A petition with more than 200 signatures asking the Washington County Supervisors to reconsider the site for the country’s administrative offices Tuesday got a positive response when Supervisor Jack Seward, responding to the request for a public hearing, suggested instead a public meeting to which the supervisors could be invited.  He explained that there are specific requirements for an official public hearing, noting that an open discussion “get together” could be more productive.

He told Karen Bates Chabal, a local businesswoman who helped organize the petition effort, that the group should “find a place, and invite us,” adding that he is personally “willing to meet with anybody anytime, anywhere.”

The need for a larger meeting place was apparent with the packed audience in the supervisors’ office that had some standing in the hall and the doorway.  

The suggestion for an informal public meeting also met with approval from the other four board members.  Chairman Bob Yoder asked that the petitioners set up a meeting “and we will all go,” noting that if all five are there it would be a board meeting, but requirements could be met.

During the meeting, key concerns ranged from a negative economic impact by moving the offices to Orchard Hill Complex from the downtown, cost of the renovations/remodeling at the complex, and a perceived lack of detailed information to the public.

Millie Younguist, the city’s mayor pro tempore, noted that the city has a thriving downtown, that during the Covid pandemic it did not lose a single business, and that there is some concern about sources for all the funding for the relocation.  She stressed that the city is very willing to work in partnership with the county, to share information and to come up with an idea to benefit the majority.

Several other residents expressed similar concerns, favoring the Federation Bank site, with Richard Gilmore saying, of employees, “Nobody wants to go to Orchard Hill,” that the offices should stay in the downtown and that the board was elected to and expected to spend taxpayer money wisely.  

Resident Mike Murphy thanked the board for its past services, especially regarding RUSS and county zoning, saying that he supported them in the move to the county-owned Orchard Hilll, that “it is smart to consolidate.”  

Several also noted that a number of businesses took risks in setting up on the square yet met with success.  The Washington Chamber of Commerce president stressed that losing the presence of the county offices would be a significant loss to the downtown and asked for consideration of alternate options “for you to meet your goals.”

In referring to the courthouse, where the county offices currently are, Supervisor Stan Stoops said that the bank building would be better for the employees to take a short break or go for lunch on foot.  He also noted that the courthouse and the Federation Bank building are “icons in the town,” that keeping them is important.

While no official action was taken, the petition group indicated it would see about the arrangements for a public meeting, open to all residents.

The actual petition request follows:

“We, the undersigned, are in support of our Washington County services remaining in the downtown of the county seat rather than being moved to a new workspace on the west edge of town at the Orchard Hill complex.  We urge you to reconsider the primary architectural plans as they have been developed to date.  Our businesses will likely lose customers from the major relocation plans; therefore, we are not in support of such a move.  We support the Federation Bank building use for these services.  Thank you.”

The remainder of the document contained “Notes of Consideration,” including the fact that the county could buy the bank building for $800,000 and issue a municipal bond at four percent and clear the debt in 15 years in annual payments of $71,016, less than the $73,000 it is paying in rent for the top three floors.  It also noted that bank renovation would be $50 per sq. ft.  Orchard Hill is $150.  And there was an objection to using the approximate $4 million in ARPA funds for what was labeled in the petition as a “self-serving and inappropriate project,” noting that other counties “made better use” by using them for wider community facilities and services.