. That would be one way of doing the RFP to see what your exact bids are going to be for each additional item."
The downside to that option, according to Wechtel, is the additional costs of hiring a general contractor in this case.
Hensley recommended the county form a committee to work up a plan for a new courthouse.
"We need a plan for a new courthouse," Hensley said. "We've asked Senator Hise and Representative Pless and tell them that we need a new courthouse, but we need a plan. You just don't go to the bank or say, 'I need a new car,' or 'I need a house.' I mean, you've got to have a plan. So, I think we need to move forward with a plan, and moving forward with appointing a committee for this plan."
According to Wechtel, the decision to temporarily move courthouse operations was handed down by Superior Court Judge Gary Gavenus.
"The flip side of that is we literally could be 'one grumpy judge having a bad day' away from being held in contempt of court for not doing anything at all with this place," the board chair said.
Laws said he heard from Gavenus, who stressed that he "wants something done sooner rather than later."
"That's been a monumental that's been laid on the county manager, because there are more moving parts to doing that, and it is expensive, because when you're talking about moving court from a courthouse to another place to hold trials where folks can be sentenced to go to prison 50 or 60 years, or even have a death penalty trial, and you're not having to sit in the courthouse where you've got the security and their records are kept safe, that puts the whole justice system at stake," Laws said.
Laws added that departing from the agreed-upon schedule of operating the courts from the Extension Center in November, December and January 2024 would potentially upset the Superior Court judge.
"Here's what we've got to do. The minute that they move out, we've got a short period of time to get that work done down at the courthouse," Laws said. "So, we've got to get this RFP out, because it has to be published in the newspaper for seven days. We have to get three bids on that or we have to re-bid it. Once we get those bids in, then we have to enter into negotiations with contractors, and contractors are going to have to get a payment bond and a performance bond, because anything over $500,000, we have to have a general contractor to do it."
Hensley wondered what Gavenus' biggest concerns for the existing courthouse.
"We had two judges sit on the committee, and the biggest concern was spending the least amount of money as possible so we could invest in a new building, and at the same time to address those critical safety issues," Garrison said. "The priority was getting people in and out of the building safely. There were some issues with the roof, the gutter downspouting, as far as structurally, to keep the building sound.
"The second part of that is that we felt like with those expenditures, all we're doing is spending money on a building that's going to make it more marketable if we ever sell it, or if we decided to restore it to a place of something else, then it's an investment and we're not just throwing it away."
According to Garrison, reports from the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts addressing the deficiencies in the courthouse date back to the 1970s.
Jim Baker, who served two terms as a Superior Court judge (1994-2010) and 12 years as an assistant district attorney (1983-94) in Western North Carolina, was one of the focus group's nine members.
In December 2022, Baker illustrated to the commissioners the courthouse's age by pointing out that Civil War reunions were held in the courthouse.
Garrison said everyone on the courthouse committee agreed that since the first reports in the 1970s, the county has continued to "kick the can down the road."
The commissioners unanimously voted to allow Honeycutt to start the request for proposal process with contractors, with each renovation item being separated as recommended by Laws.
The Extension Center courthouse operations will begin Oct. 30.
This article originally appeared on Asheville Citizen Times: Madison commissioners advocate for more urgent plan for new courthouse
