Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Facilities topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Skamania County weighs replacement of aging modulars and options for community health space

2216214 · January 28, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

County staff and commissioners discussed replacing deteriorating modular buildings used by community health and other tenants, reviewed inconsistent bids, and weighed reuse of fairgrounds space, potential leases and capital funding to create longer-term office space.

Skamania County commissioners and staff spent extensive time on Jan. 20 reviewing options to replace aging modular buildings used by community health, the seniors program and other fairgrounds tenants, and to reconfigure space in the west meeting room and nearby buildings.

County staff presented two bid packets received from ATCO and others for either replacing or re-siting modular units. Staff said the first bid was for replacement of the seniors modulars and that the second packet included two location options: the “weed building” and the skate-park-adjacent building. Staff also told commissioners that one bid packet included a total that did not match the line-item sums and that demo costs were omitted from the first bid; staff requested updated pricing and that demolition be explicitly included so the county would know the full cost.

Why it matters: county-owned modulars are past or near the service lives often cited by vendors, staff said, and the county must weigh short-term modular placements against longer-term renovation or new construction at the fairgrounds. Commissioners and staff emphasized minimizing future repeats of modular replacement by using existing building space where feasible and by identifying funding sources before making a final decision.

Key considerations and options discussed included: - Replacing the seniors modulars in place or relocating tenants into other county-owned space. - Using the skate-park structure by enclosing it (adding garage/man doors) to create storage and possibly office space; staff said that option might avoid some engineering because it would tie into an existing roofline but may not be ideal for office proximity to clients. - Reconfiguring portions of the west meeting room and the area labelled “Alex’s space” to add private offices and a secure entry, and updating plans for that area to reflect future needs such as confidential client work. - Building a new, permanent structure on fairgrounds property (the “events office” area) to consolidate community health and fairgrounds functions, with the prospect of using rental revenues or lease payments from county occupants to fund capital improvements.

Funding and timing: staff said some capital funds are available for improvements and remodeling, and that the fairgrounds has a capital balance that could be applied to infrastructure work. One staff member stated there is roughly $12,000 a year in rental revenue from existing meeting-space bookings and estimated roughly $1,000 per month if additional rentable office space were made available. Staff also noted $600,000 of capital improvements budgeted for the year could be proposed for a supplemental if the board agreed to dedicate funds to a facility project; any dedicated use would require board approval.

Operational issues: staff flagged several execution risks — modular lead times have slipped (conversations that started last fall moved expected delivery from June to September of the next year), crane placement and oak tree roots could complicate siting at some locations, and some modulars identified for reuse are already in poor condition or are infested and may not be safe long-term solutions. Staff also recommended clarifying responsibilities for demolition (county crews vs. contractor) and checking leases with current occupants (for example, WAGAP and noxious-weed program tenants) before moving forward.

Next steps: staff asked for direction rather than a formal board vote. Commissioners gave consensus direction to pursue plans and return with refined cost estimates, updated drawings and a proposed implementation plan that would include a funding recommendation and any necessary supplemental requests to the capital fund.

Ending: Commissioners and staff agreed to pursue planning-level design updates and to return with revised cost and schedule information so the board could consider a specific procurement or construction plan in a future meeting.