Woods County tables action on senior center change order amid questions over funding and ARPA eligibility

At a Feb. 20, 2025 meeting, the Woods County Board of Commissioners tabled action on Change Order No. 2 for the Woods County Senior Citizens Project after questions about how an Industrial Authority contribution should be handled and whether American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds can be used.

The board postponed a vote to allow staff and legal counsel to clarify whether the Industrial Authority should pay the contractor directly, whether the county may pay and be reimbursed, or whether another contractual arrangement is required. The change order as described would add roughly 550 square feet to the facility and modify bathrooms and other finishes; the county was told the Industrial Authority has committed around $100,000 and the change order totals about $88,000.

During the discussion, a county staff member identified as Roy summarized the funding development and said the Industrial Authority had approved about $100,000 and the project needed roughly $88,000 “to put into the project right now.” Roy also said the authority could either pay items directly on-site or execute a side agreement with the contractor. The board and staff repeatedly raised uncertainty about whether ARPA funds may be used and agreed to consult legal counsel before taking final action.

Commissioners and staff also discussed contract administration options: routing the Industrial Authority payment through a side contract with the contractor, applying the funds as a change order to the existing contract with Ellis Construction, or preparing a separate agreement that preserves clear accounting. A county staff speaker noted the distinction matters if the work described falls inside the current contractor’s scope versus outside it, because that affects how the county must document and authorize the work.

Separately, staff reported additional state funding for one earlier change order that would remove a hood and grease-flow item from the county contract, reducing the county’s net obligations. Staff told the board that the net effect of state and other adjustments would return some funds to the county’s project balance and that the county would get reimbursement or credit as those items are finalized.

The board also reviewed testing and site-preparation costs. Staff reported three bids for geotechnical borings and compaction testing; the lowest quoted borings cost $4,500, while other quotes reached $6,500–$6,800. Staff recommended proceeding with the selected firm and said the charge could be paid directly by the county or run through the contractor as part of a change order. Commissioners discussed whether the city or contractor could perform compaction testing; staff said they would follow up.

Outcome: The board voted to table the change order until the next meeting so the county can get legal guidance about ARPA use and the preferred accounting approach for the Industrial Authority contribution. Staff said they expect to return with answers and documentation by the next meeting so the project can proceed without delay.

Next steps: The board will revisit Change Order No. 2 at its next scheduled meeting after receiving counsel’s guidance on ARPA restrictions and a recommended contract/payment route. Staff also will provide invoices and documentation for the proposed geotechnical testing and any revised change-order language if needed.