Litchfield Campground Expansion Over Budget as Council Adds $10,033

Article Summary: The Litchfield City Council voted 7-0 on Sept. 3 to authorize a $10,033 change order with Stutz Excavating, Inc. for additional plumbing work on the Lake Lou Yaeger Campground Expansion project. During the discussion, City Administrator Breann Vazquez told the council the project — in planning since 2021 — is over budget and will exceed both the $300,000 in state funding and the $300,000 the city set aside as matching funds.

Lake Lou Yaeger Campground Expansion Key Points:

The council unanimously authorized a change order not to exceed $10,033 with Stutz Excavating, Inc. of Alton for isolation valves, boiler bibs and other plumbing work at the campground shower house and campsites.

City Administrator Breann Vazquez said the project has $300,000 in state funding and $300,000 in budgeted city match money, and that total costs will exceed those figures.

Vazquez said the project has been in planning for more than five years and has seen staff turnover at both the city and the engineering firm, and that ADA standards have risen significantly since 2023.

One more change order is expected at the next meeting to reconcile items caught during a page-by-page plan review conducted the day of the meeting.

LITCHFIELD — The Litchfield City Council on Thursday, Sept. 3, 2026, unanimously authorized a change order with Stutz Excavating, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $10,033 on the Lake Lou Yaeger Campground Expansion project, after city staff told the council the long-delayed project will finish over budget and that at least one more change order is on the way.

Alderperson Robbin Huffman made the motion, seconded by Alderperson Joshua Hughes. The roll call was 7-0, with Alderpersons Robert Garcia, Bert Holloway, Chris Dexheimer, Dwayne Gerl, Sara Zumwalt, Huffman and Hughes voting aye. Alderperson Marilyn Sisson was absent from the meeting.

What the Change Order Buys

A proposal from Stutz Excavating dated Aug. 28, 2026, included in the agenda packet, breaks the work into five priced items: $690 to provide and install flush-valve water closets in place of tank-type fixtures; $176 for an additional boiler bib inside the shower house for cleaning; $476 for an additional exterior water shut-off for shower house winterization; $7,140 for shut-off valves on the 4-inch water main to isolate camp sites, priced at $1,785 per shut-off for four shut-offs; and $1,551 to provide and install grab bars and an ADA shower seat in the showers, which the proposal says are needed because ADA shower surrounds are being removed by others.

The city’s own agenda memo describes a narrower scope. It says Stutz Excavating is preparing the shower house and campsite waterline installation phase of the project, and that during the preconstruction meeting on that phase it was determined that the original design did not include a means of isolating waterline breaks within the campground without shutting down water service to the entire facility. The memo adds that the design did not provide for boiler bibs on the interior and exterior of the shower house, which it describes as necessary for routine cleaning and maintenance operations. The memo states the change order will add the required isolation valves and boiler bibs, “improving the campground’s operational efficiency, maintenance capabilities, and minimizing service disruptions in the event of future waterline repairs.” Project funds are available, according to the memo.

The Stutz proposal also carries a list of clarifications stating the contractor is not responsible for unforeseen conditions, permits and fees, unmarked underground utilities, existing piping or engineered drawings, and that additional charges will apply if a hot tap cannot be made on the existing main.

A Project Five Years in Planning

Asked during discussion to fill the council in on the project’s history, Vazquez said the work predated her tenure with the city.

“This project started in 2021, 2022,” she said, noting that Lake Supervisor Heather Bell, seated in the audience, was indicating 2021. “So this project has been in planning phases for over five years. Obviously, plans change, costs increase when you’re in the planning phase for that long. There’s also been a lot of staff turnover during that time period with both the city and the engineering firm.”

Vazquez said Public Works Director Dominick Mazza had met with the project’s lead engineer the day of the meeting, and that the two spent roughly two hours going through the plans page by page so Mazza could identify changes the city can reasonably foresee. She said the council will likely see one more change order at the next meeting to reconcile anything caught during that review, and that change orders after that would be limited to conditions no one could reasonably predict.

Asked whether the budget was a concern, Vazquez said the project is over budget. “We have $300,000 in state funding. The city budgeted $300,000 in match funds. We are going to go over that,” she said, adding that this particular change order does not have a significant impact on that picture.

Vazquez also pointed to changing accessibility rules as a cost driver, saying statewide ADA requirements for the project have increased significantly since 2023 and that those requirements add cost when a grant is accepted but the project is not ready to be executed. Asked whether the delays were intentional or the result of successive problems, Vazquez said she did not know, and that due diligence on all sides probably could have been done better from the beginning. She said the bidding process took longer than expected and that the city had struggled with the decision of whether to accept the grant.

Members of the council treated the project as a cautionary example, saying the city has to pick and choose grants carefully because match funding carries its own cost, and that the city must be ready to execute a project before accepting an award. Several also said the finished campground will be an asset, noting it is routinely full.

The city’s record of the meeting does not include a total project cost, a revised budget figure, the name of the engineering firm, or the name of the state grant program supplying the $300,000.