Grafton County considers $47.3 million new courthouse

NORTH HAVERHILL — The public got a first glimpse of what a new Grafton County courthouse in North Haverhill would look like last month when the architectural firm submitted its design to county commissioners, along with the price tag: $47.3 million.

But a new courthouse is a way from becoming reality as skeptics question its necessity, saying it will only add to the tax burden of county residents. A proposal has yet to be presented to the county legislative delegation, which has the ultimate say in deciding whether to go through with the project.

A new courthouse at the county complex in North Haverhill to replace the current building that opened in 1972 has been under discussion by successive commissions dating back to before the COVID-19 pandemic. Proponents of replacing the more than half-century-old structure cite a variety of factors, such as the absence of basic fixtures like a sprinkler system and lack of insulation.

“The building is dying a death of a thousand slices,” said Jim Oakes, superintendent of the maintenance department at the county complex. “Nothing is hard-broke, but we’ve Band-Aided things for years and years to keep them going. The electrical system is 55 years old. It was designed for 30 years. You can’t even get parts for it on eBay any longer.”

Prepared by Lavallee Brensinger Architects, a Manchester firm, the 38-page “final report presentation” of the new courthouse building was submitted to the three-member County Commission on June 24. It was the first major update on the proposed project since a 108-page engineering and assessment study in 2021 concluded it would be more cost efficient to build a new courthouse than to bring the current structure up to code and renovate for future capacity.

“I'd been telling the commissioners that, although the building's running and I don't have any crisis right now, there's a lot of things going wrong, a mammoth cost coming down the road and we've got to do something about it,” Oakes said.

The final report says it was prepared with input from each of the nine departments slated to occupy the new courthouse building, encompassing the Grafton County Sheriff’s Office, Dispatch and Communications, Corrections Department’s Probation and Parole office, the county Bar Association, Grafton County Attorney’s Office, Register of Deeds, maintenance department, a state DMV office, and Judicial Branch offices for judges and clerks staff.

The “conceptual design” shows a 64,668-square foot structure — 20,000-square feet more than present — with three courtrooms and judges chambers on the second floor. The county prosecutor’s office and sheriff’s department would be on the first floor.

(Currently, courtrooms are on the first floor, sheriffs are in the basement and the state attorney is on the second floor).

Because courthouse business would need to continue during construction, the new courthouse is envisioned to be built in the area of the existing parking lot. Once the new courthouse is occupied, the old courthouse would be demolished.

The push for a new courthouse has long drawn fire from Kelley Monahan, the Grafton County register of deeds who recently announced she switched her party affiliation to Republican from Democrat. Monahan said that she will present a letter on Tuesday when the commissioners next meet “requesting that this very flawed and expensive project be put on hold for a year while an independent, professional analysis is made to examine the current and projected needs of all departments at Grafton County.”

“With all the (American Rescue Plan Act, or) ARPA money that has been set aside for the self-serving project engineers and architects, it would take a simple vote to reallocate funds for a broader, smarter, objective analysis,” Monahan said via email to the Valley News. “Who would rush to a project this size with the uncertainty of building costs that presently exist?”

(ARPA funds were used to pay for the architect’s presentation commissioners received last month).

Now that the final report is public, the next step is for the three-member Grafton County Commission to vote on whether or not to approve the plan. If commissioners approve, the proposal goes to the 26-member Grafton County legislative delegation, which has final say on the county’s spending plan.

State Rep. George Sykes, chairman of the county delegation who also is a Lebanon city councilor, said any proposal for a new courthouse would first be reviewed by the delegation’s eight-member executive committee before being voted on by the full delegation.

“I know that the building is 50 years old and has some serious life-safety issues,” Sykes said, such as the lack of a sprinkler system. “But before I make any final pronouncements, I'm going to want to hear a presentation from the commissioners. When that happens, at the very least there'll be lots of discussions among the executive committee. In the end, a full delegation will have to make a vote to do any bonding.”

Inflation has driven up both building and borrowing costs and look to go even higher, Sykes noted, although ironically that may only weigh in the projects favor.

”Unfortunately the timing is not good in terms of the cost of money and the cost of projects because everything is more expensive right now, Sykes said. “But the problem is the longer we wait, the more expensive it gets.”

(The existing courthouse cost $2 million when it was built in 1971, according to a Valley News story at the time).

More from this section

Bunny baskets and Seder staples: New Hampshire's Easter and Passover trends

Half of New Hampshire's Homes Were Built Before 1980

New Hampshire Residents Have Been Impacted by 490 Food Recalls Since 2021

Issues with the existing courthouse range from lack of insulation in the walls which make it cold in the winter, and large panes of windows that make it too hot in the summer. The poor insulation also drives up the cost of heating in winter. An old courtroom audio system makes it difficult to hear court proceedings from the public gallery.

The existing courthouse was built before sprinkler systems were mandated by building codes. The cost of ripping out the ceiling, and the asbestos abatement that would go along with it, was one of the reasons the 2021 engineering study determined it would be more cost effective to build an entire new courthouse than renovate the current one, Oakes said.

Renovating the existing courthouse also would be difficult due to the incurred expense of finding temporary space to move courthouse operations — most notably jury trials — and staff during the construction period of a year or longer, along with the attending security apparatus that would be required, he added.

Commissioner Katie Wood Hedberg, who described herself as “strongly in favor” of building a new courthouse, said she expects the proposal will make it on the commission’s meeting agenda later this summer.

“If a majority of the commissioners approve it, we will have public meetings in all the districts that will be well publicized,” Hedberg said, explaining that public feedback will be sought in advance of the delegation taking up the matter.

Hedberg, like Sykes, acknowledged “economically it may not be the best times” to incur the cost of a public bond. But the cost of putting off building could be even costlier.

“If there is a failure of one of the systems in the current building, the likelihood is we will have a huge emergency expense. And I would like to prevent that,” Hedberg said.

Courtroom security is another concern.

At present, when people in custody are moved from the jail, located behind the courthouse, they are escorted by bailiffs past judges’ offices and court staff. Although the people are handcuffed, the bailiffs are elderly and “it probably wouldn't take much for a young guy to overpower one of them if he really was bent on doing so,” Sykes said.

“Right now there's a lot of places in the building where court staff, judges, the public will cross paths with inmates outside the courtrooms. There should be separation of space to maintain safety,” Sykes said.

State Rep. Marie Bjelobrk, a Haverhill Republican, is among those questioning the need for a new courthouse.

“Grafton (County) taxpayers are already responsible for a bonded debt obligation of over $2 million for this year alone” on the “partially filled” Grafton County jail, a $28 million project which opened in 2012 and which taxpayers will be on the hook for until 2031, Bjelobrk said via email to the Valley News. Bjelobrk, who attended the June 24 commissioners’ meeting at which the architects presented the proposal, said it is still not clear how much it will cost to renovate the existing courthouse.

“The commissioners should have had real numbers regarding the actual cost for all repairs of the current courthouse before planning to erect a new building,” she said. “A new courthouse is too much of a burden at a time when Grafton County taxpayers are just learning that their county taxes are increasing by 11%. Those taxpayers on fixed incomes, as well as working families, are already feeling the financial strain.”

Martha MacLeod, who is serving her second term as commissioner, said she is “leaning toward” building a new courthouse “from a cost, and functional perspective and life-safety issues.” But MacLeod noted, “I do still have some questions and I still need to be sure renovation of the current building is something that is not feasible.”

As for the impact on taxpayers, MacLeod said the bond that went toward the construction of the new jail is a “few years” from being paid off and will largely be completed by the time a new courthouse project gets underway.”There’s a little overlap but not too many years,” MacLeod said. She also noted that the county receives rental income from the state to lease the state attorney, judiciary and DMV offices at the courthouse, which help offset the county’s costs to operate the building.

•••

Contact John Lippman at jlippman@vnews.com.

These articles are being shared by partners in the Granite State News Collaborative. For more information, visit collaborativenh.org.