Jump to content

New County Courthouse


westsider28

Recommended Posts

Issues with the courthouse seem to be coming to a head in the past week or so, with family court and solicitor's office having to be vacated due to mold.

The County is finally moving forward with a space needs study and a cost assessment.  A referendum, which could be held as soon as November 2017, may be needed to fund new courthouse construction.  Herald-Journal article

Obviously a new courthouse has been needed for years.  I really hope they don't cheap out on it.  It would be much more cost-efficient in the long run to build a large (read: tall) high-quality structure that will fit the County's needs for decades to come.  I personally think they should build it to accommodate all County business, not just courthouses, so that the County can sell off other properties (like the Admin bldg) and consolidate everything (again, for efficiency).

We'll see...

Edited by westsider28
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Instead of tall, I would prefer 'grand' - something that is of a high enough quality that we would regret having to build another one in 50 years, and one that is adaptable such that it can be expanded in the future.

Just do a google search for "county courthouses" and you'll see what I mean.

https://www.google.com/search?q=county+courthouses&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjs98T2oOzOAhWL1R4KHc5HCBMQsAQILQ&biw=1481&bih=1010

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another article. David Britt is proposing a 1-cent sales tax to raise $75 million for a new courthouse.  The alternative would be a property tax increase, which would take longer to repay a loan.  Other council members don't want to commit to a funding mechanism until getting results of the space needs study.  The article mentions the new Florence County courthouse, which will cost $32 million (lower than $42MM estimates) paid for with a property tax increase, but they're keeping some functions at their existing courthouse too. 

They talk about uncertainly about the site; to me it's obvious to put it at St John & Daniel Morgan (current parking lot).  We're definitely going to need a parking deck, so that will add to the cost versus Florence.  I'd like to see something Art Deco, like many federal buildings from the 1930s.

Anyway, I like Britt, and I think he will push hard for a high-quality building. The other council members may be more of a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a Florence native with family still there, I found a lot of things to comment on from this article. I read the local paper online pretty regularly as well and visit there twice a month.  

 

First of all, the Florence Judicial Center is NOT being paid for with a Property Tax increase unless that is for operation costs.   The capital costs are being paid for with a one cent local sales tax. The sales tax is paying for a long list of items, but the Judicial Center is one of them. 

Some other comments:  

 

Quote

 

While a referendum would be needed to pass a millage rate increase on property owners, Britt said it was unclear whether a referendum would be needed for a penny sales tax.

This is backwards. Sales taxes ALWAYS have to be approved by referendum. Property taxes generally do not, but can be put to a referendum. 

 
 

Horton said the county may want to consider partnering with the city of Spartanburg, which needs new administration building. Together, a larger complex could be built to satisfy both needs.

The old Florence Courthouse was originally called the City-County Complex and housed City Hall and Courthouse functions. A joint board operated the building. It operated that way from 1974 until about three years ago. 

 
 

spaces rented to attorneys on the upper floors, which could help pay for the building and be used later for expansion as needed.

This is a great idea, IMO. 

 
 

 

The county had planned on building a new jail and courthouse eight years ago, but when the market crashed in 2008 and when the recession hit, the county did the best it could to maintain services without cutting staff, he said.

Too bad the county didn't pull the trigger then. It could have provided much needed jobs and saved a lot of money as contractors slash their profits just to keep their people on payroll while they wait out a recession. 

 

As a Florence native with family still there, I found a lot of things to comment on from this article. I read the local paper online pretty regularly as well and visit there twice a month.  

 

First of all, the Florence Judicial Center is NOT being paid for with a Property Tax increase unless that is for operation costs.   The capital costs are being paid for with a one cent local sales tax. The sales tax is paying for a long list of items, but the Judicial Center is one of them. 

Some other comments:  

While a referendum would be needed to pass a millage rate increase on property owners, Britt said it was unclear whether a referendum would be needed for a penny sales tax.

This is backwards. Sales taxes ALWAYS have to be approved by referendum. Property taxes generally do not, but can be put to a referendum. 

 Horton said the county may want to consider partnering with the city of Spartanburg, which needs new administration building. Together, a larger complex could be built to satisfy both needs.

The old Florence Courthouse was originally called the City-County Complex and housed City Hall and Courthouse functions. A joint board operated the building. It operated that way from 1974 until about three years ago. 

   

spaces rented to attorneys on the upper floors, which could help pay for the building and be used later for expansion as needed.

This is a great idea, IMO. 

   The county had planned on building a new jail and courthouse eight years ago, but when the market crashed in 2008 and when the recession hit, the county did the best it could to maintain services without cutting staff, he said.

Too bad the county didn't pull the trigger then. It could have provided much needed jobs and saved a lot of money as contractors slash their profits just to keep their people on payroll while they wait out a recession. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

However this is paid for. I think its critical to take the time necessary to investigate the possibility of

combining not only the County Court House and City Hall, but also the County administration building.

Added space to lease out to attorneys is a great idea. The added space could be leased out in the

early life of the building, but if the County needed additional space in the future, they could simply not

renew the lease space and take that over as necessary to meet the needs of the County or City.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think combining city/county administrative offices into one building makes sense, but the County Courthouse should remain separate. I personally don't mind the idea of raising the sales tax for two years to pay for it since you would shift some of the financial burden onto people who don't live in Spartanburg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another article in the paper today talks about how mold in Lexington County's old courthouse led to a new one being built there in 2004.  The story doesn't mention how they funded it or even how much it cost, which would have been nice.  Seems like pretty important/relevant info to omit, but that's typical H-J. :dontknow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting to me how Spartanburg always seems to look to Lexington for examples of everything. Lexington may have had a similar circumstance with the mold, but I sincerely hope the outcome it much better for Spartanburg. They built their courthouse and a County administration building in the same parking lot, and gave both buildings a terrible suburban design. It's like they plopped a suburban office park in the middle of their otherwise quaint little downtown.

The buildings themselves are quite nice, but I hope Spartanburg can build something that fits in better (ie: not suburban), even if it has to be some sort of contemporary bullshit architecture.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Spartan I agree that constantly using Lexington as a model is odd & foolish.  I guess in this case it's because our County Administrator was Lexington's when their new building was built.  Lexington County may be similar as far as population, but that's about it.  As for design, I'm more scared that they'll go with poorly-done neo-traditional (like this monstrosity in Wilmington, NC). They're way too conservative to go contemporary.  I've said this before, but I really like Durham's new courthouse (kind of "neo art deco").

I just checked Chattanooga's (b/c they're actually recognized as a peer metro) and they seem to have a complex of several buildings on several blocks; not particularly attractive and kind of a dead-zone from an urban standpoint.  Anderson's courthouse is okay.  Oconee's is similar.  I really like the new addition to the Buncombe County courthouse.  Winston-Salem's is okay.  Alright, that's enough.  Judging from new-ish courthouses in other communities, it looks like a crap-shoot.  Keeping my fingers crossed for something decent.

Edited by westsider28
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm hopeful that the City's urban code will force a good design.

I agree that most of those are ok. Winston-Salem's isn't terrible at all, though I think it's their government offices and not the courthouse. Their courts are based in the brutalist-style "Hall of Justice" - probably next to Batman and Wonder Woman's offices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most City and County council members are open to a joint city-county building.  It may take a bit longer to figure everything out with 2 different parties, but this would be a good move.  I think having the City involved can only be a positive for the building.  I'd prefer the current courthouse parking lot as the site, because the City Hall block is the best site for private development, as it's much closer to Morgan Square and more walkable.  Hope to see this idea move forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lot of questions to be answered. Important to remember that the City's complex on Broad Street isn't just a "City Hall." It's actually four functions under one roof: city admin, Municipal Court, City PD, central Fire Station. Co-locating many local government functions makes a lot of sense, but not sure central fire station is one of those functions. Regardless, working through the very real differences in needs and how best to accommodate them under one roof will be a complex undertaking, and if, for example, it is decided that the central fire station needs its own standalone facility, that brings in another layer of cost and complexity.

The best part of all of this is the open-mindedness the County and City seem to be approaching this with. Should lead to a better process and outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have mixed emotions about this.  If we're really talking about all in one - county administration, county courthouse, city hall, that's really a lot of space and a pretty vast building.  I don't know how much shared space we'd really have.  Some shared meeting rooms maybe, one large auditorium for council chambers that both city and county council and the legislative delegation could use... but what else?  Correct that city hall has both a fire dept. and police dept. and municipal court that take up a lot of space in city hall.  There's also some city offices that aren't in city hall.  I wonder if a complex of buildings - a government square kind of idea - separate buildings but on the same site - might make some sense.

If it went on the current County Courthouse site - a multi-building complex with a parking deck might make sense - that way you build the new judicial center, then you can build an administration building for one or the other after tearing down portions of the current courthouse.  But one big behemoth building doesn't really make much sense to me.  I'm not sure there's a ton of savings, a ton less confusion for citizens - in fact, it might be harder in and out - and how many people have to hit various offices at city hall and the county administration building on the same trip anyway.  

Might also be able to get some of the social services functions back downtown from the old shopping center on Whitney Road too.  Or maybe get the Housing Authority back downtown instead out in the middle of nowhere where its clients who have no transportation can't get there.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Historyguy makes a lot of good points, and a 'city-county complex' need not be just one building as it was in Florence. It may makes sense to do two or more buildings in a single overall project.  Perhaps one that is Judicial in nature, and one for everything else.  Judicial has certain requirements that are unique. You have holding cells for instance and there has to be access for the accused that is separate from the victims, etc.  That is why Florence is building a separate Judicial Building opposite of the other County offices. 

I don't know that having a Fire Station included is a good idea. The Florence Complex did not have that.

As far as eliminating duplication and having jointly used space, that is something that really should apply to Council Chambers/Auditoriums and maybe Conference rooms. Beyond that, there may not be much.  For what it is worth, the Florence Complex had separate chambers for the City and County Councils.  One idea might be to have a large Auditorium and a smaller meeting Chamber elsewhere within the complex.  That way in theory the two bodies could still meet simultaneously, but at the same time 99% of the meetings of either would be in the small chamber.  There are times when big crowds are expected and a large seating capacity is needed, so that could still be accomodated with the larger chamber. 

As far as convenience it is a valid question. I do think some people would benefit a great deal. Someone like a paralegal or other researcher or a developer getting necessary approvals, would absolutely benefit having so many agencies accessible by foot. Since it would involve there profession it would benefit them often too.  The average housewife getting paying a tax bill or getting a business license renewed probably wouldn't benefit from the collocation of offices.  

As I mentioned earlier, there is a benefit to collocating simply because it allows taller buildings that consume less land, thus leaving more land for private taxable development.

I think the two governments need to do a top to bottom study of the space needs of both, and leaving every option on the table, including the location(s) of any replacement building(s).  Wherever these buildings go, it may spur private development that otherwise wouldn't occur. Perhaps a outlying but slightly outside the heart of downtown area could benefit. 

  

 

  

  

 .  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main benefit for citizens of everything being in one building or one complex is for folks who really have no idea if they are supposed to go to municipal court, county courthouse, county admin or city admin. You'd be AMAZED (or maybe not) at the number of people who wander into the County Courthouse when they're supposed to be at Municipal Court (or vice versa), or into City Hall to pay their car taxes, or into County Admin building to pay their City business license, etc. Having all that in the same complex would remove a lot of confusion.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charlotte has a combined city/county government complex. It takes up a large portion of Second Ward, but it works fairly well since the city/county governments are semi-consolidated (due to Charlotte taking up most of Mecklenburg County). There is the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center, which is essentially City Hall and County Admin (including schools). City and County Councils both use the council chamber along with the CMS Board, and they just schedule their meetings on separate dates. Because of the semi-consolidated government structure, there are no 'city' courts. The Mecklenburg County Courthouse handles all of that, and it's a separate building from the Government Center. The central jail is located across the street. The Police Department and Fire Department each have their own buildings. Most of the County's employees work in other buildings.

In general, because of the unique needs of emergency services, it probably makes sense to keep them in a separate building. I agree that the courts could be in a separate building too, but on the same block/project. Then you could combine City and County staff into one building, and have two fairly attractive medium-sized buildings.

Personally, I think City and County government buildings should be located somewhat near downtown. They don't have to be in the middle of things, but they should be within walking distance of the central bus station. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
On 6/17/2014 at 3:54 PM, westsider28 said:

I haven't heard either County or City officials mentioning a combined city/county building.  So they don't seem to be considering it, unless there are behind-the-scenes discussions.  For what it's worth, I can't think of any city/county our size that has a combined city/county building.  Does anyone know of any?  It doesn't seem to be very common, for whatever reason.

Florence's tallest building is their city-county complex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Looks like we may have some clarity on a new courthouse or city/county complex by late-spring.  The County has commissioned a study on how much it would cost to build a new courthouse, which should be done in May.  And the City is conducting a separate study of its own building needs, which it will report to the County next month.  I'll be very interested to see the findings of these studies.  Lots of important decisions to be made in the near future.  But at least we're finally getting serious about getting this done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

We'll find out next week (April 14) what the cost of a new courthouse will be.  They are actually studying 3 options: a courthouse, a courthouse with county administration offices, and a courthouse within a joint city-county facility.  A funding plan could be put on the November ballot.

David Britt apparently thinks a combined city-county building should be at the City Hall site.  I vehemently disagree.  The City Hall site is much better suited to private development, with its proximity to Morgan Square and its surrounding smaller, walkable streets.  He also seems to think the City Hall site is bigger than the Courthouse site, which is incorrect.  The new building should absolutely be built on the current courthouse site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like one of the combo buildings will make the most sense. While I'd rather see the County do their own thing, they could easily concentrate everything at the current courthouse site. But if they choose to combine efforts with the City, rather than the Courthouse, then the City Hall site makes the most sense to me.

Either way, I think getting the County's leadership offices within walking distance of the Square is huge. I want them to be able to take visitors to Spartanburg County for a short walk over to a good restaurant to talk about their business. I think that type of passive showcasing of downtown is something that is difficult to quantify but makes an impact for visitors. 

Plus it opens up the N Church site for literally anything else. Maybe a new police/fire HQ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.