Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Contract Dispute Moving topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Moving company seeks additional payment for county move; commissioners send dispute to nonpublic review

Rockingham County Board of Commissioners · December 18, 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

A contractor and a separate moving vendor told the board they believe extra labor and unscoped items increased the cost of moving county offices into the new municipal complex; commissioners heard both sides, requested documentation and moved the matter to nonpublic session, then sealed the nonpublic minutes indefinitely.

During public comment, two moving vendors addressed the board about alleged out‑of‑scope work during the county move into the new municipal complex. One vendor (identified in the record as Damien) described scope increases during the sheriff's department and deeds-room moves and said the company documented additional hours and tasks. "The final price we're looking for is $35.09 87 and 25¢," the speaker said while describing overages linked to the deeds room and sheriff's department work.

County department heads and other staff disputed some of the vendor's assertions, saying bidders were given a walkthrough of the facility and that many of the items described should have been contemplated in the bid. A county representative noted that some days the vendor had fewer personnel than might have been appropriate and that some of the additional work was not presented before the county accepted the bid.

The owner of Preferred Moving and Storage, who also spoke, acknowledged the company could have handled aspects of the move better and asked the board for "some sort of maybe happy medium terms" to cover added labor, stressing the company is a small business.

After hearing both sides, the board asked vendors to submit detailed documentation and invoices for commissioner review. The board voted to enter nonpublic session to continue discussion; upon return to public session commissioners voted to seal five nonpublic session minutes indefinitely, citing reputational concerns. No payment decision was made in public session.

Commissioners instructed staff to review submitted documentation and to report back in a future public meeting or in accordance with applicable nonpublic procedures.