This is Part 2 of a three-part series where Rocky Mackintosh has been researching recent real estate acquisitions and construction projects undertaken by Frederick County Government. This article focuses on a possible multi-million-dollar acquisition that could close within a matter of months.

About a month ago, I joined a number of my friends as we embarked on our annual fishing trip on the Chesapeake Bay. Our group is made up of local businessmen ranging in age from the early 30’s to over 70 years. You don’t have to guess where I fell in that line up. We boarded our boat at 6:00 AM and headed out hoping for Rockfish but knew that the day would likely be full of Blues.

As usual, it takes a while to get deep enough into the waters before the lines are cast and you hear the captain or his mate yell out “Fish On!”

Early morning conversations amongst a cast of groggy characters can go off in unexpected directions. But the talk that morning seemed focused on one topic – rumor had it that Frederick County Government had recently placed the 32-acre former Bechtel campus in the Westview Office Park under contract to purchase.

With that, this bunch of real estate, construction and legal minded individuals took the conversation into the direction of educated speculation about what the county would do with such a property containing several hundred thousand square feet of office space – more county offices, workforce housing, a new county courthouse … what could it be?

As the phrase goes, “inquiring minds want to know,” and my brain shouted, “Fish On!”  … I have to reel this one in and get the full story.

On October 1, I reached out to Michelle Hurney, Frederick County Government’s Chief of the Office of Real Estate. We had a pleasant conversation, and she confirmed that the former Bechtel properties in Westview Office Park were in fact under contract. She noted that the contract terms gave the county a feasibility contingency that extends into late November / early December. She said a nondisclosure agreement prevented her from discussing any of the terms, including the price. However, reliable sources have informed me that that figure is approximately $40 million, although that number remains publicly unconfirmed.

The campus contains approximately 469,000 square feet of office space and is assessed on the county’s tax rolls for $35 million. After scouring through the last four years of Frederick County’s adopted capital budgets, I could not find any significant projects other than ones addressing needs for courthouse funding. With what appears to be no other real option to pull funding for a purchase, further conversations with county officials suggest therefore that this could be among its potential uses, possibly alongside other government services. The published capital plan does not identify Westview, but it now expressly considers courthouse relocation.

To understand why that matters, we need to follow the budget history.

The courthouse space problem is not new. County plans trace it to the 2013 Countywide Synergy and Efficiency Concept Plan and a FY2015 court workload analysis. The FY2017 capital plan contemplated a 90,000-to-100,000-square-foot annex behind the existing courthouse, initially finishing one floor and reserving shell space for future needs. The estimated project total was $32.6 million, including $28.7 million for construction.

By FY2023, the approach had changed. The plan called for renovating approximately 50,000 square feet inside the courthouse as other agencies vacated space, along with entrance-plaza improvements. The total estimate was $15.9 million, including $11.5 million for construction.

The FY2024 plan retained that basic description but raised the total to $31.6 million, including $26.5 million for construction.

Then came a much larger undertaking. The FY2025 plan described a 115,000-square-foot addition behind the courthouse, with a total estimate of $85.8 million. The FY2026 plan carried that same addition at $87.4 million, including $78.1 million for construction, with completion projected for June 2033.

These were successive plans, not cumulative expenditures. They also involved different scopes, so their increases should not automatically be labeled construction overruns. Nevertheless, they show how substantially the proposed solution has changed.

The FY2027 description broadens the choices again. It says the city police department’s departure in 2025 provided only limited temporary relief. Alongside an addition and rehabilitation of the existing courthouse, the county is now considering relocation. The description says proposed budget updates will follow identification of the most viable option.

Wait! Stop here for a moment! Over my career I have had the privilege to serve on the board of directors for several small and large organizations – private schools, specialty businesses, an insurance company, our local hospital and even a capital funding committee for Frederick County Government. More often than not, I found myself involved in being part of the establishment of capital budgets for growth and expansion projects. In all those cases I found the responsible approach is to perform extensive research on what the need is, develop realistic scenarios, select a plan, and establish an affordable budget, get it approved and stick with it. That is just good governance. I find myself wondering if this is a practice that is foreign to our county executive and county council.

This is where Westview becomes relevant—and where taxpayers deserve a more complete explanation.

The adopted FY2027 project total is $146.6 million. It includes a new $42 million line labeled “Capital Appropriations,” plus $95.2 million for construction and separate amounts for design, equipment, technology, and other costs.

The total is approximately 68% higher than in FY2026. However, removing the new $42 million component leaves $104.6 million for everything else, about 20% above the previous $87.4 million total. The construction line increased approximately 22%.

The question is whether those remaining estimates adequately reflect a possible change from a 115,000-square-foot downtown addition to adapting to an entirely different property. Adding relocation to the project description does not establish that the county has priced the work required at Westview.

Nor should we assume the $42 million is definitively earmarked for that purchase. The published line does not say so.

My concern is informed by the Prospect Center. As discussed in my previous article, its planned scope and cost expanded dramatically after acquisition. Specialized facilities and infrastructure can explain some additional expense, but they also demonstrate why the full intended use must be tested before the county commits.

An emergency/911 center costs more to equip than ordinary offices. A courthouse has its own security, circulation, and building system requirements. Those needs should inform the feasibility estimate, rather than become explanations offered after ownership makes changing direction difficult.

At Westview’s scale, small assumptions carry enormous consequences. If one considers the final budget figures for the Prospect Center as an example at $641 per square foot that has been adopted for renovation, furniture, fixtures and equipment, the final buildout for a Westview project could exceed $300,000,000! This is a scenario, not a contractor estimate. The county may need only part of the campus.

That is precisely why we need to know how much space would be used, by whom, for what functions, and on what schedule. What happens to unused buildings? Which existing county properties could be sold or returned to the tax rolls?

Before the county allows its acquisition contingency to expire, the county executive should present an independently reviewed, property-specific budget covering the scope of services to be provided at the site, acquisition, renovation, furniture, fixtures and equipment, technology, site work, and realistic contingencies. Taxpayers should also see projected operating costs and a comparison with downtown expansion, leasing, and new construction.

The council should explicitly approve the selected scope, total estimated cost and financing plan before the county makes an irreversible purchase commitment. Subsequent material changes should trigger renewed review, with their cumulative financial effect clearly disclosed.

After more than five decades in commercial real estate, I understand the appeal of buying what appears to be a great opportunity. But that apparent bargain means little without knowing the cost of conversion.

Taxpayers should not have to watch another project acquire a larger mission and a much larger price tag after the county owns the building.

Become a MacRo Insider

Rocky Mackintosh, Broker of MacRo, LTD and Associate Broker/Senior Advisor with Mackintosh Commercial Brokerage has been advising regional landowners, investors, and institutions for over 50 years. He has been an active member of the Frederick community for over five decades and has served on a number of community organization boards, including as a member of the Frederick County Charter Board from 2010 to 2012.  Learn about his recent affiliation with Mackintosh, Inc., Commercial Real Estate.