Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Road Operations Renovation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Macomb County committee debates $1.17 million Road Department renovations; vote to refer to full board
Summary
A committee considered a $1,171,307 contract with D & S Contractors for second- and third-floor renovations at a county road department facility. Concerns about timing amid a countywide facilities study and possible HVAC work led to a failed immediate-approval vote and a unanimous referral to the full Board of Commissioners.
Brian, a Department of Roads representative, asked the committee to approve a $1,171,307 contract with D & S Contractors to complete second- and third-floor renovations at the Rosepec/Administration building, describing the work as a continuation of first-floor updates and saying staff and furniture have already been relocated in preparation for construction.
Commissioners questioned the budget source and scope. Brian said the project is funded from a combination of the department’s general fund and motor‑transportation funds and that the amount is within the department’s previously approved budget. He described the work as primarily cosmetic — flooring, painting, blinds and several new offices — and said HVAC replacement or upgrades are being handled separately through a countywide capital‑improvements study.
Several commissioners signaled reservations about approving the item immediately because the county completed a space‑needs study that will assess facilities countywide. Commissioner Sabatini said he would not support full‑board approval at the committee and proposed moving the item to the full Board for further review. Others raised practical concerns: Commissioner Goertke and Commissioner Howard noted contractor scheduling, the effect of delaying construction on material and labor costs, and the operational disruption caused by staff displacement. Brian estimated additional short‑term storage costs of roughly $3,000–$4,000 if the start is delayed by a week and warned that repeated delays could push contractors to accept other work.
The committee first voted on a motion to grant full‑board approval immediately; that motion failed 6–7 (with Commissioners Hall, Kraft, Perna, Sabatini, Van Sickle, Wallace and Zinner recorded as voting no). A subsequent motion to refer the item to the full Board next Thursday passed unanimously, 13–0. The referral means the full Board will next consider whether to approve the D & S contract, delay it, or take other action.
Next steps: The item will appear on the full Board agenda for final consideration; staff said contractor schedules and pod/storage arrangements are already in place pending that decision.
