Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Projects Summit Building topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board members say Summit Building budget excludes furniture, request full contracts and project reports
Summary
Trustees raised concerns that the $6.3 million Summit Building allocation covers only erection of the structure and does not include furniture, technology or software; trustees requested copies of contracts, project-manager reports and a breakdown of change orders before approving further payments.
The McComb School District Board of Trustees discussed lingering documentation and scope questions for the Summit Building project, including whether the $6,300,000 allocation includes furniture, technology and other non‑construction costs.
Board member Dr. Hicks told colleagues the budget “is strictly for the erection of the project” and that the original amount “did not include equipment,” and she asked that the board receive the full contract packet so trustees who were not on the board when the project began can review the scope and line‑item breakdown.
The request came during discussion of outstanding change orders, contract monitoring and vendor payment requests. Board members said they have not consistently received project monitoring reports and monthly portfolios from the project manager and that some work‑verifications (for example, fencing and windows) need clearer documentation. “If we approve something and it ain’t complete … you paid me for them,” a trustee said, arguing the board needs regular, project‑level paperwork before approving additional payments.
District staff and trustees named Jeff Crabtree as the project manager for HVAC and window change orders and Preston McKay as the architect representing the Summit project. Trustees asked staff to obtain and circulate all contracts and associated documents; one trustee said she will meet with Dr. Hicks and the staff member Mr. Brown to assemble the packet and, if necessary, include explanatory notes in an email to the full board.
Trustees also pressed for a regular monitoring portfolio from the project manager that would document start and signoff dates, rain delays and other schedule adjustments. Board members said the portfolio should be kept on file in finance for auditors and used as the basis for payment approvals.
No formal motion or vote on the Summit Project was recorded in the transcript. The board agreed to follow up in open session and requested that staff return with the full contract documents and any needed explanations.
The board directed staff to provide the requested documents and to include the project‑manager monitoring reports in the district files and future board communications. Trustees also discussed revising district policies to ensure future projects include clear budgeting for architect/engineer fees and change‑order allocations.
Looking ahead, trustees said they will review the materials before the next scheduled payment or budget amendment so the board can make informed decisions and avoid recurring audit flags tied to project accounting.
