MADISON COUNTY — Madison County board members on Monday approved the bulk of change requests tied to the courthouse renovation but stopped short of ordering a condenser relocation that would require drilling into historic limestone.

After roll call and a brief public comment noting a $25,000 disbursement from an HRDP grant, the board considered a proposal from contractor Excel to relocate a second-floor condensing unit. Staff described several earlier options, including a later full HVAC overhaul and a smaller, immediate move. Relocation was estimated at roughly $12,000 and would still require holes; members worried additional fasteners would damage the courthouse’s roughly 150-year-old limestone.

"We should be getting good workmanship right out of the gate," said Heather, a board member, criticizing the prospect of paying to fix damage the renovation itself created. Several members favored leaving the pipe as-is and using a cosmetic cover or paint rather than drilling new anchor holes in stone that cannot be replaced.

Contractor and staff presentations framed the trade-offs: moving the unit now could simplify future HVAC work if carefully integrated, while leaving it in place would avoid immediate masonry damage but require temporary visual mitigations. The board directed staff to pursue noninvasive concealment and to include condenser and third-floor heating issues in a potential larger phase-two project, rather than authorize the $12,000 relocation now.

The meeting’s principal action items centered on formal change requests and the updated punch list. Staff presented an updated punch list: 23 substantial-completion items had been closed, and 31 remained open, many tied to the south doors and sheet metal work. Staff also described credits and items that would reduce the county’s costs, including a roughly $47,000 offset described as credits for door sealing and landscaping adjustments.

The board voted, by voice, to approve the change requests xcept for two items identified as G (a reveal/reinstallation issue) and J (a package that includes G). The board then separately approved change order J after further discussion and agreed to sign documents on-site; staff said the paperwork would be finalized during the planned walkaround. The motions passed by voice vote with "aye" recorded and no roll-call tallies provided in the meeting record.

Beyond the condenser and formal approvals, members raised multiple finish and quality concerns during an extended walk-through portion of the meeting. Topics included:

- Doors and thresholds: The board flagged a threshold installed in natural aluminum that did not match the specified dark bronze; staff said a dark-bronze replacement had been expedited and would arrive in seven to 10 days. Several door refinishing issues were discussed, including how hardware had been removed for off-site refinishing and whether all doors had been treated consistently.

- Glazing compound and possible asbestos: Staff identified glazing compound in interior windows that may contain asbestos and agreed to have Mitch obtain samples for testing before any reglazing or abatement work proceeds. Staff cautioned that if asbestos is present, abatement would be required and would affect scope and cost.

- Wood finish and knot selection: Board members debated whether to require replacement of panels where large knots and putty were visible. One member urged rejecting what she called "poor workmanship," while others urged moving forward to avoid delaying project completion.

- Stone staining and concrete: The group examined mortar staining around a relocated element and discussed whether further removal would worsen the appearance. Staff said cleaning had been aggressive and that some staining may be permanent; the board weighed accepting the work now with warranty recourse versus further demolition that could damage historic materials. On a related point, staff noted ADA guidance on vertical changes and said they would monitor possible trip hazards as the site settles under its two-year warranty.

- Site housekeeping: A board member described brand-new carpet left dirty by workers; staff and site supervisors agreed to deep-clean and re-evaluate.

The board kept the meeting technically in session while proceeding to a coordinated on-site walkaround to inspect the highlighted items and sign paperwork. Staff said many remaining punch-list items were not performance-related and could be accepted or scheduled for correction under warranty; five specific items were identified for immediate attention during the walk-through.

What happens next: Staff will (1) obtain glazing samples for laboratory testing, (2) accept expedited bronze threshold delivery and install it once received, (3) pursue cosmetic options for the exposed piping rather than immediate relocation, and (4) complete the on-site walkthrough to finalize signoffs and remaining change-order signatures. Any required abatement, rework or warranty-driven corrections will be scheduled and tracked by county staff.

Votes at a glance: The board approved the meeting agenda by voice vote; approved the package of change requests with exceptions (motion carried); and later approved change order J and signed remaining paperwork on-site. Specific vote tallies were recorded as "aye" for each carried motion in the meeting record.