York County reviews two courthouse expansion concepts, asks consultants for cost deltas

Consultants from PMA Architecture told the York County Board of Supervisors on April 9 that a new courthouse built on the existing Yorktown campus could meet 20 years of court and administrative needs without the extensive renovations and structured parking that a retrofit would require.

PMA presented two conceptual designs. Option 1 places a three‑story courthouse (over a basement) to the right of the existing courthouse and relies on surface parking north of Alexander Hamilton Boulevard; PMA said that approach would be simpler to phase and quicker to implement. Option 2 is a two‑story courthouse (over a basement) sited to reduce visual impact on the historic district and to distribute parking across the campus, but it would require more site reconfiguration and the consultants said it might involve closing or reworking Alexander Hamilton Boulevard.

Keith Ventress, the courts planner on the PMA team, described the building program and circulation: detainee holding and secure functions in the basement, public circulation and jury assembly on the ground floor, stacked courtrooms served by separate judge and detainee elevators, and a separated juvenile/domestic relations area “in proximity” for privacy and specialized services, which the consultant said the courts had requested.

On parking, presenters showed a slide listing roughly 632 spaces in one site view. Consultants estimated administrative parking needs at about 200–250 spaces and said courts parking would begin around 450 spaces in early phases and could grow to roughly 800 over 20 years.

Board members focused questions on life cycle, emergency access and — repeatedly — cost. Consultants declined to provide final construction estimates at the conceptual stage, saying costs are placeholders and contingent on design, geotechnical and stormwater work. They recommended moving into a design phase to reduce those uncertainties and produce a reliable budget. A county staff member said the board should expect to see ballpark cost deltas and visualizations (renderings) in coming months; several supervisors asked that both options be costed before the board selects a direction.

The board did not approve a project plan or authorizing motion at the work session. Staff and PMA left the supervisors with next steps: advance design work to firm up scope, test site engineering unknowns, and return with comparative cost estimates and visualizations to support a selection and future CIP funding decisions.