Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Courthouse Project topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Boone County board approves courthouse change order after debate over missing jury-room door

Boone County board · July 17, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Boone County board approved Change Order No. 28 for the courthouse project (not-to-exceed $10,863.19) after staff described custom work needed to reinstall a jury deliberation room door and board members pressed for cost breakdowns.

The Boone County board on July 16 approved Change Order No. 28 for the county courthouse project, a not-to-exceed adjustment the board described as covering labor and unforeseen work needed to reinstall a jury deliberation-room door.

Becky, a county staff member who spoke for project administration, told the board the change order covers exploratory and custom labor to fit a door into an older section of the courthouse. "The biggest expense is a door to Courtroom One's jury deliberation room," Becky said, explaining the door had been removed during demolition and that contractors are uncertain how much work the custom installation will require. She described the proposal as a time-and-materials, not-to-exceed price intended to account for unforeseen conditions.

Several board members pressed staff for more detail on costs and responsibility. One board member questioned the $8,042.23 labor figure, saying, "For $8,000 is pretty crazy to me," and asked for an hourly breakdown. Staff acknowledged additional exploration had been done but said final costs could change once contractors proceed. Board members also asked staff to follow up with the architect and contractor about whether the item should have been included in the original bid and whether markup could be reduced because the door had previously existed.

On a roll call vote, the board approved the change order; the motion carried with multiple members voting yes and several voting no. The change order was introduced by Chair and moved by Wiltsie with a second by Schneider. The motion was labeled "not to exceed" to limit financial exposure pending final labor and materials accounting.

Next steps: staff agreed to seek a clearer cost breakdown from the contractor and to consult with the architect about whether the original bid should have included door reinstallation. The board did not rescind the approved not-to-exceed amount but directed staff to pursue additional cost detail and markup discussions with the contractor.