Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners select brick exterior, tan roof for county engineering facility after design options review
Summary
After reviewing renderings and cost estimates, the Clermont County commissioners agreed to an all-brick exterior with a tan roof for the new county engineering and facilities maintenance building; staff said cost difference between brick and metal panel was minimal.
The Clermont County Board of Commissioners on June 18 reviewed exterior design options for a new county engineering and facilities maintenance building and indicated a preference for an all‑brick exterior with a tan roof to match existing campus buildings.
Why it matters: The board’s choice establishes the exterior material and appearance for a county facility and informs final design and procurement steps for the construction contract.
What was presented: Assistant County Administrator Ralph Lenny introduced architect Mandy Niekamp of Garmann Miller, who displayed renderings that compared tan-colored siding with metal panel accents to an alternate option using brick that extends into the gable areas. Niekamp said the per-square-foot cost figures were effectively a wash: the metal panel option showed $32.76 per square foot while the all-brick option showed $32.50 per square foot, with the metal panel requiring additional backup framing and sheeting that raised installed costs.
Board reaction and decision: Commissioners discussed maintenance and appearance. Commissioner Painter said he preferred the all‑brick option, noting maintenance benefits. Commissioners spoke in agreement; the presentation concluded with the board indicating consensus to use brick that matches the existing campus brick and a tan roof.
Details and next steps: Staff and the architect showed alternative brick accents and a lighter base-wainscot option; the board’s preference will guide final construction documents and contract bidding. No final construction contract was approved at the June 18 meeting; the item was a design decision recorded in public session.
Provenance: Presentation and discussion of exterior options and cost comparisons occurred during the architect’s presentation (transcript excerpt: renderings and cost figures at 18:04–20:32; commissioners’ preference statements at 23:36–24:12).
Ending: With a material choice identified, staff will finalize design documents and proceed to bid and procurement steps consistent with the county’s normal contracting process.
