Johnston County reviews master site plan; staff to bring DSS design and infrastructure proposals Aug. 4

Johnston County commissioners on July 21 reviewed a preferred master plan for a consolidated county campus and a proposal to design on‑ and off‑site infrastructure plus a new Department of Social Services (DSS) building, with staff saying formal design proposals will be brought to the board at its Aug. 4 meeting.

The plan, presented by Josh Bennett of Moseley, identifies a tightened development footprint east of Yelverton Road, two aligned vehicle boulevards that emphasize the Administration Building, a pedestrian spine linking buildings and phased parking and utility work. Bennett said the presentation focused on a preferred option (Option 4) that emphasizes future flexibility including third‑floor shells and long‑term parking decks.

The plan matters because county leaders said it addresses current space shortages across departments, offers a phased approach intended to limit short‑term borrowing, and provides cost and escalation models to inform decisions about timing and procurement.

Bennett told commissioners, “We wanted to create an environment that was safe, efficient, that we were forward looking in a place that was beautiful,” and said the firm provided a five‑year budget snapshot pulled from a 20‑year capital model. He said the model uses a 3.5 percent escalation rate and that the cost figures shown include contingency, design, furniture and other “soft” costs as well as construction.

The presentation described the design intent: two primary axes providing prominent access to the Administration Building; colocated DSS, Health Department and Land Use buildings; parking arranged for staff and the public; and a pedestrian spine to reduce walking distances on campus. Bennett said the third‑floor shells shown are permitted under the Town of Smithfield zoning and that adding shells now would be “the cheapest time to do that” rather than returning to add space later.

Commissioners asked technical questions about access alignment, utilities and phasing. “Is it line up with the 9‑1‑1 communications or is it … offset?” asked Commissioner Stovall, seeking clarification about how new entrances would relate to emergency‑services access; Bennett said current alignments are offset and could change during design. Staff said crossing and wetland disturbance details for rear access had not yet been designed.

On procurement, county staff recommended prequalification followed by design‑bid‑build for the on‑site/off‑site improvements and the DSS building, with the two work packages kept separate. A staff member said third‑party independent cost estimating would be used at design milestones and that the board would be able to pause between phases to reassess scope and cost. The presenter added that if the board approves moving forward at the Aug. 4 meeting staff would also seek a reimbursement resolution to allow the county to front design fees and later include them in financing.

No formal vote was taken on construction; commissioners expressed general support for the plan and for returning to the board with the design and procurement documents. Staff said they will present formal proposals and contract documents at the Aug. 4 meeting for the board to approve, modify or decline.

Background/next steps: Bennett and Moseley provided a draft phasing approach that would begin with bringing utilities to the site and constructing the DSS building to relieve current space constraints. Commissioners emphasized the county’s current shortage of space across court, health and social‑services functions and asked staff to manage sequencing and cost control tightly. If the board directs staff to proceed at the Aug. 4 meeting, county staff said they plan to prequalify bidders, use independent cost estimating at key design phases and bring procurement documents back for formal action.

Speakers quoted in this article spoke at the July 21 meeting; all direct quotes are attributed to speakers listed in the article’s speaker list.