Putnam County oversight committee hears construction progress and questions over $60M contract figures

The Putnam County School District bond oversight committee met Sept. 17 to review construction progress on its school-building program and to press staff and construction managers for clearer accounting of contract values, contingency and material purchases. The committee also set a follow-up meeting for Nov. 12.

Committee members questioned why some project summaries show a top-line contract value that appears larger than the expected cash outlay. "The original contract sum is $60,000,002.92," said the construction representative (speaker 5), adding that about $13,000,001 in direct-purchase orders—materials the district buys directly to realize sales-tax savings—are part of that top-line figure. "So really, the top line is the contract number, but we're purchasing items through the district to realize the sales tax savings," he said.

That accounting approach prompted follow-up questions from committee members. Speaker 8 and speaker 2 asked where contingency and general conditions sit in the summaries and whether contractor fees are charged against material purchases. Construction staff and managers explained that contractor fees are assessed on the actual amount and that contingency and unused general conditions typically reconcile toward the end of the project and may be returned to the owner or reflected as a deductive change order.

On Palatka Intermediate, the construction manager said the project is nearing substantial completion and will enter punch-list work next week. "We have a substantial completion early next week," the presenter said. For Crescent City, the construction manager reported the project is about 60% billed with about $503,000 of contingency remaining in hand, while stressing that projected contingency items are potential costs, not guaranteed expenditures.

Members requested more consistent reporting across projects: one committee member asked for a per-GMP breakdown of line-item costs (concrete, plumbing, etc.) and a comparison across GMPs. Staff agreed that the construction managers submit those reports monthly and that a consolidated, easier-to-read packet could be provided.

The committee also discussed schedule tensions: phased early-release packages (ERPs) are being used so long-lead early work can begin while designs finish, a practice presenters said is sometimes necessary to meet opening goals. Committee members cautioned against billing for work that hasn’t occurred and asked staff to maintain close oversight.

The meeting concluded with members agreeing to receive more detailed, standardized cost summaries and to reconvene Nov. 12 for an update on GMP status and outstanding questions. The minutes were approved at the start of the meeting.