LEBANON — Upper Valley residents shared mixed opinions on whether to proceed with a proposed $47.3 million revamp of the Grafton County courthouse at a meeting this week.
About 20 people, including elected officials and county employees, attended the public hearing at the Upper Valley Senior Center in downtown Lebanon on Tuesday. Some attendees said the project is too large and expensive, while others said it meets county needs and must be done now or the cost will continue to rise.
The proposed new courthouse would replace the current North Haverhill facility built in 1971. The new building would be 64,668 square feet, which is 20,000 square feet, or 44%, larger than the current building.
The courthouse has “never undergone a major renovation,” Grafton County Complex Superintendent Jim Oakes said Tuesday night.
Oakes and County Commissioner Martha McLeod, D-Franconia, outlined numerous issues with the current courthouse. She said:
The building doesn’t meet current safety codes. It doesn’t have an interior sprinkler system and the only elevator is not compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act. The elevator, which dates to when the building was constructed, also doesn’t have security controls for prisoner transport or modern fire controls. The building’s emergency generator does not have the power necessary to run the elevator.
Other equipment in the building is outdated and cannot be repaired because replacement parts are no longer being manufactured. The building is inefficient and has almost no insulation, the glass windows are not made of tempered glass and are prone to cracking into large shards. There is an unknown quantity of asbestos throughout the facility.
A preliminary 2021 architectural study found that renovating the building would cost $2 million more than a new one.
The County Commission then contracted an architectural firm, Manchester-based Lavallee Brensinger, to present a conceptual design for a new courthouse, which was finished in June.
The three-member Grafton County Commission approved the conceptual design in a 2-1 vote in August. McLeod and Katie Wood Hedberg, D-Plymouth, voted in favor, while Wendy Piper, an Enfield resident who changed her party affiliation from Democrat to Republican this summer, cast the sole no vote.
“As commissioners, we have a fundamental responsibility to be good stewards of your tax dollars, our tax dollars, we’re all taxpayers, and make sure that we use things efficiently and transparently and that that directly impacts our communities. The majority of the board feels that this project does do that,” McLeod said Tuesday. “…We can’t afford to not do this now.”
The County Commission recommended that the delegation approve a bond for the project to be repaid by county taxpayers.
Depending on local county tax rates, which vary by town based on local assessed property values, Upper Valley properties valued at $400,000 could see a county tax increase between $35 and $72 over three years.
Piper said she would prefer to delay the project because she wants to reduce the burden on county taxpayers and apply more pressure for state funding.
Next month, the county’s legislative delegation, comprised of 26 state representatives, will decide whether to approve the project. The vote has not yet been scheduled.
The delegation will have the final word on the project. It will not go before voters.
Several delegation members attended Tuesday’s meeting.
State Rep. George Sykes, D-Lebanon, who chairs the delegation, cautioned against pushing off the project, which he likened to the Lebanon downtown fire station project, which was delayed for years resulting in millions of dollars of additional costs.
Other attendees questioned the fiscal responsibility of the project.
Former state Sen. Jim Rubens, R-Etna, said the state, which currently leases space in the courthouse, should be covering a share of the project cost or commit to a 25-year lease in order to reduce the county’s tax burden.
The county commission estimated that the state uses about 40% of the courthouse, while Rubens argued that this is more like 53%, accounting for shared spaces.
Another member of the public, Debbie Warner of Littleton, N.H., agreed that the county would be subsidizing the state if the delegation approves the project. She suggested that members of the county delegation collectively sponsor a bill for state funding.
State officials have been very clear that they cannot fund the project, McLeod said. The state did commit to paying a more expensive market-rate rent for space in the building and a long-term rent deal might be possible. Currently, the state is on a two-year lease cycle.
State Rep. Mary Hakken-Phillips, D-Hanover, also said there is almost no possibility of getting more money from the state, which cut its justice system budget by 30% this year.
“When you say why don’t we go to the state and ask for more money in the court system, you should know that money doesn’t exist,” Hakken-Phillips said.
There was also debate about the proposed size of the new building.
The current building does not have enough space for its 77-person staff, such as some in the Office of the Grafton County Attorney who currently work in a different building, McLeod said.
Other county staff were skeptical of the proposed building’s size.
About 5,400 square feet of the addition would accommodate the Grafton County Registry of Deeds, which is currently located elsewhere in the county complex. But Register of Deeds Kelley Monahan, R-Orford, said she would prefer to leave her office where it is.
“I spent five years and a great deal of energy renovating our vault and, in my opinion, moving those valuable historic records would cause more damage than leaving them in their stable, yet accessible environment,” Monahan said Tuesday.
In general, Monahan said the project should be “put on hold.”
Sheriff Jill Myers, D-Lisbon, also said she is concerned about the size of the proposed courthouse, which she feels has redundant spaces. She also said the design presents some security issues.
“I’m not disagreeing that a new building is warranted. I’m just saying that this design makes it harder for us to do our job as the security officers in the building,” Myers said. She noted how the plan would separate the main entrance security checkpoint on the first floor from the courtrooms, chambers and jury spaces on the second floor.
The current Grafton County Courthouse is split across three floors, but Myers said the long hallways and balconies on the upper floors make it easier to monitor the whole space.
Oakes, the complex’s superintendent, pointed out that the balcony setup must be eliminated to meet modern fire codes.
“If we did this renovation, you would lose all that security benefit that you’re talking about now,” Oakes said.
If the delegation approves the project next month, County Administrator Julie Libby said there will be another year of architectural work so the delegation may not have to issue a bond until January 2027.
