Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Aquatic Center Construction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Carbondale trustees press for clearer reporting after $354,000 aquatic center change order
Summary
Trustees pressed staff and the owner’s representative for clearer, timelier budget reporting and thresholds for large change orders after a $354,000 change order and unclear use of contingency funds were disclosed in an aquatic center construction update.
Trustees questioned the town's owner's representative and staff on March 12 about a $354,000 change order and what trustees described as opaque project reporting for the Carbondale Aquatic Center.
The trustees said the project's monthly owner's-rep report arrived late, lacked a running tally of change orders and contingencies, and contains wording that could be mistaken to mean the board still must find sizable additional funding for FF&E. “If you were a member of the public, you’d read that and say, ‘What? There’s $600,000 we still need to fund?’” Trustee Colin said during the meeting.
Why it matters: trustees have committed municipal funds and previously set a contingency budget. Several trustees said the board needs up‑to‑date, line‑item tracking (change‑orders-to‑date, contingency remaining, balance‑to‑finish) so the town can monitor risk as the project moves into heavy construction.
Details: Trustee Jess said revision packages and comment timelines were unclear and asked why a revision submitted in October did not show expected plan‑review movement until months later. Trustees also asked why value‑engineering credits were being posted to the owner's contingency rather than reducing the overall project budget. Board members pressed for a “balance‑to‑finish” column and a monthly running total of change orders and funding sources.
Trustees and staff discussed one recent change order of roughly $354,000 that several trustees said felt large to appear without prior board discussion. Staff said many of the items in that change order were discussed previously (for example, reuse‑water holding tanks tied to Green Code requirements) but that the dollar amount had not previously been shown. Trustees asked staff to confirm whether the cost is being funded from the owner’s contingency or the construction contingency and to return with documentation.
Other concerns raised included site appearance and storm‑season costs. Trustees said the site looked “dumpy” and urged the contractor and owner’s representative to improve fencing, wind screens and day‑to‑day cleanliness to maintain downtown curb appeal. Trustees also asked for a winter‑conditions line item so the board can track winter expenses separately.
Next steps: Town staff said they and the mayor would follow up with the owner's representative and asked for more timely monthly reports including contingency balances, cumulative change‑order totals, and a clearer “balance to finish.” Trustees asked staff to schedule a focused update — potentially a short meeting or a dedicated agenda item — to review recent change orders and contingency accounting.
Ending: Trustees voted to accept the consent agenda and directed staff to return with the requested report improvements and a check‑in with the owner's representative in coming weeks.
