Tazewell County board members discussed persistent safety problems at the county courthouse and the status of a previously approved $44,000,000 commitment toward a new courthouse during a planning session on 2025-10-12.

Board members said the existing courthouse has physical-security deficiencies and will require a new building rather than piecemeal repairs. Speaker 2, a board member, said, "The courthouse is a f minus at best on safety and cannot be fixed. That's a priority. Period." That concern was echoed in several comments describing crowded inmate movements and unsecured public spaces.

The safety conversation included a description of current inmate transport practices. Speaker 2 said, "the guard will bring 10 inmates up with their backs turned in an elevator with people that are on class x, felonies." Another board member, Speaker 3, described personal unease while at the courthouse and said the safety issues are structural rather than staffing problems.

Board members also reviewed the status of the new courthouse project. Speaker 5 asked whether the previously discussed $44,000,000 commitment remains in place; Speaker 6 answered that the project is moving forward but that many details remain unresolved. According to Speaker 6, about "50% of the drawings right now on the courthouse" have been completed and the board has not yet seen a full list of trade-offs or additional technology and ancillary costs that could affect priorities and budgets.

Members repeatedly framed the courthouse within a broader county capital-improvement plan. Speaker 3 said the new courthouse is "just one piece of a complete building capital improvement plan for the entire county" and that the project must be coordinated with plans to eliminate or repurpose other county buildings.

No formal motion or vote on construction funding was recorded in the transcript segment provided. Several board members asked staff to present more detailed trade-off information — including what services or features would be foregone if the board invests the committed funds — before the board adopts final design or budget choices.

The planning-session discussion closed with members emphasizing competing priorities: safety and a new courthouse on one hand, and staffing, maintenance, and other county needs on the other.

Ending: Board members directed staff-level follow-up and requested more complete drawings and cost breakdowns before final decisions on scope or additional commitments are presented to the full board.