Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Works Construction Change Order topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission OKs $19,003 change order after resident questions new sidewalk work on Tenth Street
Summary
The Port St. Joe City Commission approved Change Order No. 3 for a street-and-sidewalk project that includes raising inlets and reconstructing sidewalk on Tenth Street; a resident questioned why recently poured sidewalk must be removed and who is responsible for the extra cost.
The Port St. Joe City Commission on May 17 approved Change Order No. 3 for a street-and-sidewalk construction package that staff said is covered by existing grant funds.
The change order, described in the agenda as covering “raise inlets, reconstruct Kens Creek sidewalk” and other quantity adjustments, was cited by staff as costing $19,003.87 and included in the existing grant; commissioners voted to approve the change order after discussion and public comment.
City Engineer Josh Baxley reported the change order is not additional local funding and “it's all inside the grant.” He told the commission staff will reconcile quantities and the contract will be calculated at the end of the year.
Resident Robert Bridal and other commenters objected to replacing a length of sidewalk they said had been poured months earlier. Bridal asked who designed the sidewalk and who will be responsible for the rework. During public comment, Bridal and others raised the following points: that a 60-foot concrete section had been poured and now must be removed; that the roadway elevation changed where a large pipe was installed; and that the design engineer for the project had been Dewberry (transcript references also included Dunbar). Bridal urged commissioners to inspect the work before approving expenditure.
Baxley and other staff members explained the roadway elevation was raised during construction and that raising the roadway required matching the sidewalk to the new grade. Staff said the roadway elevation change — and utility work including a large pipe crossing — produced the unforeseen quantities addressed in the change order.
Commissioners heard questions about whether the engineer or contractor should be held accountable; several residents urged the city to require better protection of waterways during construction and to inspect contractor practices. Staff said turbidity and other environmental monitoring had been handled as part of prior work and that the change order itself is for work necessary to bring the project to grade.
Action: the commission approved the change order as presented. The recorded mover was not specified in the published discussion; a second was made and the motion carried. The agenda summary and staff comments state the amount will be reconciled against the grant and paid from grant funds; the commission did not adopt any finding that the engineer or contractor is financially liable.
Officials said they will continue to monitor construction practices at the site and that quantities will be finalized when the contractor submits final measurements.
The change order and related construction remain subject to grant reimbursement procedures and final contract reconciliation.
