Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facility Roofs Justice Center topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee weighs roof options for county buildings and debate continues over new justice center timing
Summary
Facilities staff presented budgetary estimates for a new roof at the Tullahoma library and outlined procurement options for replacing the Justice Center roof, while commissioners debated whether to invest now or await construction of a new justice center.
Get email alerts on the Facility Roofs Justice Center topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County facilities staff presented budgetary estimates Aug. 7 for a new roof at the Tullahoma library and summarized procurement options for replacing the Justice Center roof, while commissioners discussed longer-term plans for a new justice center.
For the library, staff provided base budget numbers and said the quoted amount was cheaper than building a new library; staff described the figure as a basic, high-level estimate and said other design options and contractors could be solicited. No decision was made to proceed at the meeting.
On the Justice Center roof staff recommended following the procurement approach used on recent county projects: obtain materials through the state contract (Omni/WTI/Trimco referenced) and coordinate with an engineer (Saint John) so warranties and post-installation support are consolidated. Staff said the state-contract approach centralizes warranty contacts and reduces the risk of short-lived local contractors disappearing after problems arise. The alternative, staff said, would be a formal sealed-bid process with county-prepared specs and contractor selection.
Committee members raised the broader planning question of building a new justice center versus repairing the current roof. One commissioner noted reluctance to invest large sums in a building intended for eventual sale; staff replied that a new warranty on the roof would add value and that waiting risks greater future costs and water intrusion reported across the building. Staff also noted the roof issue had been approved previously and included in capital outlay projects and asked the committee whether to authorize proceeding with procurement steps.
No binding vote on procurement method or new building funding occurred at the meeting; staff requested direction on how the committee wants to proceed on contractor selection and procurement approach.

