Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facility Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County maintenance report flags recalled jail sprinkler heads; commissioners favor using CIP funds
Summary
County facilities staff reported 249 recalled sprinkler heads in the jail that pose a life‑safety risk. Commissioners signaled support for using available CIP funds to replace them and asked staff to return with bid results after the Aug. 26 deadline.
County facilities staff delivered a monthly maintenance update that identified a health‑and‑safety concern in the jail: 249 sprinkler heads that were part of a manufacturer recall and likely require replacement. Staff said the recalled heads were first linked to recalls in the 1980s and that one vendor has already provided an initial quote.
"So the issue the issue with the heads is is that if there is a fire, there's about a 50 50 chance that they'll either work or not work," the staff representative said when describing the inspection results. He said the county's sprinkler‑testing vendor pulled samples and found the heads were on a recall list, meaning the recommended course is replacement rather than further testing.
Staff told commissioners that bids for the infrastructure repairs, including the jail sprinkler replacement, are due Aug. 26 and that $412,886.06 is currently available for the project. The representative said an early quote for the sprinkler work was about $2,000 and asked the board for guidance on funding: take the money from the capital improvements program (CIP) funds now, use an unanticipated‑expense line, or wait to include it in the 2027 budget.
A commissioner recommended option 1 — using CIP funds now — noting that the county has roughly $400,000 available and that the cost fits within the delegated spending limit. Staff said they will return to the board once bids close to present contract recommendations and final cost estimates; the representative anticipated coming back at the first meeting in September.
The meeting record shows a direction to proceed with the competitive bid process and to return with results; the board did not adopt a formal, recorded motion in the transcript to reallocate funds during the meeting but indicated support for using CIP funds if appropriate.
