Board authorizes contract for Hoover Ridge maintenance building, sets appropriation

Madison County Board of Supervisors · December 24, 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

The Madison County Board authorized the administrator to contract with Loudoun Building Systems for a Hoover Ridge maintenance building and approved a supplemental appropriation to fund the project; board members discussed prior bids and funding sources.

Speaker 5 described the need to replace a red barn that collapsed last winter and outlined procurement options for a new maintenance building at Hoover Ridge. "We went out for bid late last summer. Had 1 bid come back in for 849,000," Speaker 5 said, and later reported a cooperative procurement quote from Loudoun Building Systems for "407,000 for a 60 by 70 foot with a 15 foot eave" plus a $30,000 allowance for groundwork. The presenter said the county found a cooperative procurement mechanism through Louisa County that allowed use of Loudoun Building Systems.

Speaker 3 noted a discrepancy in the board packet between the narrative and the numeric amount and said the board report had been corrected to reflect $407,000. He recommended authorizing the county administrator and attorney to finalize contract terms and to execute a contract consistent with the proposal dated Dec. 4 (as referenced in the meeting record). "If you authorize ... we would execute that," Speaker 3 said.

On a motion by Speaker 1 to authorize the county administrator to enter into a contract with Loudoun Building Systems dated Dec. 4 (mover recorded in the transcript as Speaker 1; second by Speaker 3), the board approved the authorization by voice vote. The board then approved supplemental appropriation number 19 to establish the project budget lines; in discussion Speaker 5 described using $320,000 in bond proceeds that were not used on the radio system and an additional $26,100 to supplement the appropriation. The meeting record indicates the board set a recommended project total "at 4 25" after the $407,000 quote with a slight contingency; that phrasing in the transcript is ambiguous as presented here.

The board did not read individual roll-call vote tallies in the speaking record; approvals were recorded by voice vote. The motion to authorize contract execution and the supplemental appropriation both passed by voice vote.

Next steps: county staff will finalize the contract with standard terms and the county treasurer will establish the appropriation line. The board did not set a construction start date in the public discussion.