Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Jail Cell Completion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Audubon County supervisors press contractors over unfinished jail cell, demand response within 24 hours
Summary
Supervisors demanded ETI and Graphite Construction clarify who will pay to finish an unfinished jail cell after delays forced the county to house inmates elsewhere; a local contractor proposed a hinged metal cover and updated bid, and Graphite said it will not pay because work was outside the original scope.
Get email alerts on the Jail Cell Completion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Audubon County Board of Supervisors members on March 24 pressed contractor representatives from ETI and Graphite Construction for an immediate resolution after supervisors said an unfinished jail cell with exposed pipes has kept the facility from becoming operable and forced the county to house inmates elsewhere.
The board met with ETI representative Justin Veik and Shannon CeCe of Graphite Construction by phone. Veik outlined three possible fixes — covering the pipes with sheet metal, applying a mesh solution, or adding additional support to the existing pipes — but Sheriff Todd Johnson said the third option would not be sufficient. Custodian Hansen presented a proposal from a local contractor for a hinged bent-metal cover designed to allow access to the pipes.
Shannon CeCe, speaking for Graphite Construction, said, "they will not be covering any of the expenses to finish the jail since it was not in the original scope of their plans." Supervisors said delayed responses and inaction over recent months have caused the county to incur extra expenses to house inmates offsite.
Custodian Hansen said the county had received a bid from the local contractor a few weeks earlier but that recent tariffs have increased the price of materials; the custodian sent an updated bid to ETI for review. Veik said he would consult his partners about the financial side and determine whether they can assist with some costs.
Supervisors explicitly requested an answer from ETI within 24 hours about how the contractors planned to proceed and whether any partner funds would be available to cover the updated bid. The board did not take a formal vote on hiring the local contractor during the meeting; supervisors instructed staff to await ETI’s response and proceed after clarification.
The meeting adjourned at 2:37 p.m.; ETI indicated it would follow up with supervisors the next day.
