Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Castle Rock Park topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Adams County committee sends Castle Rock Park maintenance-building bid back for redesign after cost and scope concerns
Summary
Committee members criticized the Castle Rock Park maintenance-building design and costs, questioned engineering assumptions and slab/wall specifications, and voted to reject the current bid package and return the project to the drawing board for redesign and cost reduction.
Adams County’s Property Committee voted to reject the current bid package for the Castle Rock Park maintenance building and sent the project back for redesign after multiple members and local builders raised concerns about scope, construction method and cost.
Staff presented Altman Construction Company (Wisconsin Rapids) as the apparent low bidder for the park project. Several supervisors and two local builders questioned aspects of the design: Supervisor Jerry said the plan "is so over and above what code is" and cited a 3,000‑gallon concrete holding tank, 7‑inch concrete slab and 2x8 stud walls as examples of potentially excessive specification. A local bidder who said he had bid the project described it as "an engineered slab" with frost protection and other standard commercial requirements, and warned that reengineering and remobilization would add schedule and cost if the committee delayed.
Committee members advocated alternatives — moving the building site south to avoid a retaining wall, changing slab thickness, or using different framing — while staff and the contracted engineer (MSA) said public‑building codes and durability needs drove some design choices. Doug (parks staff) said certain pre‑work had been completed (site clearing and perimeter marking) but full excavation and contractor work had not yet begun.
After discussion, a motion to "go back to the drawing board" carried on a roll‑call vote (4–1), returning the bid package for rework and likely new engineering estimates. Cynthia told the committee it will have to seek external engineering expertise if it wants alternate designs that still meet required codes: "We don't have it [engineering expertise]... We would have to outsource it."
Next steps: staff said they will reconvene with the engineer and task group to address retaining‑wall options, slab engineering, and other cost drivers, and will return a revised package to the committee for review.
The committee also discussed other facility agenda items—including courthouse annex work and health‑and‑human‑services daycare planning—but the Castle Rock vote was the primary formal action on the park project.
