Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Headquarters Architecture Invoice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oldham fiscal court approves architect invoice after heated debate over police headquarters design and costs
Summary
Fiscal Court approved a $136,800 invoice from JKS Architects after a multi-hour discussion about scope, contract terms and communication; justices and the judge differed over how decisions on a proposed police headquarters have been handled and how much to authorize before schematic designs are presented.
Get email alerts on the Police Headquarters Architecture Invoice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oldham County Fiscal Court voted to pay an invoice from JKS Architects after an extended discussion about the firm’s work on a proposed police headquarters and broader concerns about project communication and cost transparency.
The dispute began when a magistrate flagged a $136,800 bill from JKS Architects in the courthouse payables, asking that payment be pulled until the court could verify the amount and scope. Court members discovered differing understandings of what the contract authorized and how far design work had progressed without a full briefing to the larger body.
Why it matters: The JKS work supports plans to renovate and reorient a former shooting range building in Crestwood for a new Oldham County police headquarters. Fiscal court members expressed concern about escalating design fees and uncertainty over the project’s maximum cost, potential additions such as roads or parking, and whether the court had seen a schematic that would let members judge scope and price.
According to comments on the record, the contract includes a per‑trip reimbursement of $1,200 for architect visits and sets the architect’s fee as a percentage of project cost (discussed on the record as 9% in the contract language). Board members pointed to a schematic-design milestone listed in the contract documents (15% of design fees) and cited an example schematic-phase figure of $259,200 in the architect’s invoice materials. Several magistrates said they were not previously shown a specific schematic-fee figure before the invoice arrived in payables.
Magistrates and the county judge exchanged views about project process. Judge Vogel said JKS had been asked to study whether the existing building could be retrofitted, had met with county staff multiple times, and had generated concepts that the small administrative team wanted to refine before presenting to the full court. Several magistrates said that while they understand professional services must be paid, the court needs clearer, earlier updates and a defined spending threshold for the schematic phase.
Votes and motions: The court first voted to approve the day’s payables with the exclusion of the JKS invoice (invoice number 2, $136,800) so the court could research the contract and minutes. After a recess and further debate, a later motion to approve the JKS invoice passed on roll call. The roll-call discussion on the second vote recorded four votes in favor, two opposed and one abstention.
What the invoice covered (on the record): court discussion and contract excerpts referenced schematic design, design development, construction documents and construction administration phases, with hourly rates noted in the AIA contract documents quoted to the court. Magistrates asked that future steps include a clear schematic deliverable and a proposed cap for schematic-phase fees; one magistrate proposed capping schematic-phase work at $259,200 while the court continued to discuss what level of design to authorize next.
Next steps: Judge Vogel said the administration will present a schematic design to the court soon (he estimated within weeks) and that court members will have an opportunity to accept, reject or ask for revisions before the project advances. Several magistrates suggested a monthly written status update on county capital projects to keep the full court informed as administrative work proceeds.
Local context: The court has already purchased adjacent property to provide vehicle and public access to the Crestwood site. Members noted that road, site and construction costs are separate from the architect’s professional services fees and will be additional budget decisions for fiscal court.
Ending: The episode left the court with not only the immediate decision to pay the invoice but also clearer demands from magistrates for structured project updates, a schematic deliverable for review and an explicit conversation about how much the court is willing to spend before design moves forward.

