Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Roads topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves two change orders for county road rehabilitation after staff briefing
Summary
The San Benito County Board of Supervisors approved two change orders for an ongoing road‑rehabilitation contract after staff explained the revisions were driven by plan changes and sequencing; a public commenter urged greater transparency about why other contract items were rejected.
The San Benito County Board of Supervisors on the meeting record authorized staff to proceed with two change orders for an existing road‑rehabilitation contract after a staff presentation on design revisions and construction timing.
County Public Works representative (self‑identified as "works Minister") said the UN Road Rehabilitation Project was originally awarded at $3,151,457 and that change order #2 (approximately $114,852) and change order #3 (approximately $21,456) reflect plan revisions, underground work and adjustments to accommodate the construction season. Staff told the board that the advertised contract included a pre‑contingency allocation of about $170,000 and that approving the listed change orders would not require adding money beyond the established contingency, though the project’s maximum potential could approach $3.4 million if contingencies were fully used.
A public commenter raised concern about transparency, asking "Why it's being rejected and being changed" and urging the board to make supporting documents available before giving the county CEO signatory authority. The commenter said historic interactions between the CEO and the contractor merited clear public disclosure and asked "You must be transparent." (public commenter).
Board members and staff discussed the plans, contingency accounting and coordination with utility work, including active broadband (Spectrum) crews that could affect newly paved sections. Public Works confirmed some utility work is directional and minimally invasive but emphasized the need to coordinate timing so road repairs are not compromised.
After the discussion, a motion was made to reject change order #1 and to approve change orders #2 and #3. The motion passed on roll call; the transcript records the vote as 5‑0. The board directed staff and the county executive officer to implement the approved change orders and complete required contract and budget amendments.
The board’s action resolves the immediate requests for the road project; staff said construction sequencing was planned to begin preliminary work in March and that they would continue to coordinate scheduling with utility providers and contractors.
