Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County staff propose scaled‑down Fleet and IT building; alternates include $600K pole barn and $300K generator
Summary
Staff presented a re-scoped Fleet Maintenance and IT building project with a construction budget estimate of about $1.4 million plus $178,000 in preconstruction fees; alternatives include a $600,000 pole barn and a roughly $300,000 full‑building generator. Council debated funding sources, ADA scope and whether to delay parts of the work.
Get email alerts on the Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County staff presented a reconfigured plan for the Fleet Maintenance and IT building that reduced earlier schematic estimates and offered several alternates for council consideration.
The presenter told council the firm’s programming work and reconfiguration produced a preconstruction subtotal of about $178,000 and an initial construction estimate around $1.4 million. The scope includes interior demolition, two new ADA‑compliant restrooms, an 18‑by‑16 bay door for fleet access, repairs to storm drainage and utilities, roughly 1,500 feet of chain‑link security fencing, new HVAC and electrical work and a diesel generator for full building backup.
Alternatives discussed included a $600,000 pole‑barn to house tracked or oversized equipment and the option to remove the generator (which would reduce total cost). Staff noted that without the pole‑barn and generator the price moves substantially lower, and offered a lower alternate that omits these items.
A council member questioned a line item that had previously shown $30,000 for a generator; staff explained that a properly‑sized municipal generator with transfer switch, pads and connection typically runs closer to $300,000. "Thirty thousand might put one at your house," staff said.
Council members raised concerns about available funding, use of ARPA dollars and timing; staff said projected bond capacity could cover some funding and recommended waiting for the new county administrator to review capital priorities.
No procurement or appropriation vote was taken; staff will return with a final recommended scope and bottom‑line amount for council action.

