Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Contracts And Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public criticizes BOT agreement; commissioner dissent over missing exhibits and project costs
Summary
Residents and at least one commissioner raised concerns about a build-operate-transfer agreement and missing contract exhibits, contested scope and cost increases on the highway project, and whether the agreement was signed without required documentation.
Public commenters and one county commissioner pressed the county over the handling of a BOT (build-operate-transfer) agreement tied to a highway/highway complex project.
Lucy Brenton, speaking during public comment, said Commissioner Marshall signed the BOT agreement "without Exhibits A, C, D and F," and asked why the developer’s scoping and pricing did not match the agreement on record. Brenton listed specific discrepancies she wants answered: scoping called for 8.5 acres while the recorded agreement references 7.5 acres; county-supplied stone was priced at $24,935 in scoping but appears as $45,000 in the GMP report; a wall specified at three feet was built at roughly one foot; and truck-lean-to framing changed from 2"x6" at 16" O.C. to a different configuration. Brenton said the absent exhibits left the county effectively providing "a blank check for the developer."
Commissioner Tony Cardwell repeatedly objected to late additions and to approving delinquent documents: meeting records and a site-assessment attached to the record show Cardwell voted against adding the missing documents and raised concerns in meeting recordings and email. Commissioners Ewen and Marshall voted to accept the added documents during the Jan. 20 and Jan. 20–Feb. 3 meetings; Cardwell opposed the acceptance.
Attorney April Geltmaker advised commissioners during the public meeting that change orders are acceptable under the BOT agreement, a point raised when commissioners voted to correct the signing date and to add missing exhibits and signatures to the agreement. The dispute centers on whether required exhibits were present at execution and whether later additions and the GMP report altered contractual responsibilities or county costs.
The county has not rescinded the BOT agreement; commissioners approved corrections and additions to the contract during a public meeting, with Commissioner Cardwell recorded as the dissenting vote. Public requests and a separate site-assessment report attached to the record seek additional verification of scope, pricing and permit compliance.
