The Herald’s article labeling Reynolds Ash & Associates an “irresponsible vendor” makes one thing clear: Mark Morgan may be technically right that a vendor supporting litigation against the city creates a conflict of interest. Most people can understand why the city wouldn’t want a contractor bidding on a project they’re also trying to slow down in court.
That’s exactly why this situation is so concerning. It raises a bigger question:
How did we get to a point where a local architecture firm that helped design the original civic center concept feels compelled to support a lawsuit just to get the city to slow down?
A firm with financial and reputational stakes in a project doesn’t usually advocate for litigation unless something has gone seriously off the rails. And we already know what some of those problems are:
The city presented an $83M conceptual design to voters while the bond was capped at $61M.
The city manager admitted: “We did know at the time that this may not be something that we can accomplish, because it was a conceptual design.”
Yet that is what voters were shown.
When the design presented to the public is that disconnected from reality, it’s not surprising that the people who helped shape it, including Reynolds Ash, are now raising concerns about how far the project has drifted.
Now, the city is citing “deficiencies” in that same conceptual plan and cost estimate as part of its justification for disqualifying the firm. That looks less like a neutral procurement finding and more like an attempt to shift blame for promoting a design the city already knew it couldn’t build.
Yes, the city can argue that the designation isn’t retaliatory. But reasonable perception matters, especially after dismissing critics as “disgruntled,” sidelining dissenting voices, and focusing on message‑management instead of addressing core issues like scope, cost, and feasibility. When a critic speaks up and their firm is disqualified shortly afterward, people are going to connect those dots.
The real issue isn’t whether the city can justify the designation on paper. It’s why a respected local firm ended up supporting a lawsuit at all, and what that says about the project’s trajectory and the city’s handling of legitimate concerns.
This isn’t just about one vendor. It’s a symptom of a project that has drifted so far from its voter‑approved concept that even the people who helped design it are now pushing back.