The preliminary work would be part of $360,000 the county would pay HMA Works of Durham for architectural and design development and construction administration fees on the project. Much of the renovation work would involve readying office space vacated by the register of deeds and tax administration departments and reallocated to existing departments that are to remain housed in the courthouse in Uptown Roxboro. The register of deeds and tax departments are scheduled to move into the former Maxway building across Abbitt Street, once that building has been up fitted to accommodate them, possibly by September.

According to MHA Works, the $72,000 design development phase will involve a variety of work such as demolition floor plans, renovation floor plans to be reviewed and approved by the users, phasing plans and timeline estimates, structural details associated with demolition/renovation, engineering plans, revised cost estimates, a detailed code analysis and a count of toilet fixtures.

Last month, Bill McCaffrey of MHA Works gave commissioners a rough estimate of $3 million for the cost of the proposed courthouse renovations, but emphasized that development of the design would provide more accurate estimates for construction costs.

MHA has also estimated that construction will have to be done in at least five phases and coordinated with on-going use of the courthouse for court sessions and other daily uses. The firm also indicated that a “large portion” of the overall $360,000 in fees would go toward the construction administration related to the “extensive phasing required to complete the project with minimal disruption.”

Monday’s authorization of the preliminary contract did not come without dissent, however, as Commissioners Larry Yarborough and Kyle Puryear opposed Commissioner Larry Bowes’ motion that ultimately passed 3-2.

Yarborough took issue with the extent of the “scope of work” for the courthouse renovation project as proposed by HMA Works, arguing that it would be better and less costly to break down the project into a series of smaller projects, contracting for each and, as possible, having the county’s Public Works department to perform some of them.

Regarding the preliminary design function planned by HMA Works, Yarborough said, “I don’t see the need for it. If you go through this scope of work, the items that are on here, … we’re agreeing to pay the architects $72,000 for doing a preliminary design estimate of the $360,000 its going to require to actually do the design for the $3 million project.” >>

He continued, “I don’t see the need to pay for a preliminary design and then a design when we can just bring the people in that are going to move into that office and they could choose their colors, they could choose their carpet, and we can pay to have it painted and carpeted. The fire alarm system, we don’t need an architect to study that. Bring in fire alarm contractors and they design it and bid on the project.”

A similar approach could be taken for the heating and air conditioning system and other things on the list, Yarborough suggested.

“I’m not saying it doesn’t have to be done,” he said, “I’m just saying it doesn’t all have to be done at once.”

Commissioner Jimmy B. Clayton and County Manager Steve D. Carpenter pointed out that state law requires the use of an architect on major construction at public facilities at certain cost thresholds to help ensure the work is properly designed, while projects of less cost than the thresholds often can be done with county staff.

Favoring the preliminary work, Commission Chairman Johnny M. Lunsford said, “This will help to protect us as a county. … It’s really a small amount of money to pay for protection when it comes down to doing a project of this size. I think it’s worthwhile.”

“It seems like a lot of money for a little protection,” countered Yarborough.

Referring to courthouse conditions and in support of his motion, Commissioner Bowes said, “It’s something that’s regularly going downhill. If we try to drag our folks into it, it could drag on for another five to 10 years.”

Puryear said he thought “the most efficient way” would be to use “our own people and save the taxpayers money.”

Lunsford observed, “You might save it on one end and pay twice as much on other end if you’re not doing it according to specifications and to protect the safety and the welfare of the people that are there and also those that will be coming in using that facility.”

“I disagree,” said Yarborough. “I think you all are spending a whole bunch of money on a lot of little things.”

In other business Monday, commissioners,

• After conducting a public hearing that drew no speakers, gave the name “Mayo Harbor Lane” to a private road off Jones-Paylor Road. A road name had been requested by a county resident for a new home on the road so it could have an official mailing address.

• Authorized the Person County Museum of History to demolish the county-owned Hunter House and garage at 321 N. Main St., just north of the museum. The museum requested permission to tear down the vacant residence, which is in an advanced state of disrepair, would require extensive repairs to render it useful and which, according to the museum, “does not have any historic value.”

The museum indicated the property eventually could be used by the museum for additional exhibit space and/or parking.

The Roxboro Fire Department may use the destruction of the building as a fire training exercise.

• Set a public hearing for April 21 on the proposed renewal of an agreement between the county and the Bushy Fork Grange for lease of the former county-owned Bushy Fork School cafeteria building, barbecue pit and parking lot.