Commissioners agree to renovate annex rather than build new structure

Posted

Gonzales County commissioners reached consensus on Monday, Jan. 13 to renovate the Gonzales County Annex Building on Sarah DeWitt Drive and add a new roof instead of razing the existing structure and building a completely new facility.

After a presentation and Q&A session with John Duke of CPM Texas about the pros and cons of renovation versus new build, commissioners gave Duke the go-ahead to move forward with a timeline that would have the building renovated in time for an April or May 2026 move-in date.

That would also keep the county right on schedule as it seeks a $10 million or more grant from the Texas Historical Commission to renovate the Courthouse with a hope of being shovel ready on that project by September 2026.

Cost estimates

Duke had met with commissioners in December and told them renovating the annex would cost a little more than $11 million, or about $439 per square foot, with about $8 million of that cost tied up in actual construction and the remaining $3 million divided into professional services, technology allowances, regulatory and permitting fees and project contingencies. It calls for the current annex building to be taken down to the structural support walls and roof and then rebuilt.

However, commissioners had asked Duke to bring back project estimates for building both a new one-story and two-story building from the ground up to their Jan. 13 meeting.

The new estimates revealed by Duke show building a new 25,200-square-foot annex from the ground up would cost a little more than $14.5 million, or about $576 per square foot, with construction costs at more than $10.2 million and the remaining $4.3 million covering professional services, technology allowances, regulatory and permitting fees and project contingencies.

Duke prepared two estimates for a 50,400-square-foot, two-story building, with the low-end estimate at   more than $24.1 million, or $479 per square foot, which includes construction costs at more than $18 million and the remaining costs at more than $6.1 million. The high-end puts total costs at more than $24.5 million, or $487 per square feet, with construction costs at nearly $18.4 million and remaining costs at more than $6.1 million.

“The difference between these two estimates is based on anticipated efficiencies gained by building a two story structure versus a single story structure. Those efficiencies typically range from five to 15 percent in our cost savings,” Duke said.

So far, the county has spent about $190,000 on design work for the renovation scenario, so if commissioners chose to go with a new build, it could add an extra $750,000 in civil engineering, geotechnical analysis and other required services on top of what has been spent.

“That represents a significant additional investment on top of the project costs already discussed,” Duke said. “So while the new build options presents a fresh start and accommodate long term needs, we must carefully weigh those financial and schedule implications.”

Only the renovation option “keeps us on track to complete the annex by mid-2026, which enables the Courthouse renovation to begin in late 2026, so that the renovation option aligns with the county's needs and the THC grant requirements on timing for the Courthouse,” Duke added.

“The timeline of the renovation aligns with the biennium deadline for the Texas Historical Commission grant program,” he said. “Both new build scenarios push completion into 2027, which means that we would miss the THC grant biennium, delaying the Courthouse renovation by at least two years and introducing risk of increased competition for subsequent grant cycles.”

Duke said higher costs associated with new construction “may require bond election, which adds further complexity and delays to the timelines, and this uncertainty compounds the challenges already inherent with these options.”

“Given these considerations, our recommendation is to proceed with the renovation scenario,” Duke said. “Renovation ensures the annex is completed in time to transition the Courthouse functions, enabling the Courthouse renovation to begin in late 2026 and meeting the county's goals of staying aligned with the THC grant program.”

Commissioners questions

Precinct 4 Commissioner Collie Boatright asked Duke if the existing foundation at the annex was good so that the county wouldn’t be “cutting corners.”

“As far as we understand, the foundation is fine with WJE, the structural engineers, taking a good look at it,” Duke said. “We're actually, by taking down the tilt wall panels, we're reducing the load. The new building is going to be lighter than the current building with the same foundation.”

Precinct 2 Commissioner Donnie Brzozowski asked if the slab could handle a two-story building without needing a new foundation. Duke said he didn’t think so, but wouldn’t be able to tell without a full-scale geotechnical investigation.

“The new builds assume we would scrape the foundation,” Duke said. “Typically, if you are doing a new build, you would take out the foundations at least four feet below.”

County Judge Pat Davis noted that the THC timeline is pretty tight and that the county would have to be “shovel ready” for Courthouse renovation in fall 2026, so “we would have to have somewhere to go for everybody that works in this building at that time.”

Davis added that if the county had to wait another funding cycle, the county may not have as good a chance to get their project funded and there could be far less funding available in the grant pool. THC and the Legislature have indicated a willingness to fund the program and possibly increase the amount for the upcoming biennium, but have not made any promises for future bienniums.

Precinct 3 Commissioner Roy Staton asked whether the renovation would mean a new roof for the annex, to which Duke said the estimate “takes into account some repairs to the roof” to bring it up to warranty, but leaves the existing metal deck in place otherwise.

“If we had to completely redo the TPO (thermoplastic polyolefin membrane), then the budget could probably handle that,” Duke said.

Staton indicated concern that the building, which was built in 1978, would still have a 30- to 40-year-old roof. Davis and county maintenance employee Brian Kloesel both said the TPO membrane had been replaced back in 2018.

“I think down the road, you know, if they did it six years ago, who's to say what shape the roof is in?” Staton said. “You go up there and redo it again and 10 years from now, we’re redoing it again and we’ve got the same problems. It might not happen like that, but it could.”

Duke said replacing the roof as part of the renovation would not throw the budget badly out of whack and, at most, would probably add no more than about $300,000 to the total cost.

Brzozowski asked how accurate Duke thought his estimates were and the latter said he thinks they are “within a five percent range of being correct.”

“If we move forward and if you decide for the renovation option, we would like to talk about going ahead and bringing on a contractor, going on to an RFQ process, and bringing somebody on so we can start solidifying that goal, starting in Q2 (second quarter of the year, from April to June),” Duke added.

“At some point, you know, if we keep pushing the decision to move forward with any of the options, then you will obviously exceed the timeline that we've got here now, because right now, all  we have is about a three to four month buffer,” Duke said.

In talking about financing, Duke said that if the county wanted to look at bonds, they would need to engage a bond attorney and that the additional steps could push the timeline out so that even renovation would not be possible to be completed in time. Davis mentioned that the county could also look into loans as a means of financing construction of the annex.

“Another thing to point out too is, you know, the county, we don't have any debt. We haven't had any debt since, I think, after the first year that I was here, when we paid off all of our debt,” Davis said. “So with that being said, with no debt, our tax rate is 20 cents. And you know, I think it's not good to have debt, but sometimes, it is good to have debt, because if you do have a little bit of debt, that'll give you a little bit of extra money that may come in on taxes. When I started, our tax rate was 39 cents and now we're down to 20.”

County maintenance employee Scott McNabb reminded commissioners that they need to remember parking would be an issue at the annex site if they built a larger building.

“If you double the size of your building, you’re going to have to double the parking,” McNabb said.

Davis pushed for renovation as the best option, saying “I don't want to lose out on the restoration of the Courthouse, because that, to me, is an icon in this county, and to redo it with the fence back around it and everything else would be something that everybody can get look forward to.

“We got thrown a bad deal when we got two buildings that have to be redone, but we don't have much choice, and there's just nothing out there right now that we can do anything different,” Davis said.

Duke told commissioners he expects renovation construction documents to be completed on or about Feb. 7, which would allow for issuing a RFQ for a construction manager at risk and to begin selective demolition bidding for the annex building on Feb. 10.

Staton said he would be in favor of renovating the annex as long as a new roof is put on the building, which Duke said would only raise the cost of the project to about $11.4 or $11.5 million, which is “still significantly less than the $14 million (for a new building) and would still fit the timeframe.”

Commissioners then voted unanimously to move forward with renovating the annex rather than building a new one with the addition of a new roof.

Comments