Marlboro County Council rejects change order to cover extra aquatic‑center costs

The Marlboro County Council on Tuesday declined to approve Change Order G702, a request to reallocate about $171,852 in 2025 GEO bond proceeds to cover added construction costs at the Marlboro County Aquatic Center.

Jamal Campbell, the project manager, and a county staff member had presented a pay application dated May 11, 2026 from FBI Construction, Inc., and said a change order request totaling $171,852.14 had been submitted and certified by CPL Architects and Engineers. Council members said they were not informed earlier that the change order had been in process and pressed staff on why the county might be responsible for costs arising while the project experienced a city stop‑work order.

The exchange centered on who bore responsibility for work done before permitting and for revisions the city required after state approval. One council member criticized the communication and oversight, saying, “When we signed the contract for me, I thought we were getting apples. And so now I'm hearing we're not getting. We're getting lemons,” and calling the lapse “a real lapse of competency.” Another council member said the city’s requirement to reroute drainage and other changes forced the engineers to redo drawings and remobilize crews, producing additional expense.

Campbell said the contractor has completed major concrete work: “The pool is completely poured … all of the infrastructure is in place,” and added that equipment such as a future pool heater was left as infrastructure to be added in a later phase. He said the project remains on track to see framing begin soon, weather permitting. Staff members told council they were exploring lower‑cost slide options after the originally proposed slide — which they said had been priced at about $210,000 — was determined to be unaffordable within current funding.

Council members pressed whether contingency funds in the contract should cover the overrun, noting the original contract sum was presented in paperwork at roughly $2,708,465 and that project budget materials had said $3,075,000 for the whole project. Staff said they had attempted to negotiate reductions and to draw on contingency but that the finalized change‑order figure remained. Occupancy for the pool was reported as 200, and staff said they are soliciting management proposals to scope ongoing operational costs such as lifeguards.

After discussion, a council member moved to approve the change order and payments and to obtain a copy of the current contract. The motion was seconded, put to a voice/hand‑raise vote and the chair announced the motion had failed. The meeting then moved to adjournment.

The council did not record a roll‑call tally in the minutes provided; the change order remains unapproved and council members said they want clearer documentation and earlier notifications about contract changes and cost exposures going forward.