Oak Grove R‑VI board approves parking‑lot change order after extended debate over soils, Spire charges and a $747,000 retention proposal

The Oak Grove R‑VI Board of Education on Tuesday approved Change Order No. 2 to complete parking‑lot work but spent the bulk of its meeting examining larger project overruns, contractor bids and a proposed $747,000 change involving underground stormwater retention.

Board members voted to accept the parking‑lot change order, which the district staff described as the final work to backfill and prepare the lot for striping. The immediate change order for the parking‑lot backfill and related items totaled $14,195.86 after a credit for declining to sod and a separate $2,000 line for restriping stencils.

Why it matters: the discussion exposed larger project management questions — incomplete soils testing, how bids were priced, whether contractors inspected sites before bidding, and whether the district should change its internal thresholds for board review of change orders. The board also discussed pursuing reimbursement from Spire for an earlier gas‑line relocation that contributed to unexpected costs.

Board concerns and contractor response

Jacob Ross, a project representative with FSG, told the board the parking‑lot work was fast‑tracked and that soils testing occurred later than ideal because the district split the original project into phases. "We decided that we would break out this parking lot just due to staging issues, and we knew we're going to build on the back," Ross said, describing why testing and bidding schedules overlapped.

Board members said that gap left contractors bidding from the plans rather than site conditions; contractors later charged change orders when crews encountered soft, re‑used fill placed years earlier. Several trustees pressed for ways to prevent similar surprises, calling the current $5,000 board‑approval threshold for change orders too low for large bond projects and urging a higher allowance for contingency work.

A separate and far larger package discussed at length was a scope change to switch the ECC lot and portions of the high‑school site from open retention to an engineered underground detention system. Brian Buser, an engineer with Vogel & Anderson, described the larger detention elements and said the new retaining/detention units are the principal cost driver: "Those new retaining system[s] ... are 600 and some thousand dollars. That's the majority of the $700," he said, referring to the roughly $747,000 total price for the combined scope.

City permitting and third‑party review drove much of that increase, staff said. The district’s civil design had used a 2020 city report and the city’s third‑party reviewer required a more stringent design and greater storage capacity, increasing materials and installation costs. Board members and staff debated whether the district could push back with the city or revert to a simpler retention plan; staff cautioned that reversing the design would require re‑submittal and redesign work and could cause delay and additional engineering fees.

Money and bond accounting

District staff presented the bond‑project summary: the bond issuance generated roughly $25.9 million in revenue; expenditures to date were shown at roughly $5.5 million with predicted future expenditures of about $17.7 million, leaving roughly $2.67 million projected to complete the program. Staff said that if the $747,000 retention package were approved, the district would still have roughly $1.8 million available for other projects.

Trustees asked the construction team to split the one $747,000 ASI (architect’s supplemental instruction / change order) into separate line items so the board could decide which portions were mandatory (the city‑required ECC improvements) and which were discretionary additions (additional parking, lights and other add‑ons). The board directed staff to return with a breakout and a near‑term budget estimate; staff said they could provide a close budget number and a refined breakout within about a week.

Small‑value approvals and Spire reimbursement

The board approved the parking‑lot change order so the contractor could finish the work and the district could hold the 5% retainage until punch‑list items were cleared. Separately, the board approved a district‑requested small add‑on package (PCO 005) for $38,183.05 — covering a water heater replacement, a double door for storage and a concrete lid for an existing sump — so that interior work could continue while the larger site‑work questions are resolved.

District staff said they plan to pursue reimbursement from Spire, the utility that moved a gas line during earlier work; staff said Spire billed for the original relocation and that new backfill/overdig costs were discovered only when the district excavated for the parking lot. The board asked staff to preserve documentation and to pursue recovery from Spire when the utility issues a bill.

Next steps

Trustees did not reject the larger retention package but asked for more detailed costing and for the ECC portion carved out from the rest of the ASI. Staff agreed to return with a separated cost breakout and a near‑final budget line within about one week so the board can decide whether to accept the full change package, approve only the city‑required ECC portion or delay discretionary elements.

The board also signaled interest in revising its change‑order policy for large bond projects — increasing the dollar threshold for required board review and improving project reporting to the board so surprises are flagged earlier.