Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates Law and Justice Center overruns and approves new animal control facility selection
Summary
Board members discussed cost overruns on the new Law and Justice Center and later approved moving forward with a new animal control building recommendation after a design-build review and selection process; members also reviewed implications for the CIP fund.
Tazewell County board members spent substantial time discussing budget increases tied to the county’s Law and Justice Center and then approved a recommended vendor for a replacement animal control facility amid debate about procurement scope and capital improvement plan funding.
During discussion of the Law and Justice Center, Board member Steve Stahl (identified in the transcript) told colleagues that the project had gone over budget and over contingency and that constituents had expressed concern as tax bills arrived. "Tax bills have gone out. And as I look further down the budget... we have to have conversations with the vendors about going over budget," Stahl said. He asked whether the county had been actively involved in monitoring vendor performance and whether the board should press vendors on cost increases.
County staff and other board members described multiple causes for overruns, including utility-site adjustments and foundation issues; one staff speaker said an unplanned foundation issue alone added about $24,000 in costs. Board members asked for earlier notification if projects begin trending over budget. "If we start trending the wrong way... somebody's gotta ring the fire bell," one member said.
Separately, the board considered proposals for a new animal control building. The project followed a request-for-proposals/design-build procurement. County staff said four vendors responded and the selection panel recommended PJ (full vendor name not specified in transcript) because PJ proposed a metal building solution and provided detailed HVAC, plumbing and electrical plans; PJ’s proposal was also described as durable and expected to extend the facility lifespan. The board discussed whether specifying a metal building in the solicitation would have yielded more directly comparable bids.
After questions and debate, the board voted to approve the recommended selection for the animal control facility and to proceed with the associated CIP funding as proposed. One board member said the county’s capital improvement (CIP) fund is fully funded at the start of the fiscal year, but emphasized the board can remove projects from the CIP list if funding pressure increases.
Board discussion also referenced other county capital items and federal funding uncertainties that could impact project cash flow; staff noted that some federal flow-through dollars are contingent on federal budgeting and that awards can be reversed or delayed. The board approved the animal control selection by voice vote following the design-build review and staff recommendation.
