Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Dispute topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves 50% payment on disputed track repair change order amid split vote; administration cites 'good-faith' move to restore usable track
Summary
After engineers and contractors disagreed on causes of settlement, the board voted 5–3 to release half of a change-order payment for track repairs while investigations continue; administration said the payment was a solicitor-recommended good-faith step to restore the facility for use.
The Shippensburg Area School District board voted 5–3 on Aug. 11 to release 50% of a disputed change order to repair settlement in the new high-school track while engineers and contractors continue to analyze the cause and scope of the problem.
Superintendent Mr. August told the board that geological testing had not identified an unexpected mass of organic material beneath parts of the track and that settlement of a few inches had occurred after installation. The district's geotechnical consultant and the design team provided analyses that are under review; the general contractor and designer each maintain elements of responsibility could rest with the other party.
The change order under consideration is for repairs associated with the track settlement; administration said the attachment to the agenda listed a total change order of $22,522 and recommended releasing $11,261 (50%) as a good-faith payment so repairs can move forward while parties pursue further analysis and documentation. The superintendent told the board, "At the end of the day, we're owed a track that works." (Superintendent Mr. August)
Board members engaged in extended discussion. Some members urged caution about paying when responsibility was unresolved and expressed concern about the extent of the punch list; others said withholding payment could stall further corrective work and delay the district's use of the track.
The roll-call vote was: Dr. Michael Lyman, yes; Mr. Fred Scott, no; Mr. Jim Bard, no; Mr. Mike Carey, yes; Mr. Levi Kressler, yes; Dr. Nathan Goetz, yes; Mr. Darren Donovan, yes; Ms. Steph Eberle, no. The motion passed 5–3.
Administrators said the district will continue to seek documentation from the design firm and Kleinfelder (the geotechnical consultant) and that paying 50% is not an admission of ultimate responsibility; legal counsel had advised it would be a way to move repairs forward while reserving other remedies.
The board instructed administration to keep pressure on contractors to complete the broader punch list and to pursue recovery of district funds if later reviews indicate the contractor was responsible for the defect. The item was the most contested financial action at the meeting and prompted questions about warranty coverage, testing scope and the timetable for a definitive engineering recommendation.
