Columbia County approves two project change orders, including Bell Tower documentation and lighting cost

Columbia County approved two project change orders during a Jan. 15 work session, including a $0 PCO to document the use of allowances and contingency for Bell Tower work and a second PCO that adds roughly $4,000 to cover additional safety lighting and delay-related costs. A staff member described the items before the board voted to authorize the chair to sign both change orders.

A staff member said, "Number 10 is for the work that's on Bell Tower. It's a $0 PCO, and it just documents the use of allowances and contingency for that part of the project." The same staff member told members that subs' bids came in higher than expected, so the contractor put the work into allowances and is billing monthly rather than by material.

The staff member also said delays caused by court-ordered shutdowns during court hours were not foreseeable when the contractor prepared its proposal, and additional contingency was added to cover those hours. The staff member added that a redesign of a stairway requires several additional safety lights and that "that adds 4,000 on the contract."

Board member moved to approve PCO 10 and to authorize the chair to sign. The chair called the vote and said, "All votes in favor," and members responded "Aye." The same board member later moved to approve PCO 35 and to authorize the chair to sign; the motion was seconded, the chair called the vote, and members responded "Aye."

The board also moved into an executive session announced under statute 192.6602 to discuss real property negotiations, records exempt from public inspection, and to consult with counsel about litigation. The board returned to open session and announced no actions were taken in executive session.

Discussion vs. decision: staff discussion explained the rationale for using allowances and contingency rather than contractor line-item bids, and identified court-related delays and required safety lighting as drivers of additional contract cost. The formal board actions were motions to approve PCO 10 and PCO 35 and authorization for the chair to sign the documents; both motions were approved by voice vote. No additional directions to staff or amendments to the change orders were recorded in the transcript.

Clarifying details recorded in the meeting included the staff member's statement that PCO 10 is a $0 documentation change order, that safety lighting for a redesigned stairway "adds 4,000 on the contract," and an additional, briefly stated figure of "$4,810 and 600" that was not explained in the transcript. The transcript does not provide a line-item breakdown, the final contract total, or a precise vote tally by name.