Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Courthouse Remodel topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates architect fees, liability and scope for courtroom remodel; $20,000 engagement already approved
Summary
Sumner County commissioners debated whether to hire an architect to redesign courtroom space or to use existing stamped plans, and questioned paying $5,000 for a concept study when a full design was previously quoted at $13,200; the county previously appropriated up to $20,000 to engage Architect Workshop.
Committee debates architect fees, liability and scope for courtroom remodel; $20,000 engagement already approved
Sumner County General Operations Committee members on March 3 argued over the proper scope and cost of architectural services for a planned courtroom remodel and related build-out work, weighing whether the county should rely on existing stamped plans or pay architects to perform new concept and design work.
Commissioners and staff discussed two proposals: a concept-design package from Architect Workshop for $5,000 and a full architectural-design proposal quoted at $13,200 by another architect (identified in the packet as Mr. Hood). Several commissioners said the two proposals are not comparable — one is a concept/duediligence deliverable while the other is a complete permit-ready design.
Commissioner Klein and others expressed frustration with paying for concept work that appears to duplicate pro bono assessments already provided, while also noting liability concerns if contractors must build to plans they did not produce. Staff noted the county had appropriated up to $20,000 in an earlier action to secure architectural services; that appropriation was presented as already approved in November and, at the meeting, staff said they had secured Architect Workshop services under that authorization.
Discussion focused on whether the county could use previously stamped plans ‘‘as-is’’ or should obtain a licensed architect’s sign-off to avoid future liability. Commissioners said contractors are reluctant to accept responsibility for documents created by others; one commissioner suggested the county likely would need an architect to stamp plans and warrant them for permit and insurance purposes, but that signing off should be less costly than a full redesign.
Committee members asked for Architect Workshop and other bidders to appear at a future meeting with a complete package that clarifies scope (concept package v. full design) and any additional fees, including charges for meeting attendance. Staff said the firm would present a packet next month and that the county would retain the ability to alter scope and pursue lower-cost alternatives where appropriate.
Commissioners also discussed potential remediation costs to bring the space up to code to keep EMS operations in the building, with a conservative staff estimate for remediation (including required one-hour fire-separation walls and other upgrades) described in the meeting as roughly $50,000 for the overall fix, though that figure was framed as approximate. Committee members requested clearer cost estimates and confirmation of what design scope is required to meet code and permit requirements.
No formal committee vote to authorize additional spending beyond the previously appropriated $20,000 was recorded at this meeting; commissioners directed staff to return with the architect package and clarified options.
