Structural Engineer Adamant That the Old Courthouse and Annex Are Still Usable — Documents Validate This — County Can Still Choose a Better Path
- Elisa Ballard
- Jul 31
- 7 min read
After a review of documents produced so far by the Shasta County Department of Public Works in response to Shasta Unfiltered's Public Records Request, two experts' opinions, and information from a County whistleblower — THE DEMOLITION OF THE OLD COURTHOUSE SHOULD BE PAUSED/HALTED.
REDDING, Calif. — The Old Courthouse at 1500 Court Street does not have to come down.
Shasta County Supervisors voted in March of last year to demolish the entire complex — the Old Courthouse built in 1956 and the Annex built in 1966. The two buildings contain three levels and a basement totaling 77,718 square feet, with 55,129 square feet of usable space, according to a December 22, 2021, HHSA Master Plan assessment. (The Old Jail, built in 1939, has too many issues to be worth saving.) The Board chose full demolition and a parking lot for about $7 million. That decision should be reversed. The County is being asked to pause the project, explore better options, and avoid tearing down solid steel-and-concrete buildings built to last.
According to experts and the whistleblower, there is no logical reason to destroy buildings while the county continues leasing roughly 178,000 square feet of office space across town at more than $2 million per year, plus maintenance. Departments remain fragmented, supervisors are often separated from their staff, and maintenance crews waste time and money traveling between sites. The leases include automatic annual escalators tied to the Consumer Price Index (capped at 3 percent), compounding costs year after year. Many of the leased buildings are as old as, or older than, the Old Courthouse and are located in the downtown area. For example, the Elections Department leases 13,000 SF of space at a cost of $16,800 per month. That building was built in 1966. The Health and Human Services Department leases 27,044 SF of office space at 1400 and 1550 California St. at a monthly cost of $34,894, among many other leases for the department.
One justification offered for demolition was the high cost of renovation. Extensive remodeling is not required. HVAC units need to be brought into reliable operating condition at an estimated $45,000, along with the addition of cubicles and communication lines. Parking can be addressed with existing street parking, unused spaces in the structure behind the administration building, and additional spaces created by demolishing only the Old Jail. Monthly maintenance costs of $15,000 to $20,000 would be offset by reduced lease payments.
On July 28, the Board awarded a $5,155,981.45 contract to Eddie Axner Construction, Inc., to expand the West Central Landfill. The timing — immediately ahead of planned demolition of a large complex — is noteworthy.
Earlier reporting by Shasta Unfiltered relied on board agendas and information from a whistleblower familiar with the buildings’ condition. Records released in response to our public records request now provide additional detail. A hazardous materials survey conducted by ACC Environmental Consultants in September 2024 and reported on November 14, 2024, found limited asbestos in some flooring, pipe insulation, and exterior areas. Surveyors took 420 samples. The vast majority detected no asbestos. Locations where asbestos was identified were:
Annex first-floor interior (west stairwell and other areas): adhesive under vinyl floor tile
Annex first-floor mechanical room: 4-inch white hard-packed elbow insulation on a west pipe
Annex first-floor women’s restrooms: 175 square feet of linoleum
Old Jail exterior: lower roof field tar, roof HVAC mastic, mudding compound
Courthouse basement floors: 1,300 square feet of vinyl floor tile
Courthouse various areas: 220 square feet of floor tiles
Courthouse basement: 1,800 square feet of spray-applied acoustic ceiling (can be encapsulated, professionally stripped while wet, or left undisturbed)
Courthouse interior various areas: vinyl floor tile and adhesive totaling 900, 400, and 90 square feet
Annex exterior: 200 square feet of white expansion caulking at concrete wall joints (can be sealed)
Courthouse exterior: 3,000 square feet of skim coat (can be sealed)
Courthouse basement (server room, storage, equipment room): 160 linear feet of 6-inch white hard-pack pipe insulation and 40 elbows
These conditions should already have been known. Prior surveys existed, and known asbestos hazards were posted. The buildings were remodeled in 1993 and 1996, with asbestos abatement performed on all floors (basement through third) of both the main Courthouse and the Annex. The most comprehensive documented removal involved friable spray-on fireproofing on the second and third floors, as well as roofing materials. Abatement contractors handled the asbestos-containing materials first; general contractors then proceeded with demolition and new construction.
John C. Dunlap, the structural engineer for the 1993 remodel, has come forward to denounce the decision to tear down the buildings. Now retired, Dunlap felt compelled to speak because of what he views as a very poor fiscal decision by the Board. His credentials are extensive: he operated a Redding engineering practice that employed forty people and has fifty years of experience as a structural engineer. He was appointed by Ronald Reagan as Assistant Chief of the California Division of Building Codes and Standards and served as building official for five California counties that lacked their own departments. He is a former president of the Structural Engineers Association of Central California, has served as an expert witness, and has designed significant public buildings including two multi-story county jails, a major county administration center in Tuolumne County, local college campuses, and a City Hall. Civically, he chaired a 21-member blue-ribbon county investigation committee and a major library committee, was named Businessman of the Year, chaired the Economic Development Corporation for a year, and served on its board for sixteen years. He has also served on the mosquito board and the Centerville water board. Dunlap frames his opposition as a duty grounded in professional expertise and public stewardship.
The September 2024 environmental survey also tested for Lead paint. Of 28 samples, 15 showed detectable lead; only two reached or exceeded the 0.5 percent (5,000 parts per million) federal threshold that triggers regulatory requirements in housing. The paint was intact in all tested areas, except for the white paint on some metal cell doors in the old jail.
Contrary to many comments we received from readers, none of the documents produced so far mention mold, leaks, or earthquake-safety deficiencies. The whistleblower told Shasta Unfiltered that there is no mold in the building.
November 2024 records show needed repairs totaling $22,118 for one HVAC unit and $4,524 for the other. Both units are approximately 30 years old. New units will ultimately be required due to their age.
Three Options Were on the Table
On March 18, 2025, Public Works Director Troy Bartolomei presented three main choices at the Board of Supervisors Meeting:
Tear down everything and build a parking lot for about $7 million.
Tear down only the Annex and Old Jail, then renovate the main Courthouse, for about $17.5 million.
Keep and fully renovate the entire complex, including a new parking garage, for close to $78 million.
The Board chose the first option — full demolition.
A Smarter Middle Step
A practical path remains available: demolish only the Old Jail now. That would create roughly a dozen new parking spaces immediately while leaving the main Courthouse and Annex standing. Upgrades already performed in 1993 and 1996 demonstrate that the structures have received prior investment and are not complete relics.
Building a comparable three-story public building from scratch in California today would likely cost $25 million to $40 million or more. Dunlap values the existing buildings at approximately $23 million ($300 per square foot). He notes that ongoing maintenance of $15,000 per month ($180,000 per year) does not justify demolishing a functional asset. His professional peers from the 1993 project — architect Gene Nichols and project engineer Mike Lusso — concur that the buildings should not be demolished. Dunlap also notes that the Environmental Impact Report found no structural issues and that the historical presence of asbestos is typical of the era and can be managed rather than used as a blanket rationale for demolition.
Environmental and Budget Realities
Full demolition carries a high environmental cost. The buildings already embody large quantities of concrete and steel. Destroying them sends those materials to waste and requires new resources if comparable space is ever needed again. Removing only the Old Jail would generate far less waste and preserve more of the original investment.
The County faces real budget pressure. Officials have discussed possible one-day-a-week furloughs for some Health and Human Services workers and a hiring freeze. Lease payments continue to escalate. Using the Old Courthouse for County offices could reduce some of those costs and simplify operations. Many currently leased buildings do not align well with downtown business and development goals.
There Is Still Time
The County need not demolish the entire Old Courthouse and Annex. It can proceed with removing the Old Jail, creating parking, and keeping the main buildings standing while more information is developed on using the complex for office space. The hazardous materials identified by ACC Environmental Consultants are limited and not overwhelming. Interest earnings on capital funds can help cover holding costs in the interim.
A well-built public building that has already received upgrades should not be erased simply because the highest-cost renovation options looked unattractive on paper. Once the Old Courthouse and Annex are gone, the County will have spent millions to destroy an asset and will face far higher costs if it ever needs to replace the space. The old saying applies: “Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.”
Unfunded pension liabilities continue to constrain choices. The current fiscal year 2026/27 budget shows a $46 million payment for unfunded pension liabilities. Two years of those payments would have more than covered the inflated $78 million estimate for fully renovating both buildings and constructing a 300-space parking garage. The County is drowning in pension debt, and it is severely limiting the Board’s options. Additionally, the County's fiscal budget has declined for the past 2 years as the County has exhausted COVID-era State and Federal funding and other one-time funding.
Shasta Unfiltered will continue following this issue. If more records become available, we will report on those findings. In the meantime, we urge the Board of Supervisors to revisit this issue and change course. The long-term costs of leasing multiple buildings and the high economic and environmental costs of demolishing a structurally sound building to create a parking lot of much lower value make no fiscal sense.
As a side note, after the Board voted last year to demolish the building, the Sheriff's Department SWAT team was allowed to practice in the building and damaged some of the interior doors.
