Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Court Renovation Plumbing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Court renovation project faces $275,000–$325,000 below‑grade plumbing fix; committee asks for engineer recommendation
Summary
Medina project staff told the finance committee below‑grade sanitary plumbing at the Municipal Court renovation will require significant work, with estimates ranging from about $275,000 for a combined lining/replacement plan to about $325,000 for full replacement.
The finance committee received an update on the Medina Municipal Court renovation indicating substantial below‑grade sanitary plumbing work is needed in the 1969 building. Project staff said video inspection showed sections of cast‑iron pipe that are deteriorated; replacing all affected piping was estimated at about $325,000 while a combined approach using cured‑in‑place lining for many runs and replacement where lining is not suitable would reduce the cost to about $275,000.
Patrick (project staff) told the committee the plumbing issues were not visible until demolition and excavation began and that the contractor and engineer recommended lining for long straight runs where appropriate. The engineer advised that lining can be nearly as effective as replacement and that the county has used lining on sanitary sewers with success; staff proposed asking Osborne Engineering (project engineer) for a written recommendation that outlines expected performance and warranties. Committee members asked staff to confirm which runs can be lined, what warranties are available from lining subcontractors, and whether the construction manager at‑risk contract covers the unforeseen condition or whether the city is responsible as a change order.
Project staff noted the renovation retains an owner's contingency of $250,000 and a $150,000 allowance for supply‑chain or tariff issues, and said they expect to absorb the additional cost within existing project contingencies without seeking a funding increase at this meeting. Council members discussed whether, given the building's age, it would be prudent to replace all piping for long‑term certainty and asked staff to obtain written warranties and subcontractor recommendations. The committee was informed that the court plumbing lines are not shared with the county and terminate at the hallway between the two buildings.
Why it matters: The plumbing work occurs in a primary corridor and would be disruptive if deferred; the committee asked for engineering documentation and contract clarifications to determine cost responsibility and long‑term value before committing to full replacement or the lining alternative.
