Introduction

The legislative auditor directed the Performance Evaluation and Research Division
(PERD) to examine the current conditions of state agency laboratory facilities, the various needs
and concerns they have, and determine the best option to address the concerns, including the
viability of consolidating state agency laboratories into a single facility. Although this report
provides estimates on construction cost of building new laboratory facilities, it does not preclude
the need for architectural studies. This report is voicing an opinion on the best course of action to
take in terms of whether to construct new lab facilities or co-locate state lab programs at existing
facilities, and what are the potential costs of such approaches. The legislative auditor determines
that an independent architectural study will be needed to arrive at the best approach for the
State to take.

In order to assess the current conditions and needs of state lab facilities, PERD toured the
facilities of the State’s major laboratory testing programs. These include:

• the Department of Agriculture’s laboratories located at the Gus Douglass Agricultural

Center in Guthrie;
• the Department of Environmental Protection’s Air Quality Laboratory;
• the Bureau of Public Health’s Public Health Laboratory in South Charleston, and the
Newborn Screening Laboratory at the West Virginia Regional Technology Park (South
Charleston);
• the Division of Labor’s Weights and Measure Laboratory in St. Alban;
• the State Police Forensic Laboratory in South Charleston;
• the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner’s autopsy suite and laboratory in Charleston; and
• Public Health’s Environmental Chemistry Laboratory in Big Chimney.

In addition to touring the state labs, PERD visited the Kentucky Consolidated Laboratory in
Frankfurt, Kentucky, and gathered information on other consolidated state labs in the country to
determine the benefits of having multiple laboratories under one roof.

Most of West Virginia’s Laboratory Facilities Are Relatively Old, Have

Insufficient Space, and Were Not Constructed for Lab Purposes.

Every state-owned laboratory facility PERD toured had significant inadequacies and
insufficiencies. Nearly all the State’s laboratory testing programs are in facilities dating back to
the middle of the last century. Not only are they relatively old, but many were not constructed for
lab testing purposes. In addition, each of the State’s lab testing programs do not have sufficient
lab space in their current facilities, and no facility upgrades or remodeling have occurred to
maintain modern standards. The lack of space and upgrades has made it difficult to maintain
scientific standards under each laboratory’s accreditation standards, which in turn, puts at risk
current lab testing programs, and precludes the State from conducting new lab testing programs.
Finally, some of the lab facilities do not have secure perimeters. These issues have created

1
significant issues that threaten the viability of the State’s regulatory testing programs. The
following sections address these major areas of concern.

Department of Agriculture
The Department of Agriculture has labs within three divisions. The first, is the Animal
Health Division which is responsible for operating the United States Department of Agriculture’s
disease testing in livestock program. The Guthrie Animal Health Lab receives field samples and
conducts 13 different tests to assist the division in its mission to prevent and eradicate disease
outbreaks from occurring. Plant Industries is the second division with labs at Guthrie. It
operates the Pest Identification Laboratory, which is responsible for:

1) identification of insects, plant diseases, weeds and other pests; 2) information and/or
control recommendations on the problems identified; 3) investigation of those
problems considered significant from a biological, regulatory or impact standpoint;
and 4) maintenance of permanent reference collections of insects, plant diseases and
weeds, and their accompanying record systems.

The third lab is the Regulatory and Environmental Affairs Division (READ) which
“functions as a consumer protection and consumer service organization with the mission of
enforcing laws, rules, and regulations to protect the public food supply.” READ is a member of
the National Food Emergency Response Network that integrates the nation’s food-testing
laboratories at the local, state, and federal levels into a network that can respond to emergencies
involving biological, chemical, or radiological contamination of food. READ also registers pet
food, soil amendments, fertilizers, and wildlife feed. The registration process includes testing for
the accuracy of content claims made on labels. The Hemp Program regulates all hemp products
and hemp vendors in the state, regardless of the hemp’s origin. The Research & Development
Section has developed several methods for identifying toxins in foods. For instance, it was the
first laboratory in the United States to develop a method and proficiency testing program for the
detection of abrin, an extremely toxic plant protein that can be fatal if consumed even in very
small amounts.

Agriculture’s laboratories suffer from being in old buildings, not designed to be

laboratories. The Gus R. Douglas Agriculture Center in Guthrie was built as a Cold War Air Force
base, and later was donated to the State. The buildings that house the labs were originally designed
as offices, and part of the READ building was a gymnasium.

All of Agriculture’s labs are running out of space to house equipment and provide adequate
workspace for employees. As the pictures above show, workbenches are crowded with equipment
and the agency has had to utilize old office furniture to place equipment on. Also, the lack of space
and layout of the buildings requires samples to be carried from room to room to go from
preparation to testing, as the layout is not conducive to the workflows of the labs. The agency also
recently purchased a piece of equipment for testing for foodborne pathogens. As shown in Figure
1 below, the machine is cattycorner to a freezer in the Dairy lab and there is barely enough space
between the two appliances for a person to walk through. The agency would like to add a Level-3
Biological Safety Lab (BLS-III) to the READ labs but lacks the space. Even if the space was

2
available in the building, it would be difficult to retrofit the current building to comply with the
requirements for a BLS-III laboratory.

3
 Figure 1
Department of Agriculture Laboratories at the
Gus R. Douglass Agriculture Complex, Guthrie, WV

Decade Built: 1950s Lab-purposed? No

Secure Perimeter? Yes Adequate Space? No
Testing Programs: Animal Disease Diagnostic Tests, Pest Identification, Cooperative
Forest Health Protection Plant Pathology, Food, Commercial Feed,
Environmental, and Water Microbiology, Dairy, Research &
Development (Biothreats), Metals, Agricultural Materials, Seed,
Pesticides and Residues, and Hemp/Cannabis

The Department of Health and Human Resources’ Public Health Laboratory

The Department of Health and Human Resource’s Office of Laboratory Services (OLS)
promotes and protects West Virginia's public health by supporting state and local infectious disease
control efforts through diagnostic testing, preventing metabolic disorders detectable at birth, and
assuring the quality of testing in clinical and environmental laboratories. The agency accomplishes

4
this goal by providing laboratory testing for programs such as Family Planning, Maternal and Child
Health, the Sexually Transmitted Disease Control program, Epidemiology, Environmental Health
Services, and local health departments. It also works to improve laboratory performance in West
Virginia laboratories through training, information updates, laboratory approval programs,
personnel licensure, and consultative services.

Figure 2 shows the Public Health lab facility that is located in South Charleston. The age
and location of the Public Health Lab has created several problems for OLS. Built in 1954, the
Bureau of Public Health’s Laboratory is the second oldest public health laboratory facility in the
United States. The building has had few renovations over the years which has allowed the building
to become dated. The major components (e.g. the floors, windows, plumbing fixtures) are original
to the building’s construction. For instance, asbestos is an issue throughout the building. It has
been found under the sinks and in the window insulation in the labs as well as in the subflooring
under the tiles.

Lack of space is also a significant concern. The Newborn Screening Lab and
Environmental Chemistry Lab were relocated due to lack of space. The Newborn lab was moved
to the West Virginia Regional Technology Park and the Environmental Chemistry Lab was moved
to Big Chimney, West Virginia. The lab director informed PERD’s staff that the agency cannot
hire the necessary number of staff in certain areas because there is no workspace available. The
lack of space also affects testing procedures. For instance, the microbiology lab’s testing
equipment and sample prep areas are co-located in the same room but should be separate to avoid
contamination of samples. However, the agency does not have enough space to put them in
separate rooms.

5
 Figure 2
The Department of Health and Human Resources,
Public Health Laboratory in South Charleston, West Virginia

Year Built: 1954 Lab-purposed? Yes

Secure Perimeter? Yes Adequate Space? No
Testing Programs: Diagnostic Immunology, Environmental Microbiology, Microbiology,
and Threat Preparedness (Biological)

The Public Health Lab’s HVAC system is also antiquated which impacts the agency’s
work. It is difficult to control ambient temperatures in the laboratory because the labs’ windows
are single-paned and leak air. The agency has installed window AC units in many of the labs to
help maintain the required ambient temperatures required for the testing equipment. In the

6
Chlamydia and Gonorrhea section of the Diagnostic Immunology Lab, the staff must use space
heaters to maintain adequate temperatures to complete tests. The Tuberculous Laboratory was
shut down in October 2020 because the HVAC’s negative air pressure system could not be
maintained due to gaps in the walls and ceiling. Replacing the hood would be costly and it cannot
be repaired. Without the lab, OLS must send out test samples to a private laboratory. The private
lab is slow in providing test results. Furthermore, the Tuberculous Lab is antiquated and not ideal
for a Level III, Biological Safety Laboratory (BSL-III). The agency is considering options for
replacing the lab, and it has received an expression of interest to develop plans for a new lab within
the current building.

Office of Laboratory Services’ Environmental Chemistry and Medical

Cannabis Laboratories
Figure 3 shows the OLS’s Environmental Chemistry and Medical Marijuana Testing
Laboratories, which are housed in an old elementary school in Big Chimney. The mission of the
Environmental Chemistry Section is “to provide the highest quality of analytical testing to identify
issues with drinking water quality.” The tests conducted by this section includes heavy metals
(e.g. lead, copper, and mercury), organic compounds, and wet chemistry (e.g. alkalinity, fluoride,
nitrate, sulfate). The Chemical Threat Preparedness lab is also located within the Big Chimney
lab. This lab is the counterpart to the Biological Threat Preparedness lab in South Charleston. If
a chemical terrorist attack were to occur or if a suspicious liquid or powder is found, this lab is
designed to detect and identify the chemical. Finally, the Medical Cannabis lab will test samples
from licensed cannabis growers to ensure medical cannabis is free of bacterial and chemical
impurities, such as fungal and bacterial contamination, residual pesticides, metals, and solvents.
It also measures cannabinoid and terpene levels to ensure accuracy in product labeling. At the
time of PERD’s visit, the lab was awaiting its first samples for testing.

7
 Figure 3
The Department of Health and Human Resources Environmental
Chemistry and Medical Cannabis Laboratory, Elkview, WV

Year Built: 1959 Lab-purposed? No

Secure Perimeter? No Adequate Space? No
Testing Programs: Environmental Chemistry (Water testing), Threat Preparedness
(Chemistry) and Medical Cannabis

The building needed significant renovations to convert the classrooms to laboratories and
additional changes are still needed. Specifically, the labs need electrical upgrades and additional
ventilation installed. In OLS's experience, projects like these typically take about a year to
complete at this facility because building modifications require changes to the lease and the new

8
equipment must be purchased through the Purchasing Division. Both processes are time-
consuming.

Theft is a significant concern at this lab. According to the lab supervisor, every tenant in
the building has been broken into except for OLS. He also said that several employees’ cars had
been broken into while parked in the lot outside the building. This is particularly concerning since
the Medical Marijuana lab is located within this facility and could become a target of criminal
activity in the future.

The Organics and Heavy Metals Lab has several issues. The room must be under positive
pressure which makes controlling temperature in the lab difficult since the air in the room is
constantly being pulled out of the room. The machinery generates a significant amount of heat that
is vented into the drop ceiling above the lab, rather than through the roof or wall. OLS would like
to have the machines vented outside the building, but the cost to install an exterior vent is about
$17,000. OLS has installed free-standing air conditioning units to supply additional cooling but
better temperature control is needed. The air conditioners in turn create condensation issues in the
lab. The roof also leaks in several areas. During the 2016 Elk River Flood, the building did not
flood; however, shortly after the flood, part of the building's foundation dropped, creating a dip
and crack in the floor.

Public Health’s Environmental Chemistry Lab also usually loses power about 14 days a
year and does not have a backup power supply such as a gas generator. Following the 2012
Derecho, the building was without power for 10 days. As a result, the Total Coliform Testing
section lost all its reagents because the lab could not refrigerate them. Also, anytime the power
goes out, any tests that are running must be rerun. Finally, the machinery must reset which can
take up to four hours to complete.

Office of the Chief Medical Examiner

Figure 4 shows the facility for the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (Medical
Examiner). The primary functions of the Medical Examiner are to perform death investigations,
establish cause and manner of death, formulate conclusions, opinions, or testimony in
judicial proceedings, and provide consultations as necessary. The Medical Examiner’s facility
includes an autopsy suite, where medicolegal autopsies are performed and a toxicology laboratory
that supports the autopsy function in determining the presence of toxins that may have contributed
to the cause of death.

9
 Figure 4
Office of the Chief Medical Examiner
Charleston, WV

Year Built: 1957 Lab-purposed? No

Secure Perimeter? No Adequate Space? No
Testing Programs: Autopsy Suite and Toxicology (associated with autopsies)

The Medical Examiner’s facility is housed in an office building that required significant
retrofitting to add the autopsy suite, cold storage to house decedent remains and toxicology
laboratory. The size, configuration, and location of the building are all hinderances for the agency
and its staff. The Medical Examiner is not currently accredited due to several issues associated
with its facility. According to the agency, the issues include understaffing, and the autopsy suite
is undersized for the number of autopsy cases it handles. The accreditation standard for case
completion is 90 percent of cases completed within 90 days. Currently, the Medical Examiner’s
average completion rate is 240 days which the agency attributes to a high caseload, the lack of

10
adequate space in the facility, and understaffing. The Medical Examiner administrator informed
PERD that:

The autopsy suite is only large enough to safely allow for two doctors and the
associated support staff simultaneously, with a target to complete a minimum of
four autopsies each, for an average of eight per day during the workweek. The
OCME also schedules one doctor on Saturdays who completes an average of an
additional four autopsies, for an average minimum of 44 autopsies weekly. The
current caseload is averaging an influx of 58 autopsies per week, requiring the
physicians to exceed the daily target of eight in order to properly manage the
caseload.

Based on the figures presented by the agency, the autopsy suite requires nine exam tables
to meet the standard, but the current space only allows for two permanent exam tables and one
"mobile" table. All sections of the agency are understaffed, due in part to the lack of space within
the facility. For instance, the administrator informed PERD that the Fatality and Mortality Review
Section has enough space for five staff, but the agency needs an additional five. Furthermore, the
toxicology lab has need for a total of 12 full-time lab technicians, but due to lack of space in the
lab, it can only employ five.

Like Agriculture and OLS, the Medical Examiner’s Toxicology Laboratory is

overcrowded. The lab employees six analysts who are crowded into two small offices.
Furthermore, one lab technicians’ workspace is in the middle of the lab while a second technician’s
workspace is on one of the bench spaces (see Figure 4 above). The lab also needs a second
biological safety hood and additional work benches. The lack of bench space forces the agency to
store equipment in the hoods to free up space on the benches. The technicians also coordinate
their schedules to take turns using the available bench space because there is insufficient bench
space for all of them to work at the same time.

The Medical Examiner suffers from several issues with its HVAC systems. The building's
HVAC and its air handling system that maintain the negative air pressure flow in the autopsy suite
are antiquated, and all five of the building’s air conditioning units need major repairs to keep them
operational. Even when operational, the air conditioning units cannot maintain temperatures
adequately in many spaces, so the Medical Examiner runs freestanding air conditioning units in
almost every section of the building.

The West Virginia State Police’s Forensics Laboratory

Figure 5 shows the facility and labs at the West Virginia State Police Forensic Laboratory.
The State Police performs specialized examinations on evidence that is collected during criminal
investigations. Services are provided free of charge to all law enforcement entities operating
within the 55 counties of West Virginia. The laboratory is composed of seven specialized sections
that provide the following services:

11
 • Seized Drugs Section: analyzes and identifies samples to determine if they are controlled
substances.
• Toxicology Section: analyzes, identifies, and quantifies ethyl alcohol, suspected alcoholic
beverages, and blood alcohol content level, as well as analysis of urine and blood
specimens for the presence of drugs.
• Trace Evidence Section: analyzes and identifies ignitable liquids in charred debris and
other forms of evidence, as well as primer gunshot residues.
• Biology/ Processing Section: analyzes evidence for the presence of biological material on
items.
• Biology/ DNA and Databasing Sections: performs DNA analysis on evidentiary samples
and database samples.
• Latent Prints Section: analyzes, compares, evaluates, and verifies friction ridge skin
impressions found at crime scenes and on evidence.
• Firearm/Toolmark Section: identifies and compares tool marks, firearms, and distance
determinations which includes analysis of obliterated marks, fractured, cut, torn items, and
impressions. This section also analyzes and compares footwear and tire tread impressions.

The State Police’s Forensic Laboratory also does not have the ability to control the air
temperature in individual labs, and the types of tests the machinery conducts in many of its labs
require specific ambient temperatures to operate. Temperature control was noted as an issue in
the DNA, Seized Drugs, and Toxicology labs, and like the other three agencies already discussed,
the Forensic Lab is using stand-alone air conditioning units in these spaces.

The building also sits adjacent to railroad tracks that create issues with coal dust and
vibrations. Some of the equipment in this lab is also highly sensitive to vibrations, so if a train goes
by, the tests in this equipment must be shut down until the train passes. The technicians who
maintain the testing equipment noted black dust inside the machines and the source is suspected
to be coal dust from passing trains. As far as the agency knows, the dust has not impacted the tests
conducted in this lab.

12
 Figure 5
West Virginia State Police Forensics Laboratory
Charleston, WV

Year Built: 1970 Lab-purposed? No

Secure Perimeter? Yes Adequate Space? No
Testing Programs: Seized Drugs, Toxicology, Trace Evidence, Biology/Processing,
Biology/DNA and Databasing, Latent Prints, and Firearm/Toolmark

Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality

The Department of Environmental Protection’s Air Monitoring Laboratory operates
ambient air quality sampling sites throughout West Virginia. The laboratory analyzes air filters
from sampling sites to determine the amount of fine particulate matter in the air. Nearly all air
quality monitoring equipment is located at permanent sites, in buildings or shelters designed for
monitoring purposes. The 13 sampling sites are in specific locations to assess air quality levels
based on population exposure and industry emissions to determine compliance with the National

13
Ambient Air Quality Standards, background levels, and other special purposes. The lab provides
analysis for metals in particulate matter for the National Air Toxics Trends site located in
Washington, DC. The lab also analyzes metals for the West Virginia toxics monitoring sites and
other participating EPA Region 3 states and local agencies.

Figure 6
Department of Environmental Protection’s Air Quality Laboratory
Guthrie, WV

Age of Buildings: 1951 Lab-purposed? No

Secure Perimeter? Yes Adequate Space? Yes
Testing Programs: PM 2.5 filter analysis and air toxics metals analysis

The only issues reported by the staff of the DEP lab were the need for a back-up power
supply and the building not being lab purposed. The DEP lab is one of a few buildings at Guthrie
that does not have a back-up generator. The building required significant retrofitting to add the
required HVAC components to make the sample prep room into a “clean room.” (see Figure 6
above).

The West Virginia State Measurement Laboratory within the Division of Labor
The West Virginia State Measurement Laboratory, within the Division of Labor, houses
the state standards of mass and volume. Standards are used to ensure that scales and provers used
in commerce are accurate. This laboratory also maintains measurement traceability to the National
Standards in Gaithersburg, Maryland. The agency employs certified metrologists who calibrate
the weighing and measuring standards. The building that houses the Division’s offices and
laboratories was purchased by the Division of Highways in the 1970s. It originally contained
offices and a garage. An addition was constructed to the back of the original structure sometime
between the 1970s and 1990s.

14
 Figure 7
Division of Labor’s State Measurement Laboratory
St. Albans, WV

Decade Built: 1970s Lab-purposed? No

Secure Perimeter? No Adequate Space? No
Testing Programs: Small Mass, Small Volume, Intermediate Mass and Volume, and Large
Mass and Volume

Security was the most significant issue noted by the lab’s director. For instance, the
director stated that someone once rammed the gate surrounding the backside of the building and
stole a utility trailer off the lot. He also showed PERD staff holes in the buildings perimeter fence
that had been cut by trespassers trying to break into the facility. It should also be noted that rocks
have slipped from the adjacent hillside and damaged sections of the fencing. While not necessarily
a criminal issue, falling rocks are a threat to both people and equipment on the property (see Figure
7 above).

15
 In 2015, the Weights and Measures building was renovated after the Division’s accrediting
body, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, threatened to withdraw the division’s
accreditation unless upgrades were made to the facility. The facility was updated, and the Division
maintained its accreditation to date. These updates included rubber floors to improve insulation,
and independent temperature and humidity controls for the Small-Mass Lab. The National
Institute of Standards and Technology grandfathered the Division from complying with certain
requirements under the accreditation standards, but if the agency is moved, the facility must meet
the current standards. This included having the Small-Mass Lab built on an independent
foundation and installing marble bench tops in the lab to help reduce vibrations. Furthermore, the
Large Mass and Large Volume is currently grandfathered for the environmental conditions due to
the cost of controlling such a large space but would be required to meet the specifications in a new
lab. The Weights and Measures lab also did not have a back-up generator for its facility but had
bids out for two at the time of PERD’s visit.

Summary of Basic State Lab Conditions

Table 1 is a summary of the basic conditions of the seven state laboratories. These labs are
in relatively old buildings ranging from 40 to 90 years old. The only lab-purposed facility is the
Public Health Laboratory, which is also the oldest building of these lab programs. Operating from
within a facility that is not lab-purposed creates inefficiencies and problems that can compromise
lab testing. Some of the labs have secure perimeters but others do not. While all the state labs
have various security access measures, some of the buildings are in close proximity to residential
or well-traveled areas that expose them to unsafe activities. With exception to the Air Quality
Laboratory, each of the State’s labs have inadequate space.

Table 1
Basic State Lab Conditions
Year/Decade Lab- Secure Adequate
State Laboratories
Constructed purposed? Perimeter? Space?
Agriculture Laboratories 1950s No Yes No
Public Health Laboratory 1954 Yes No No
Environmental Chemistry and
1959 No No No
Medical Cannabis
Chief Medical Examiner 1957 No No No
Forensics Laboratory 1970s No Yes No
Air Quality Laboratory 1951 No Yes Yes
State Measurements Laboratory 1970s No No No
Sources: Information provided to PERD by each state laboratory.

The Issued Identified in this Report Were Cited in a Study 15 Years Ago
In 2005, the West Virginia Chemical Alliance Zone commissioned Battelle Eastern
Science and Technology Center to conduct an “Evaluation of Laboratory Services in the State of
West Virginia.” The report was released in 2010 with the following intention:

16
 An initial evaluation… to assess capabilities across state laboratories, to identify
feasible laboratory reconfiguration options, and to compare these options for short
and long-term economic impact. This effort investigated the possibility of
integrating and sharing resources, co-locating laboratory functions, and pursuing
revenue generating opportunities to optimize use of state assets for public safety
and health.

The Battelle study reviewed the conditions and needs of West Virginia state-owned
laboratories and provided recommendations to maximize the operations of the testing programs.
The Battelle report states that “Nearly unanimous input from responding personnel highlighted the
need for facility and infrastructure improvements, additional space, increased physical security,
equipment upgrades, personnel recruiting and retention solutions, modernization of laboratory
procedures, and data management.” West Virginia’s state-owned laboratories continue to face the
same issues identified 15 years ago.

With the Need for Lab Upgrades at a Critical Point and State Agencies
Developing Lab Expansion Plans, a Coordinated Approach Is Needed for Cost-
effectiveness
With the deficiencies in the State’s labs reaching a critical point, some agencies are
developing proposals for new facilities or renovations to their lab spaces. The West Virginia State
Police has been in discussions with an architecture firm to develop plans for a multiphase
renovation. The first step is a $3.7 million dollar renovation, which will include adding office
space and upgrades to the electrical system and a new fire suppression system. The remaining
plan will cost about an additional $5 million to $6 million, and up to $10 million if the building is
expanded. An expansion could include additional lab space as well as a third bay to the agency’s
garage on the bottom floor of the building.

Using the same architecture firm as the State Police, the Department of Agriculture has
completed a Lab Facility Programming and Feasibility Study with the recommendation that a new
laboratory facility be built at the Guthrie location. The estimated cost for this project is a little
more than $39 million which includes site development costs, equipment, and contingencies. The
estimated cost per gross square foot (GSF) for the lab space is $620.

Table 2 below shows the gross square footage of current labs and the needed square footage
as stated to PERD by the agencies or are indicated in the agencies’ proposals. The concern with
state agencies addressing these needs individually is that the State will invariably spend millions
more than if it does not utilize available vacant lab space in the state and consider co-locating
laboratory programs.

17
 Table 2
Total Current and Needed Lab Space by Agency
Current Lab Needed Lab
Agency Estimated Cost
Square Footage Square Footage
State Police 30,000 37,200 $10,000,000
Weights and Measures 6,420 6,420 Not Available
Agriculture* 18,647 44,242 $39,404,651
DEP 2,700 2,700 Not Available
Public Health 36,355 80,589 Not Available
Medical Examiner 18,351 111,390 Not Available
Totals 112,473 282,541
Source: PERD’s tabulations of data reported by state agencies. Data are presented as reported.

The OCME provided PERD with an analysis of its facility space needs, which are broken
down in Table 3 below. The calculations are estimates developed by the Office’s administrator
based on national standards outlined by the Scientific Working Group for Medicolegal Death
Investigation of the National Research Council, and the experience of leadership and staff of the
OCME. They are not formal calculations developed by a professional architecture or engineering
study. Based on the National Research Council study, the OCME has determined that it should
target about 50 square feet per capita of non-autopsy space for a total of roughly 89,000 square
feet and about 12 square feet per capita of autopsy space for a total of roughly 22,000 square feet
in the autopsy suite. In total, the agency estimates that it needs 111,390 square feet of space to
adequately house its programs and staff. Table 3 provides a detailed breakdown for each section
of the Office, the estimated space needed, and the estimated number of staff.

18
 Table 3
Office of the Chief Medical Examiner Office
Analysis of Facility Needs
Estimated Square Number
Building Sections
Footage Needed of Staff
Physician’s Suite 7,396 14
Case Management 8,284 13
Personnel & Customer Service 3,514 11
Maintenance & Custodial Service 5,280 2
Fatality & Morality Review Program 3,468 9
Administration Section 8,654 7
Forensic Toxicology Laboratory 23,694 15
Forensic Investigations Unit 13,160 18
Morgue Technician Section 15,940 11
Autopsy Suite 22,000 --
Totals 111,390 100
Source: Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, “Facility Shortcomings: Caseload Driven
Needs.”

Many States Have Consolidated or Co-located Lab Testing Programs

Consolidating or co-locating state laboratory programs is a common approach in many

states of the country. PERD identified 16 states and the District of Columbia that have either
consolidated or co-located lab programs. Consolidated lab programs involve multiple lab testing
programs conducted by one state agency, independent of the agencies that require and request lab
tests be performed. Co-located laboratory programs are programs operated independent of each
other but located in the same building. Table 4 shows that nine states and the District of Columbia
operate consolidated lab programs. Typically, these are public health labs that also test for one or
more other agencies including environmental, agricultural, forensics, and medical examiner
programs. For example, the Virginia Division of Consolidated Laboratory Services provide lab
testing services to the Virginia Departments of Health Environmental Quality, and Agriculture and
Consumer Services. PERD identified seven states that have co-located lab programs in which
agencies share one facility but maintain their independence from each other. These states include
Alaska, Kentucky, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota, and Wyoming. Kentucky’s
co-located facility is described below in greater detail.

19
 Table 4
States with Consolidated or Co-located Laboratory Facilities
Lab Lab Lab Lab Consolidated/
State
Program 1 Program 2 Program 3 Program 4 Co-located Agencies*
Medical
Alaska Public Health Co-located
Examiner
Delaware Public Health Environmental Agriculture Consolidated
Hawaii Public Health Environmental Forensic Consolidated
Medical
Kentucky Public Health Environmental Forensic Co-located
Examiner
Minnesota Public Health Agriculture Co-located
Nebraska Public Health Agriculture Co-located
Nevada Public Health Environmental Agriculture Consolidated
New
Public Health Environmental Agriculture Co-located
Jersey
New Medical
Public Health Agriculture Environmental Consolidated
Mexico Examiner
North
Public Health Environmental Co-located
Dakota
Rhode Medical
Public Health Forensic Consolidated
Island Examiner
South
Public Health Environmental Forensic Consolidated
Dakota
Medical
Utah Public Health Forensic Consolidated
Examiner
Virginia Public Health Environmental Agriculture Consolidated
Wisconsin Public Health Environmental Forensic Consolidated
Wyoming Public Health Environmental Forensic Co-located
Medical
D.C. Public Health Forensic Consolidated
Examiner
Sources: PERD compilation from various state agency websites.
*States with consolidated programs have multiple lab testing programs performed by a single agency. States with
co-located programs have lab testing programs independent of each other but located in the same building.

New Jersey’s Public Health, Environmental, and Agricultural Laboratory Facilities is a

multi-tenant facility opened in 2011. The facility consists of approximately 165,000 sq. ft. of
laboratory space and approximately 35,000 sq. ft of space for administrative and support services.
The facility includes a biological safety lab; a necropsy lab for the detection of animal-borne
diseases; a greenhouse for the evaluation and prevention of threats to the state's agricultural
resources; and training facilities for personnel. According to documentation obtained from the
New Jersey Building Authority, the total cost of the project was $159,450,000 or $797.25 per
square foot.

The State of Montana also recently began construction of a consolidated laboratory facility
for multiple state agencies. In 2017, the Montana Legislature adopted and the governor signed

20
into law HB 661 that established an interim study on Montana state laboratories. The intent of the
bill was for the Legislative Finance Committee to direct a study of the long-term future of and
possible efficiencies to be gained from consolidating or co-locating the state-supported labs that
are currently located on the Montana State University campus in Bozeman. The labs included in
the study were the Montana Department of Livestock Veterinary Diagnostic Lab; the Montana
Agricultural Experiment Station’s Wool Lab; the MAES Seed Lab; the Montana Department of
Fish, Wildlife, & Parks Wildlife Lab; the Montana State University Pulse Crops Diagnostic Lab;
and the Montana Department of Agriculture Analytical Lab.

The legislative subcommittee considered two options, both of which would include
constructing a new facility for some of the agencies and renovating laboratory space for other
agencies to move into. The first option would house three laboratories in a new 62,007 square feet
facility, and remodel already existing laboratory space for the remaining three agencies. The total
cost for the new construction was estimated to be $39,151,079 or $631.40 per square foot. The
renovations to the existing laboratory building would cost another $4,173,439. The second option
would include constructing a new 49,212 square feet building for two agencies for a total cost of
$31,368,024 or $637.41 per square foot.

Kentucky’s Laboratory Highlights the Advantages of Having a Co-located

Facility
Kentucky dealt with a similar situation with its laboratories in the 1990s that West Virginia
is currently facing. The Kentucky Centralized Laboratory Facility is a state facility that houses
laboratories for the State Police Forensic Services; the Department of Public Health’s Division of
Laboratory Services and the Radiation/Environmental Monitoring Section; the Department of
Environmental Protection’s Division of Environmental Program Support; and the Office of the
Medical Examiner’s Office (see Figure 8 below). Several agencies have additional laboratories
around the state; however, the Consolidated Laboratory is the primary lab for each of the agencies
listed above. Each agency’s labs are in their own section (called “cores”) of the building, although
the State Police has one lab within the Laboratory Services core. The building is owned and
managed by the Kentucky Finance and Administration Cabinet which leases space to the agencies
located in the building. The facility was opened in 1994 at a cost of $41,696,160 with 240,354
GSF of lab and office space. This facility provides an example of how a co-located laboratory
could be set up and managed.

21
 Figure 8
Kentucky State Centralized Laboratory Facility
Frankfort, KY

Since the State Owns the West Virginia Regional Technology Park, Co-locating
Some of the State’s Lab Programs Is a Logical Approach
Figure 9 below shows an aerial view of the West Virginia Regional Technology Park (Tech
Park) in South Charleston. The Tech Park opened in 1949 as the Union Carbide Corporation
Technology Center and became Union Carbide’s largest research and development center.
Through a donation from Dow Chemical, the Tech Park is owned by the State through the Higher
Education Policy Commission. The Legislature established the West Virginia Regional
Technology Park Corporation as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization to operate the Tech Park. As
Figure 9 shows, there are three lab-purposed buildings (727, 740, and 770) that each have
substantial vacant lab and office space. Building 727 is entirely vacant with 32,000 square feet of
lab and office space. Although Building 740 has tenants, it has approximately 18,000 square feet
of vacant lab space. Building 770 is entirely vacant with 132,000 square feet of lab space. Given
that the Tech Park is owned by the State, and it has already invested over $10 million into

22
the facilities, as will be discussed below, any strategy to address the State’s laboratory needs
must include the Tech Park as part of the solution.

Figure 9
Available Lab and Office Space
West Virginia Regional Technology Park
South Charleston, WV

Building 770
132,000 sq. ft. Building 740
Building 727 18,000 sq. ft.
32,000 sq. ft.

Building 727

Figure 10 shows Building 727. It is entirely vacant and contains a total of 32,000 square
feet in office and laboratory space. The building was constructed in 1965 and was used by Bayer
as a research and development lab for new foam products until approximately 2013. It includes
labs, offices, and a large loading dock with three bays on the first floor. Most of the labs have
office space within the labs. This building also has a 18,000 square foot warehouse adjacent to it
that is available. The building has been maintained since Bayer vacated the property, but it will
require renovations prior to occupancy by a new tenant. According to the executive director of
the Tech Park, renovating Building 727 will cost around $15 million.

The interior of the building has been untouched since the previous owner vacated the
property, but the Tech Park has begun the process of rehabilitating it. The Tech Park received a

23
$10,000 Brownfield Evaluation Grant from the United States Environmental Protection Agency
to identify remediation, if present, of mold, asbestos (in the tile and insulation), and lead paint (on
the handrails in the stairwells). The total cost for environmental remediation that was identified
will cost less than $90,000. It also needs three of its five HVAC units replaced. The building also
needs a new roof. The building has a freight elevator but no passenger elevators. The Tech Park
staff were unsure if the freight elevator needs replaced and need to have it inspected. It is also
considering the addition of a passenger elevator. The hoods and benches also need to be replaced.
The building only has one locker room, and the Tech Park plans to construct a second one. The
building also does not currently have a reception area, which the Tech Park plans to add through
remodeling the front of the building.

24
 Figure 10
Building 727
West Virginia Regional Technology Park
South Charleston, WV

Building 740
Figure 11 shows Building 740 and some of its labs. This building has tenants, one of which
is the Department of Health and Human Resources’ Newborn Screening Testing Laboratory. The
picture at the top right of Figure 11 is one of the Newborn Screening labs. However, Building 740
has approximately 18,000 square feet of available lab and office space on multiple floors. The two

25
pictures at the bottom of Figure 11 show two vacant labs. The vacant lab and office spaces in
Building 740 are move-in ready unless a tenant needs special modifications. This building also
has a conference room on each floor.

Figure 11
Building 740
Occupied and Vacant Lab Space
West Virginia Regional Technology Park
South Charleston, WV

26
Building 770
Building 770 can be seen in Figure 12. The building was built in 1958, it is four stories,
and is entirely vacant with 132,000 square feet of which 120,000 is useable for office and lab
space. According to the Tech Park’s executive director, the building is about 60 percent lab space
and 40 percent office space in its current layout; however, the ratio of lab to office space could be
adjusted if agencies needed more lab space and less office space.

The Tech Park offers several advantages related to utility services. First, the campus has dual
gas suppliers with independent lines that feed the entire campus. Second, the campus also has
redundant electrical supplies from separate substations. Third, the water supply has multiple supply
lines and can be closed off if there is a break in the line that feeds the campus, while maintaining
service to the buildings. Fourth, all the buildings on the campus have access to cable fiber with internet
speeds of 100 gigabytes. Finally, snow removal is provided by the city of South Charleston. The
utilities are metered by building.

The building includes two passenger elevators in the middle of the building and a freight
elevator in the rear. If multiple agencies were to move into this building, the elevators include key
card readers that can be set to limit access to each floor only to those with authorized access. All
the labs are under positive pressure. It also has a back-up generator.

27
 Figure 12
Building 770
West Virginia Regional Technology Park
South Charleston, WV

Building 770 has been vacant for over a decade, but the Tech Park has invested in
improvements to the building while seeking out a tenant for it. The Tech Park received $11 million
in federal and state funds to replace the HVAC and electrical systems around 2015. The funding
included $5.25 million in federal money, $5.25 million from the State and again, the Park
contributed a level of funding, that pushed the total spent to over $11 million. The work completed
included replacing the chillers, boilers, heat pumps, and air conditioning units. The fire suppression
system has also been replaced. The main roof has also been replaced and the Tech Park plans to
replace the façade on the outside of the building. The building has also been remediated for
asbestos. Building 770 needs around $60 million in additional work before tenants could move in.
Some of the smaller roof sections, apart from the main roof, need to be replaced. The windows are
original, and the Tech Park plans to replace them all. The bathrooms on every floor need updated
and refurbished.

28
The Complexity of Laboratory Infrastructure, and the Mechanical and
Technical Components Require Architectural and Engineering Expertise to
Develop Reasonably Accurate Cost Projections for Laboratory Facilities
Unlike office space, estimating costs for new or retrofitted laboratory buildings is difficult
due to the complexity and variation of the mechanical and technical requirements of laboratory
infrastructure. Cost drivers typically related to building lab programs, regardless of the type,
include space efficiency, security requirements, ADA requirements, blocking and stacking,
adjacency requirements, and the functional mix of space. Additionally, laboratories vary in
specialized infrastructure requirements, including HVAC, electrical systems, plumbing, and
furniture, which impacts the overall cost for constructing or retrofitting laboratories. According
to a 2017 publication from the American Institute of Architects (AIA), and the National Council
of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB):

The breakdown of costs can vary widely according to building type. For instance,
a standard office building is typically built for between $80 per square foot and
$150 per square foot, depending on quality and performance requirements. A
laboratory building, on the other hand, may cost from $150 per square foot to more
than $400 per square foot, again depending on quality and performance
requirements. The disparity between costs for these two building types is caused
largely by laboratory mechanical costs, which alone can exceed $150 per square
foot, especially when extreme requirements of control, filtration, and cleanliness
are required.

The AIA’s and NCARB’s estimates of $150 to $450 appear to be on the low end as
compared to other estimates found by PERD. The commercial real estate services company, JLL
provides a range from $350 to $1,325 per square foot as of October 2016. JLL’s estimates appear
to be in line with the actual costs reported by New Jersey and estimates provided by Montana, both
of which were well over $600 per square foot.

Most agencies reviewed in this report require a mix of space types, both different types of
labs as well as office space for staff, which further complicates any cost estimates. Again, the AIA
and NCARB provide clear explanations of why the mix of spaces is such a critical factor:

By far the most significant of these factors is the mix of space types required in a
building. For example, laboratory space may cost $400 per square foot, while
standard administrative or office space may cost $100- 150 per square foot. An
exact 50-50 program mix in this example would yield a building cost of $200-220
per square foot. If the same building comprised 70 percent laboratories and 30
percent office space, the building cost would exceed $300 per square foot.

Laboratory technicians and other staff that work directly in the lab space need adequate
office space to fulfill their non-testing job duties, such as data analysis and completing reports.
According to best practices, these spaces should be located near but outside the laboratory space.
Furthermore, many agencies have support staff that work outside the laboratory space but still need
to be in the same building thereby creating additional needs for office space. For instance, the

29
OCME informed PERD that administrative and operational support staff sections of its agency
need to be located within the same facility as the forensic pathologists and forensic toxicology
staff because their duties support the work of these sections. To determine an accurate cost
estimate the State will require a formal architectural and engineering study for any option
it chooses.

Three Options Should Be Considered by the Legislature and Executive Branch

Regarding the Future of State-Owned Laboratory Facilities
Although PERD cannot provide precise cost estimates of building new state laboratories,
the following discussion is to provide the Legislature with a range of potential costs for three
options to considers. These options are as follows:

1. Build new laboratory facilities for each agency.

2. Co-locate laboratory programs to the West Virginia Regional Technology Park.
3. Co-locate laboratory programs in one newly constructed lab facility.

Each of these options are discussed in detail below and summarized in Appendix A.

The projects presented in the following paragraphs consider the potential cost of
construction but not the costs of purchasing land, project planning, or site development. Although
the composition of lab and office space is not known at this time, PERD’s analysis provides a
range of potential costs that likely encompass various compositions of office and lab space. As
previously discussed, PERD’s review of lab constructions costs found significant variation. For
the purposes of this study, we relied on cost estimates that come from actual costs, and costs
determined through architectural studies, such as actual costs from the New Jersey lab ($797.25
per sq. ft.), proposed costs of the Montana laboratories ($631.40 to $637.41 per GSF), and
estimated costs from the West Virginia Department of Agriculture’s Lab Facility Programming &
Feasibility Study ($620 per GSF). Given these cost figures, PERD determined that a range of $600
to $800 per square foot would establish a cost interval containing reasonably accurate estimates of
the potential cost of constructing lab facilities.

Option 1: Constructing New Laboratory Facilities for Each Agency

Option 1 involves construction of new facilities for six separate laboratory programs.
Table 5 below shows projected costs for each facility at $600, $700, and $800 per square foot.
These calculations are based on the needed square footage reported by the agencies multiplied by
the corresponding square footage dollar amount. Table 5 shows that building separate lab facilities
for each of the State’s major lab programs could cost between $169 million to $225 million.

A major difference between constructing several separate facilities and one building for
several co-located lab programs is that economies of scale would likely occur in constructing one
facility. It is difficult to measure economies of scale, which explains why the construction cost

30
estimates for Options 1 and 3 are the same. However, if a choice had to be made between these
two options, Options 3 would be the better choice because of the expected economies of scale. In
addition, having several agencies co-located in one building has advantages of sharing operating
expenses.

Table 5
Option 1
Constructing New Facilities for Each Agency’s Laboratory Programs
Agency- Construction Construction Construction
reported Cost at $600 Cost at $700 Cost at $800
Agency
Square Feet Per Square Per Square Per Square
Needed Feet Feet Feet
State Police 37,200 $22,320,000 $26,040,000 $29,760,000
Weights and Measures 6,420 $3,852,000 $4,494,000 $5,136,000
Agriculture* 44,242 $26,545,200 $30,969,400 $35,393,600
DEP 2,700 $1,620,000 $1,890,000 $2,160,000
Public Health 80,589 $48,353,400 $56,412,300 $64,471,200
Medical Examiner 111,390 $66,834,000 $77,973,000 $89,112,000
Totals 282,541 $169,524,600 $197,778,700 $226,032,800
Source: PERD analysis of agency-reported facility needs.
*This includes the agency’s proposed immediate needs. It does not include the agency’s proposed print shop
or expansion lab space.

Option 2: Co-Locating State-Owned Laboratories at the West Virginia Regional Technology

Park

Option 2 involves co-locating state lab programs to the West Virginia Regional
Technology Park in South Charleston. Given the circumstances that the State owns the Tech Park,
and it has already invested nearly $11 million into Building 770, it is necessary to maximize the
use of the Tech Park’s available space. Although the Tech Park has approximately 182,000 gross
square feet of vacant lab space (see Table 6 below), that is insufficient to meet all the State’s lab
needs of over 282,000 square feet. Therefore, a combination of lab programs that can maximize
the use of the vacant lab space at the Tech Park must be considered.

PERD reviewed several combinations of state labs into the available facility space at the
Tech Park, and the combination presented in Table 6 is the optimal choice. In this scenario, the
labs for the Department of Agriculture, and Public Health would be co-located in Building 770
and the Division of Labor’s State Measurements Lab, and DEP’s Air Quality lab would be co-
located in Building 740. This combination of co-located agencies would fill 130,688 square feet
of the available space. This scenario leaves vacant 51,312 square feet of space including all of
building 727. This unused space is insufficient to accommodate the State Police and OCME lab
programs.

31
 The Tech Park CEO estimates that an additional $50 to $60 million is needed in
rehabilitation work to Building 770, and there could also be additional costs for specific needs that
co-locating agencies may desire. The available space in Building 740 is move-in ready according
to the Tech Park administrator; therefore, the main cost for co-locating the two lab programs would
be dependent on specific needs of the agencies.

Table 6
Option 2
Co-Locating State-Owned Laboratories
at the West Virginia Regional Technology Park
Remaining
Available Possible Total Renovation Costs
Building Square
Square Co-located Square (Incurred and
Number Footage in
Footage Agencies Footage needed)
Buildings
$15 million needed
Building 727 32,000 --- --- 32,000
plus tenants’ needs
DEP’s Air
Quality, and
Dependent on tenants
Building 740 18,000 DOL’s State 9,120 8,880
needs
Measurements
Lab
Agriculture and $11 million spent;
Building 770 132,000 Public Health 121,568 10,432 $50-60 mill needed
Labs* plus tenants’ needs
$50 - $60 million
Totals 182,000 130,688 51,312
plus tenants’ needs
Source: The West Virginia Regional Technology Park, and PERD analysis of agency-reported facility needs.
*Excludes the New Born Screening Laboratory

Since the Tech Park cannot accommodate all the State’s lab programs, the lab needs of the
OCME and the State Police forensic program must be addressed through creating new facilities or
one facility. Kentucky’s central lab has these two agencies co-located. Although they are in the
same facility, the agencies have separate and independent sections of the building. Although, State
Police forensics and the OCME can be co-located in one building, it is the legislative auditor’s
opinion that consideration be given to keeping the State Police in its current facility, allow it to
proceed with its current plan to renovate its building, and build a new, separate facility for the
OCME. The building that houses the forensic labs was built around 1970 and was retrofitted for
lab purposes. However, the building was expanded in 2000. The planned renovations will address
the issues the building has and will provide needed additional space. It is not in the best interest
of the State to construct a new building to co-locate the State Police and the OCME when the State
Police is in a building that has a section that is relatively recent, lab-purposed, and can be renovated
at an estimated cost of $10 million. Moreover, co-locating State Police in a new facility will leave
the current lab facility vacant of 30,000 square feet on a campus with other state police functions.

32
 Therefore, the State should consider constructing a new facility for the OCME. An
architectural study will be needed to determine the appropriate size and estimated costs. The
agency estimates the need for a facility of 111,390 square feet. As stated previously, this estimate
is based on national standards developed by the Scientific Working Group for Medicolegal Death
Investigation of the National Research Council. It may be determined by an architectural study
that a smaller facility is sufficient for the OCME.

Table 7 shows the full estimated cost of Option 2. Again, this involves allowing the State
Police forensic program to remain in its current facility and proceed with its renovation plans, co-
locate four of the State’s lab programs at the Tech Park, and build a new facility for the OCME,
either at the higher estimated square footage or something smaller such as 75,000 square feet. This
option has two ranges of $126-159 million and $105-130 million. In either case, Option 2 has a
lower estimated cost than Options 1 or 2, particularly if it is determined that a smaller facility is
sufficient for the OCME.

Table 7
Option 2
Co-located Programs at the Tech Park,
State Police Remains in Current Building, and New Facility for OCME
Agency Estimated Costs
State Police – Renovate Current Facility $10 Million
Co-locate Agriculture, Public Health, Weights & Measure, and
$50-$60 Million
DEP at Tech Park
New Facility for OCME (111,390 sq. ft.) $66-$89 Million

Smaller OCME Facility:

New Smaller Facility for OCME (75,000 sq. ft.) $45-$60 Million

Total Cost (with larger OCME facility) $126-$159 Million

Total Cost (with smaller OCME facility) $105-$130 million

A Recent Architectural Study Performed for the Department of Agriculture Determined the
Tech Park to Be a Viable Option for the Department’s Lab Programs

The Lab Facility Program and Feasibility Study for the Department of Agriculture includes
an evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of Buildings 727 and 770 as potential new sites for
Agriculture’s labs. While intended for Agriculture specifically, the analysis is applicable to all the
labs reviewed in this study. The analysis reviewed the following topics: site and location,
employee survey feedback, the building, utilities, financials, and logistics. The architect’s analysis
identified 17 strengths and 8 weakness in its evaluation of building 770 and 19 strengths and 9
weaknesses with 727. The strengths and weaknesses identified by the architects were consistent
between buildings, with a few exceptions. Shared strengths identified in both buildings include:

33
 • “Connectivity between departments would merely be by floors if all were located in this
building. Space planning would be required to co-locate primary adjacencies for minimum
travel and optimization.”
• Lab spaces can be adapted to be “static and flexible.”
• It was voted as the first or second choice in most of the employee feedback survey.
• “No issues with utilities at tech park.”
• “Tech park is secure and individual WVDA bldg. and parking could be within separate
fenced perimeter to allow additional security.”
• “Existing Tech Park, includes accommodations for supporting the hazardous lab activities
including resources and site strategies to maintain standards for safety, security, air
entrapment, and the material resource allocation.”
• “Less relative construction cost than Guthrie as site is easily accessible and construction
can occur unhampered.”

All these strengths address problems with the current locations of many of the labs
discussed in this report, and the weaknesses identified do not appear to be significant or are already
being addressed by the administration of the Tech Park. The common weaknesses identified
include:

• “Unknown if this is a purchase or lease/rent or lease/purchase”

• “If all co-located, what if facility is compromised (would impact all services).”
• “Being “moth-balled” the building should be thoroughly evaluated to be sure no
mold or other detrimental issues have been allowed to fester.”
• “Potential issues with exterior envelope….”

According to conversations between PERD staff and the Tech Park’s CEO, the buildings
at the Tech Park can either be rented or purchased, if an agency would want to assume ownership.
As for the “moth-ball” issue, all three buildings discussed in this report have been evaluated for
mold, as well as asbestos and lead paint. The buildings are free of mold. Asbestos and lead have
been remediated from buildings 740 and 770 and the Tech Park is in the process of securing
funding to remediate lead paint found in Building 727. According to the CEO, there are plans to
replace the exterior envelope on Building 770. As for the final issue with co-location, this is a real
issue that would need to be addressed in the agencies’ emergency response and business continuity
plans; however, such plans would need to be developed regardless if the labs are in a facility with
another agency or in a stand-alone entity. To overcome this issue, agencies would need to consider
developing back-up sites.

Option 3: Co-Locating State-Owned Laboratories into a Newly Constructed Facility

Option 3, co-locating several labs into a newly constructed facility, would likely be more
expensive than refurbishing existing laboratory space, as in Option 2, but less than the cost of
building separate facilities as presented in Option 1 because of economies of scale. Table 7 shows
the estimated costs of building one facility at $600, $700, and $800 per square foot. Such a facility

34
would need to be more than 282,000 square feet. It is difficult to measure potential economies of
scale that would lower costs below what are shown in Table 8.

Table 8
Option 3
Co-Locating State-Owned Laboratories into One New Facility
Total Reported Facility Cost Facility Cost at Facility Cost
Square Footage Needs at $600 per sq. ft. $700 per sq. ft. at $800 per sq. ft.
282,541 $169,524,600 $197,778,700 $226,032,800

However, an additional advantage of one co-located facility for all the State’s lab programs
is that operational costs would be shared, and sharing expertise would be possible. A tour of the
Kentucky Centralized Laboratory Facility in August 2021 provided PERD with an understanding
of the potential benefits a co-located facility could provide to the State of West Virginia. A
consolidated facility could provide cost savings by streamlining the major building components
that most, if not all, laboratories need to operate. Components such as backup power and
laboratory gases (e.g. hydrogen, nitrogen, and argon) can be centralized and the costs shared
among the agencies. For instance, the building also has a back-up generator in the basement for
the entire facility. Many overhead expenses—including rent, utilities, janitorial services, trash
removal (including biohazard and chemical waste) landscaping, and security—are prorated among
the tenants. Rent is prorated based on the percentage of space each agency has in the building.
The labs also have several gases and liquids piped through mainlines that run from the basement.
These included distilled water, natural gas, steam, air, helium, and hydrogen. The HVAC system
is built so that humidity and temperature can be controlled to each lab’s specific needs through
one centralized system. Having many labs in a single location would be easier to manage than if
they each had separate facilities, as the mechanical and building service needs are similar for all
the tenants.

In addition, one co-located facility allows laboratory agencies to share their expertise and
interact with one another. First-responder issues often involve multiple agencies. Having these agencies
in the same building could be beneficial in a statewide crisis. Interagency communication in general is
easier with agencies sharing the same facility.

An Open Mind Is Needed in Determining Where a Co-located Facility Should

Be Constructed
Kanawha County is a logical place to build a co-located facility because it is where most
of the State’s lab programs are located. This is indicated in Figure 13 below. However, as Figure
13 shows, the State has other locations where labs exist. Several agencies have established satellite
laboratories outside of Kanawha County. The Department of Agriculture has labs for its Animal
Health and READ laboratories in Moorefield in Hardy County. The programs at this laboratory
include animal diseases diagnostic testing, microbiology, water quality, environmental soils,

35
environmental nutrient management, and Grade A Dairy. These programs are in Moorefield to
support the dairy and poultry farms in the eastern panhandle. OLS’s Environmental Chemistry
section also has a lab in the eastern panhandle in Kearneysville. This lab conducts testing of
potable water for the presence of Coliform bacteria.

In addition, population trends in the state show declining population in the central parts of
the state and relatively large growth on the eastern part of the state. PERD inquired with staff of
lab testing agencies concerning what parts of the state are lab testing conducted for. The responses
invariably indicated Kanawha County and other counties in the central parts of the state are where
much of their work comes from.

Nevertheless, the State should acknowledge other parts of the state that have existing lab
facilities in order to optimize the use of the State’s lab resources and expertise. The Medical
Examiner is currently in discussions with West Virginia University Medicine about re-establishing
an autopsy program at the hospital morgue in Morgantown. In years past, the two entities had a
contract for a specified number of autopsies to be performed by WVU Medicine at its morgue in
Morgantown, WV. The agreement ended when the hospital’s forensic pathologist left for another
job. The Medical Examiner and WVU Medicine are currently working out a new agreement to
have a forensic pathologist employed by the Medical Examiner working out of the Morgantown
morgue. The Medical Examiner was reviewing WVU Medicine’s proposal at the time of PERD’s

36
visit. A satellite location in Morgantown would reduce the OCME’s facility needs in Charleston.
The reduction in space needs in Kanawha County could potentially free up space for additional
agencies to move to the Tech Park.

Conclusion
The facilities of West Virginia state-owned laboratories have surpassed their useful lives
in most cases. Laboratories are specialized buildings with technical and mechanical requirements
that make retrofitting non-laboratories buildings difficult. The legislative auditor concludes that
the State is at a critical point in its lab programs, and it is imperative that the concerns raised in
this report be addressed. This report presents three possible approaches in addressing the facility
needs of the State’s lab programs. These approaches are as follows:

(1) Build separate facilities for each laboratory.

(2) Co-locate a combination of the labs at the West Virginia Regional Technology Park in
South Charleston and upgrade and/or construct new facilities for the remaining
programs that cannot be accommodated at the Tech Park.
(3) Build one new co-located laboratory facility for all the agencies to share.

The legislative auditor concludes that the second option is the most logical and prudent
choice. The State owns the property, and it has already invested over $10 million in the Tech Park.
If selected, the Legislature should consider allowing the State Police to proceed with the expansion
and renovation of its forensic laboratory, and construct a new facility for the OCME. Based on
the site visits conducted by PERD, it is the legislative auditor’s opinion that the OCME has the
greatest need of any of the laboratory facilities reviewed. If the third option is selected, the
Legislature should be open to locating such a facility outside of Kanawha County to take advantage
of the State’s lab resources and expertise in other parts of the state. However, it is important to
state that any decision should be based on an architectural study which will provide decision-
makers with precise estimates for the cost, facility spatial, and technical needs. Whatever is
decided, moving the labs will require careful planning and likely coordination between agencies
if they are co-located.

Recommendations:

1. The Legislature should consider contracting with an architectural firm to develop

estimates for the actual needs and cost for each of the options presented in this report.
2. The Legislature should optimize the use of the West Virginia Regional Technology Park if
the state-owned laboratory programs are co-located.

37