Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judicial Building topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Waseca County advances judicial center design; officials flag precast lead‑time and possible supplier commitments
Summary
County received a design‑development estimate for a new judicial center (total project budget just over $35M) and approved moving into contract documents while staff warned that precast wall panel lead times are growing and vendors may request commitments or deposits to hold production slots.
The board approved advancing design development into contract documents for a new Waseca County judicial center after receiving updated cost estimates and schedule information from AMP and the design team.
AMP told the board the refined construction estimate sits at about $28.6 million for construction, and—after continuing to carry a low‑voltage allowance and a 20% soft‑cost placeholder—the total project budget presented is “just over $35,000,000.” The county voted to authorize staff and the design team to proceed with contract documents and to break the work into two bid packages (site and precast/steel first, finishes second) to keep construction moving through winter windows.
Contractors and AMP also warned of a procurement risk: precast suppliers report longer production queues driven by high demand from data centers and other large projects. AMP said suppliers’ production calendars are filling faster than in recent years and that lead times had shifted toward six to ten months. The county reported that one supplier has asked about a financial commitment ahead of awarding a guaranteed maximum price; staff said the board may be asked on March 17 to authorize a commitment in order to secure delivery windows and preserve the schedule.
As the presenter explained, the two‑package approach will allow the county to perform below‑grade site work and pour foundations before precast panels arrive, thereby minimizing winter condition costs while crews prepare for a rapid panel erection phase later in the schedule. Staff emphasized that not committing to a precast supplier now would likely extend the schedule.
Commissioners asked about schedule float and the potential exposure if weather or lead‑time changes occur. AMP responded that the schedule includes float and that they will continue vetting multiple suppliers; staff also said they are exploring options to limit nonrefundable financial obligations. The board approved the motion to advance the documents and directed staff to return with any recommended supplier commitments or contract amendments needed to lock schedule-critical materials.
