Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Courthouse Construction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Contractor and designers defend multi‑pour concrete and waterproofing strategy for Hall County courthouse
Summary
Contractors and designers told the Hall County Board that multiple concrete pours, continuous rebar splicing and a 60‑mil adhered membrane drainage system are standard practice for large basements and will reduce long‑term waterproofing risk; commissioners pressed for warranties and details of seam protection.
Contractors and the design team defended the construction approach and waterproofing system for the Hall County courthouse basement amid board questions about multiple concrete pours, cold joints and the risk of future water intrusion.
Bo Berning of Chief Construction explained that the project's concrete walls are up to 22 inches thick and that a single monolithic pour would be significantly more expensive and could exclude local subcontractors. "So therefore, makes sense to do multiple pours, and that is standard practice for construction, especially of projects of this size," Berning said.
Steve Severson of Davis Design described the waterproofing system: a 60‑mil adhered membrane with sheet drainage and drain tile leading to sump pumps. "This is expected to last a lot longer than tar," Severson said, adding the product is polymer‑based and less prone to cracking. The design requires rebar splicing and continuous structural continuity where pours meet.
Commissioners raised practical concerns about seams and long‑term maintenance. One commissioner asked whether seams create a point of failure for water penetration and whether warranties would cover such issues; the contractor and designer replied that correct installation to manufacturer tolerances and product overlaps should result in a continuous membrane and that product warranties vary by component but the installed system is intended to prevent penetration.
Board members also noted the project appears to be entering a phase of setting steel with a crane arriving on site; facilities staff said that is a positive milestone. The board did not authorize design changes at the meeting; the presentation was informational and included an offer from the contractor and design team to meet individually with commissioners to review details on request.
What to watch: commissioners asked staff to continue oversight of waterproofing installation and to obtain product warranty details for record and long‑term risk management.
