Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the School Construction topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board hears construction update; approves concession soffit demo and rejects two add-on change orders

Bath County School Board · November 18, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Project representatives reported Chennault Building is over 90% complete and the high school about 70% complete; the board approved demo-only for the concession soffit (PR26), and declined PR27 (gym lobby soffit) and PR23 (additional gate).

Project representatives updated the board on the Chennault Building and high school renovation and asked the board to consider three change orders.

Pax Walker reported the Chennault Building work is over 90% complete with only punch-list items remaining and said the high school renovation is about 70% complete and on schedule for year-end. He reported contingency balances of approximately $178,000 (Chennault) and roughly $230,000 (high school).

Jonathan described change order PR26 (concessions soffit and soffit lighting) and presented two options: remove the existing soffit only (demo) with an estimated savings/credit around $5,052, or remove and reinstall a new soffit (reinstallation estimate about $12,285). He noted the soffit had prior water damage that should be largely resolved by recent reroofing but said final flashing and coping testing remain.

The board voted to accept option 1 (soffit demo only) for PR26 after a motion by John and a second; members voiced assent. The board then voted not to approve PR27 (gym lobby exterior soffit replacement, discussed at an estimated cost near $12,064) and not to approve PR23 (owner-requested convenience gate at the Chennault greenhouse, quoted about $4,025); the PR23 vote was recorded as three in favor of withholding approval and one opposed.

Board members discussed whether in-house staff could install the gate, but staff recommended staying with the contractor because the fencing work was part of the contractor's scope. One board member called the gate price "too much." The concession-demo action was presented as a cost-saving compromise that preserves contingency for other work.

Next steps: staff will coordinate change-order implementation with the contractor and confirm final flashing/testing on the soffit areas before any replacement work is scheduled.