Supervisors review of Encite proposal raises questions

By Mary Zienlinski
Posted 1/11/23

The proposal from Encite Architecture & Design of Washington for design services at Orchard Hill to relocate Washington County administrative offices, has a fixed fee for $342,500 based on a 9.5 …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in

Supervisors review of Encite proposal raises questions

Posted

The proposal from Encite Architecture & Design of Washington for design services at Orchard Hill to relocate Washington County administrative offices, has a fixed fee for $342,500 based on a 9.5 percent fee of the estimated project cost of $3.6 million.    

However, during the discussion Tuesday morning, questions arose about the proposal not including renovation of the courthouse to house all official judicial offices as well as another about renovating and moving the county engineer’s office to the secondary roads building and selling the McCreedy Building that houses the offices of the engineer and county assessor.

Supervisor Marcus Fedler explained he had noted that and talked with Encite, noting that work would add about $95,000 to the fee, based on an additional $500,000 to the total project.  However, further discussion noted that an addition to the existing secondary roads facility would not require an architect (it was compared to the remodeling for the county Minibus facility) and could be done with a local private contractor cheaper, especially since the county engineer “already knows what he wants.”

During the discussion, supervisors Stan Stoops and Jack Seward, Jr. referred to the offer made by Federal Bank for its building, a price that has gone from $1.6 million to $800,000.  Stoops noted that the county already has three floors in the building for its Environmental Health and Public Health Departments and asked the board to consider that.  He added that the courthouse renovation was not included in the Encite design proposal.   

Supervisor Richard Young noted that the courthouse renovation had been in all the proposals presented by the three architects interviewed by the board a few months ago.  He also asked Stoops to list his concerns about why he called the Orchard Hill move “a wrong thing”, suggesting that he and any other member put concerns in writing to present and discuss at next week’s meeting.  

There was further discussion about the engineer’s office move being a separate issue, outside of the general administrative offices move, with board members indicating they would speak with the engineer.  No action was taken on the Encite proposal and Stoops said he could provide a list of his concerns.