Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Chambers Parkway topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners approve Chambers Parkway change orders after staff cites unforeseen plan errors and soil issues
Summary
Chambers County commissioners approved two construction change orders for Chambers Parkway after staff said older plan sets and unexpected soil conditions required additional lime fly‑ash stabilization and multiple small fixes; staff said the project should be fully open to traffic within two weeks and final closeout by March.
County commissioners on an unspecified date approved two change orders for the Chambers Parkway construction project after staff reported the work required additional soil stabilization and fixes tied to errors in earlier plan sets.
The court approved Change Order No. 4, authorizing Carter Construction to switch to a lime fly‑ash mix for soil stabilization after field cores showed the existing soil required a higher lime percentage than the original bid called for. Staff said the change increases the lime content from 8% to 10%, which adds roughly 97 tons to that line item. Commissioners asked for clearer budget presentation: one commissioner said an “existing” line item appearing as an added amount made the total confusing, and staff agreed to break out proposed versus existing quantities in future documents. The judge called the motion and the change order passed.
The court next approved Change Order No. 2, a package of smaller fixes—sidewalk tie‑ins across a canal, driveway repairs near Needle Point, ADA sidewalk work and signage—many of which staff attributed to errors in an earlier consultant plan set. County engineering staff said the project team is punch‑listing remaining items, expects the roadway to be fully open to traffic within about two weeks and anticipates a final change order and financial closeout in March. One commissioner cautioned against further unvetted increases to the contract total; staff said they expect a positive, final change order at closeout.
The court recorded the motions and approved both change orders; the transcript records the outcome as “motion carries” but does not include a roll‑call tally in the minutes provided.
Clarifying details available in the transcript: staff cited a $220,285 figure for one adjustment and described the other change order’s amount in the motion text in the packet (the transcript printout shows a garbled numeric string for that amount). The county clerk or records office should be consulted for the formal change‑order documents and exact dollar amounts.
The county called attention to plan‑set quality and documentation: commissioners asked staff to separate existing line items from increases in proposed amounts so future change orders are clearer for review.
