But Bill McCaffrey of MHA Works in Durham indicated that figure was a preliminary construction estimate for a “15-year fix” for the courthouse to adequately accommodate the departments that will remain in that facility after the register and tax offices relocate. He suggested, however, that a firm engineering design would be necessary to gain an accurate determination of costs. His firm’s fee for that design, McCaffrey said, was $72,000, part of an overall $360,000 fee that would include construction administration and phasing.

Commissioners, on a 3-2 vote, authorized MHA Works to prepare a contract for that work for the board’s consideration on April 7. Commissioners Larry Yarborough and Kyle Puryear opposed the move, with Yarborough arguing that the county doesn’t have $3 million to spend and also that he thought the $72,000 expenditure “unnecessary also.”

McCaffrey assured commissioners that development of the design would involve “extensive meetings with the users,” meaning the departments housed in the courthouse.

He pointed out that with a plan in place, courthouse renovation could begin about the same time as the register of deeds and tax department settle into the former Maxway building across Abbitt Street at the corner of South Main. The offices they vacate in the courthouse would provide “swing space” to allow courthouse renovation work to proceed “with minimal disruptions to everyone,” McCaffrey said. He speculated that off-premises space might be needed only for court sessions when renovation of the courtrooms begins. >>

With the renovation, the offices of the clerk of Superior Court would relocate from the second floor into the offices vacated by the register of deeds, with probation offices locating toward the front.

The third floor, which houses the courtrooms, would undergo little change save for a jury room for the Superior Court plus conference and break rooms.

Largely for security purposes, the old jail space on the top floor would house judges, as well as a law library and conference room. It was noted that the preliminary renovation plan would not require enclosing a roof area adjacent to the old jail, as had been suggested earlier.

McCaffrey laid out a listing of the work that the courthouse renovation would entail, such as painting throughout, repairs to damaged ceilings, refurbishing and replacing doors, upgrading the fire alarm system, central heating and air for areas not now served, replacement of bathroom fixtures to meet ADA requirements, replacing carpet in both courtrooms and benches in the Superior Court courtroom, improving security at entrances, upgrading the phone system (the cost of which the state will cover), minor electrical upgrades and renovation of each department with demolition/partition installation to achieve more efficient use of space.

Commission Chairman Johnny M. Lunsford said regarding the engineering design plan for the renovation that he was encouraged that there would be “a great amount of input from the people who use it. That’s going to be very important.”

After Commissioner Jimmy B. Clayton moved to have MHA Works submit a design contract to the board next month, Commissioner Puryear inquired where the county would find the $72,000 for the design work.

County Manager Steve Carpenter said it likely would come from either contingency or from capital reserve. He reminded commissioners, however, that the county cannot legally sign a contract without having the money in hand.

Commissioner Larry Bowes observed the longer the county waits to renovate the courthouse “the more it will cost.”

Lunsford commented, “This is a high priority.”