Weber County Commission reviews CJC change orders; delays approval of major time‑extension charge

Weber County commissioners discussed proposed change orders 4 and 5 for the Criminal Justice Center (CJC) project during a work session, agreeing to bundle several minor items into change order 4 while postponing final approval of change order 5 until staff provides more detailed cost backup and a potential credit if electrical equipment is delivered early.

Scott Brinkman, the county’s new director, presented the proposed change orders and walked commissioners through the line items. He said change order 4 contains four work-change items (WCs) that staff plans to present later for formal approval; the items include replacing the galvanized chain‑link fence along the project’s west side with a black vinyl‑coated fence, adding a short gutter and heat‑tape electrical connection ($661), installing locks on fire‑department connections at the fire marshal’s request, and additional street‑striping work related to Jackson Avenue improvements.

The fence item was described by staff as roughly in the mid‑four‑figure range; one commissioner voiced discomfort with the cost but ultimately agreed the fence and the other minor items could be included in change order 4. Brinkman told the commission the gutter/heat‑tape item and the fire‑department‑connection (FDC) locks were standard, safety‑related additions, and that some striping work was needed because the improved lane alignment required demo and re‑striping to tie into the city’s existing lines on Jackson Avenue.

Change order 5 also contains four WCs. The largest, WC‑22, is a request for a time‑extension payment to the general contractor to cover additional on‑site general‑condition costs and staffing while the project waits for permanent electrical equipment delivery from Rocky Mountain Power. Brinkman said the delayed delivery forced the county to keep the contractor on site longer and to use temporary power during the delay. He estimated the contractor would need an additional roughly 90 days on site and staff presented a time‑extension line item of $39,090 tied to that extension.

Commissioner Jim Harvey questioned why the county would reimburse a contractor for added time when delivery delays were caused by the utility, and pressed staff for a detailed breakdown of the $39,090 and other general‑condition costs. Harvey asked whether the contractor would issue a credit if the electrical equipment arrived sooner, and said, "I'm not buying it" in reference to some billed on‑site management charges. Commissioners asked staff to provide substantiation for the line items and to show a mechanism (a deductive change order) to credit the county if the equipment arrives earlier than the extended schedule anticipates.

Brinkman said staff could split the package if commissioners preferred: present change order 4 now (including the fence and the three smaller WCs) and return later with additional backup on WC‑22 and the remainder of change order 5. Commissioners signaled comfort with moving forward on the three smaller WCs and asked staff to return with the requested breakdown and documentation for the time‑extension request before approving WC‑22.

Procedural actions recorded in the work session included approval of the minutes from the December 16, 2024 commission work session, a motion to go into and later exit a closed session to discuss real property matters, and a motion to adjourn at the end of the meeting. Staff said the project remains under budget by staff estimates shown in the spreadsheet presented at the meeting; Brinkman noted additional furniture expenditures and additional funds brought into the project by staff, and said staff would reconcile those figures and return with an updated accounting for the commission.

The commission requested that staff: - Provide a detailed cost breakdown for the WC‑22 time‑extension charge, including unit costs and which positions or general‑condition items are being billed as part of the $39,090 figure. - Show a contract or change‑order mechanism that would allow a deductive credit if electrical equipment is delivered earlier than the extended schedule. - Return with an updated project budget that accounts for recent furniture expenditures and the additional funds brought into the project.

Following those requests, commissioners authorized staff to include the fence and the three smaller WCs in change order 4 for formal presentation at an upcoming meeting, and to defer final action on the WC‑22 time extension in change order 5 until requested documentation is available.

Votes at a glance: the commission approved the meeting minutes and carried routine procedural motions (motion to enter and exit closed session; motion to adjourn). No formal vote on change order 5 was recorded at the work session; staff was directed to return with more detail before the commission votes.

Ending: Staff will return to the commission with detailed backup for the WC‑22 time‑extension request and an updated accounting of remaining project funds before the commission considers final approval of change order 5.