Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Project Defense And Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer Ken Temple defends BOT project, says extra costs and reimbursements were documented
Summary
At a joint meeting, Ken Temple described the highway garage BOT project’s evolution, defended change orders and quality upgrades, and offered full documentation while council members cited State Board of Accounts findings and raised procedural concerns about bidding and payments.
Ken Temple, the project representative, spent the meeting recounting the history and justifications for the highway garage BOT project and responding to questions about costs and contracts.
He told council members and commissioners that the original concept started near $6 million but the project’s scope was reduced to a roughly $4.8 million base and that a series of change-of-scope items and unforeseen conditions (rock in footers, utility extensions, generator additions) increased costs. Temple said he advanced funds at times to keep the job moving and was reimbursed, offered to provide “every single document” to the council and invited officials to inspect the facility.
Temple framed the BOT approach as a response to poor outcomes under lowest-bid contracting: “They got tired of low-bid construction. They got tired of everybody trying to cut corners,” he said, adding that the goal was a longer-lived, higher-quality facility. He said items such as the standing-seam roof, increased rebar, and a stud-built office were deliberate upgrades intended to extend longevity.
Council members and commissioners pressed him on specific items: why the project’s early drawings included a pole-barn concept; who authorized change orders for stone and gravel; and why the HVAC and other expenditures appeared in State Board of Accounts materials. A council member read the audit language that the county made a $181,486 payment to Temple for stone that “was not included in the agreement” and that the vendor-supplied stone without a contract appeared to be noncompliant with the competitive-bidding requirements of Indiana law. Temple replied that the situation represented a change of scope within the BOT framework and that the parties had agreed the change was fair.
Several council members acknowledged procedural lapses: some appropriations and resolutions were not handled in the same public sequence the audit expected, and council representation on the BOT oversight group had lapsed when two council designees were not replaced. Others said the practical pressures of construction—subcontractors needing payment or leaving for other jobs—contributed to choices made in the field.
No final findings were issued at the meeting. Temple repeatedly offered documentation: “I can give you a copy, I have them,” he said, and invited site visits. The meeting closed with a council vote approving funds for an independent audit and inspection to establish exact costs, inspect the facility, and determine whether procedures and procurement obligations were followed.
