Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Contractors report steady progress on Warick County security center; commissioners weigh fate of an older county building
Summary
Project Partnerships reported major construction milestones at the new Warick County Security Center — about 90,000 man-hours, key MEP systems complete and epoxy flooring under way — while commissioners discussed whether to retain or demolish an existing DCI building and approved a draw to pay contractors.
Get email alerts on the Capital Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Warick County security center is advancing through major construction milestones, county contractors told commissioners on March 9. Bill Nakes of Project Partnerships said the project has logged about 90,000 man-hours with no first-aid recordables, installed exterior panels and the main transformer, completed underground mechanical and electrical work within the building footprint, and is roughly 60% finished with epoxy floors.
"The installation of exterior panels around the entire building are complete," Nakes said, and he added that fire sprinklers are tied in and tested and that weekly inspection reports and rainfall-triggered reports are being maintained.
Contractors and county staff described remaining site work: grading, binder asphalt, final surface paving, and utility tie-ins. Nakes said the kitchen and laundry equipment are on site or ordered and that control wiring, HVAC trim, and IT terminations are progressing.
Commissioners also discussed a separate, unresolved drainage issue with the city that could cost the county roughly $40,000 (the county's share of an estimated $80,000 total) for pavement and drainage work; staff said the city and county are negotiating a split and hoped to finalize details soon.
A substantive procedural decision concerned the older DCI building located in front of the new site. Commissioners debated whether to demolish the building now or retain it for short-term county storage and department needs. One commissioner said privately that, from a taxpayer perspective, leaving the building for temporary vehicle storage and limited departmental use may be preferable to spending significant bond funds to replace it immediately. Contractors warned that removing the building would require plan revisions, grading redesign and possibly relocation of an electrical transformer, which could add design change orders and delay work.
Byron Sanders of Project Partnerships said the RFI process and coordination between architects and contractors (RQAW and Garmong) had kept the project on schedule; county finance staff reported investment gains on the bond proceeds that leave the county with an estimated underspend available for debt or other needs.
The board approved draw number 27 for contract and vendor payments tied to the security center, and staff said additional commissioning and final finishes will continue over the next weeks.
Commissioners asked contractors to provide updated cost implications and timelines if the board decides to require demolition and redesign. The next procedural steps are completing pending city drainage approvals and confirming final change-order estimates before deciding the DCI building's fate.

