Commissioners debate $30,000 annex painting change order; consult attorney and table decision
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The court heard extended discussion about unapproved work on annex painting and texturing, including conflicting walkthroughs and multiple change orders. Commissioners entered executive session for legal advice and returned to take no action and table the item pending counsel review.
A contentious change order for annex painting and texturing that added work not clearly covered in the original bid dominated discussion at Hutchinson County’s meeting. Commissioners and staff debated whether the county must pay contractors for roughly $30,000 in additional painting and texturing work after apparent misunderstandings during the bid and walkthrough process.
The discussion focused on three issues: whether the extra work was authorized before it was done, which contract(s) the additional charges should be applied to, and whether the county’s legal authority allows paying change orders that exceed statutory limits. County staff described numerous added rooms, doors and hallway work that they said were not included in the base painting bid, and one speaker said some work was done without prior approval. Speakers repeatedly referenced procurement limits in state law.
Commissioners referenced Local Government Code 262 (procurement rules) and asked whether a recent state bill (referred to in the transcript as House Bill 3,485) affected the county’s authority to approve large change orders; meeting discussion identified a 25% cap on contract-price increases under some circumstances and a separate $50,000 administrative authority threshold for change orders. Participants cited an original painting/texturing bid figure mentioned in the discussion (the phrase “30 or 31” thousand dollars was used by meeting speakers in relation to the painting/texturing scope) and an original project/bid amount near $75,100 for related work, but the transcript contains conflicting references and the larger procurement record was not presented aloud at the meeting.
Because the legal questions about authorization and allowable change-order amounts were unresolved, the court voted to enter executive session to consult with the county attorney. After returning to open session, members moved that no immediate action be taken and that the matter be tabled pending legal review and clarification of contract documents.
Ending: Commissioners instructed staff to locate and present the original contracts, bid documents and walkthrough records for legal review before bringing the change-order payment question back to the court.