Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Capital Projects topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commissioners split over EMS building change orders; two items added to afternoon agenda

2384416 · January 29, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Frank Burrow, chief of EMS, and Deputy Chief Matt Gamblin presented several change orders for the new EMS building — including electrical, flooring, concrete winterization and framing costs — and commissioners agreed to add two items to the afternoon agenda while deferring two for further review.

Frank Burrow, chief of EMS, and Deputy Chief Matt Gamblin presented several change-order requests related to the county’s new EMS facility and asked the commission to consider them at the afternoon meeting.

Burrow said the grinder pump selected for the site requires a larger electrical service, and the upgrade is quoted at $3,645. He also reported a subcontractor quote for epoxy flooring at $4,550 that rose to $5,253 after the general contractor added bonding, builder’s‑risk and other project insurance charges. County staff also presented a $6,185 change order for winter admixture and hot water added to some concrete pours to aid curing during cold weather; several commissioners questioned whether that should have been foreseen in the original bid. Finally, a framing change order (roughly $3,443) was submitted to provide the required separation between the living quarters and equipment bay; staff said without the change the wall would not meet code and interior work could be held up.

Commissioners debated appropriate responsibility for these costs. One commissioner said contractors bidding projects should anticipate seasonal protections and bid accordingly; another cautioned that denying the framing change could stop interior work and potentially increase overall project cost if subcontractors must be re‑scheduled. Several commissioners also criticized contractor “overhead and profit” additions in change‑order calculations and asked staff to negotiate where appropriate.

After discussion, the commission directed staff to add two of the change‑order items to the afternoon action agenda for consideration: the lift‑station amperage upgrade (electrical) and the epoxy‑flooring change order. The winter‑mix/hot‑water concrete charge and the framing/fire‑separation change order were not added to the afternoon agenda pending additional review and discussions with the architect and contractor. County staff said they would engage the architect and on‑site project manager to determine whether the contested items were bid omissions or legitimate unforeseen conditions and to assess schedule impacts before the commission takes final action.

Why it matters: Change orders affect the project budget and schedule for a public safety facility; commissioners balanced the county’s interest in controlling costs against the risk that denying a change order could delay construction and increase total expense.