Johnston County board reviews master plan for new county campus; design proposals for DSS building to come Aug. 4

Josh Bennett, a consultant with Moseley, presented a preferred master plan to the Johnston County Board of Commissioners on July 21 that lays out a multi-phase campus intended to consolidate several county offices and address department space shortages.

Bennett said the plan—identified in the presentation as Option 4—groups the administration building, health department, Department of Social Services (DSS) and land‑use offices around a central boulevard and a pedestrian spine. He said the plan includes phased development, built-in third‑floor “shells” to allow future expansion and cost projections for the first five years of work. “We set out with four very simple objectives for this master plan: create an environment that was safe, efficient, forward‑looking and beautiful,” Bennett said.

The consultant showed a cost model that includes contingency, design, furniture and so‑called soft costs; the model uses a 3.5 percent annual escalation rate and can be adjusted with county staff. Bennett emphasized that parking decks and third‑floor shells are “very future looking” elements and said the team had confirmed with the town of Smithfield that zoning variances could allow third‑floor shells on the buildings if the county pursued them.

Commissioners focused questions on site access, phasing and cost control. One commissioner asked whether the planned main entrance aligns with the county’s 911 communications access; Bennett said the alignment is offset today and “that may change … over the next several months of design.” On adding third‑floor shells, Bennett said the architectural stepping back of upper floors would reduce perceived height and that the shells would represent about a 50 percent increase in space for a two‑story building if constructed.

County commissioners and staff described the plan as a response to immediate space constraints. Commissioners said DSS is currently spread across multiple leased and county‑owned buildings, making management and client navigation inefficient. “They’re in five buildings now and two of which we lease,” a commissioner said. The presentation identified bringing utilities to the site and constructing a new DSS building as logical first phases.

Bennett said his firm submitted a proposal for the first stage of design work: on‑site and off‑site infrastructure plus design of the DSS building. He described two task items in the proposal—site utilities, roadwork and traffic measures; and the DSS building design—and said the consultant expects these tasks to run concurrently. He recommended periodic checkpoints at the end of design phases so the board could review cost estimates and decide whether to proceed.

County staff said they plan to bring formal proposal documents for on‑ and off‑site infrastructure and the DSS design to the board’s Aug. 4 meeting for possible approval. If the board directs staff to proceed, staff said they expect to seek third‑party cost estimating and to consider prequalification in a design‑bid‑build delivery at this stage. “If the board on Aug. 4 approves to move forward, what we would do is have a reimbursement resolution so we can front the design fees for the project,” a staff member said, describing a common approach to capture design costs into later borrowing.

Commissioners commended the plan’s attention to long‑term needs and the inclusion of expansion shells to reduce future retrofit costs. Several commissioners noted the cost escalation schedule in the consultant’s model and urged careful sequencing and cost control. No formal vote on the master plan or design contracts occurred at the meeting; staff and the consultant said proposals will be presented for action at a future meeting.

Votes at a glance

- Approval of the meeting agenda: Motion made and seconded; vote unanimous to approve the agenda.