Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Spencer County debates $195,500 change order for market project; moves to executive session over property and litigation
Summary
Fiscal Court reviewed a proposed $195,500 change order from Elder Construction for site stabilization at the Parilan & Furner's Market project, debated terminating or renegotiating the contract, and voted to enter executive session to discuss property acquisition and pending or proposed litigation.
Spencer County Fiscal Court spent significant meeting time Oct. 6 debating a $195,500 change order from Elder Construction to perform site stabilization across roughly 100,000 square feet for the Parilan & Furner’s Market project. The court ultimately voted to go into executive session to discuss acquisition and litigation matters.
The change order presented by the contractor proposed stabilizing subgrade to a 16-inch depth under areas to receive pavement and building pad work at a unit price of $1.70 per square foot, adding $195,500 to the original $2.5 million contract (producing a new contract sum the paperwork lists at $2,695,500). Judge Executive Scott Travis described several alternate stabilization options and said the narrower $195,500 approach was a lower-cost alternative to an earlier $625,000 estimate he reviewed with the contractor.
Magistrates expressed differing views. Magistrate Eldridge urged following geotechnical recommendations and said the lower alternative was consistent with engineering advice; Magistrate Stump said he lacked confidence in Elder Construction’s preparedness and moved to terminate the contract and seek different proposals. That motion was made but not voted on. Court members discussed potential legal exposure and cost implications if the county paused or restructured the contract.
After extended debate the court voted to move into executive session under KRS 61.810(b) (deliberations on the future acquisition of real property by a public agency) and KRS 61.810(c) (discussions of proposed or pending litigation against or on behalf of the public agency) at 11:17 a.m. County Attorney Corey Thomas took over minute transcription after that point.
Why it matters: The change-order debate concerns a major capital project funded by public borrowing and could alter county costs by hundreds of thousands of dollars. The decision to seek legal counsel in closed session signals potential disputes or negotiations that could affect project scope and taxpayer exposure.
Next steps: The court entered executive session for legal and property deliberations; public action or votes on the change order were deferred pending those closed discussions.
