Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Construction Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bond oversight committee hears Palatka Intermediate closeout numbers and contingency use
Summary
Committee members were told Palatka Intermediate is near closeout, with the contractor reporting roughly $500,000 in remaining contingency and about $4 million underspend returning to bond funds; members pressed for a clearer public-friendly cost summary and a breakout of consultant (CRA) payments.
The Putnam County Bond Oversight Committee on Nov. 18 heard a closeout update for the Palatka intermediate school project, where construction managers said most punch-list work is complete but a handful of items — including soffit wall coverings, final security camera installations and a covered-play area still awaiting soil borings — remain.
"I think about 4,000,000," Doctor Hunter said when asked how much the project is under the guaranteed maximum price (GMP), referring to unspent funds the contractor said would return to the bond pool. Contractor representatives said the contractor-side contingency remaining on Palatka is approximately $500,000, with about $85,000 in allowances still open.
Members asked for clearer accounting. "Can we do what I would call a Peter Rabbit English sheet on our website that says this is where we are with cost just so the general public can understand?" member JR Grimes asked; contractor staff and other members agreed the contractor's internal reports could be adapted into a short, public-facing summary.
The committee also pressed for a clearer breakdown of consultant and soft costs. One member asked how much the architectural/consultant firm CRA had been paid for the project; staff pointed to packet pages that show CRA payments are aggregated across multiple projects and said they will produce a split showing amounts attributable specifically to Palatka.
Committee members and construction managers debated contingency accounting and timing: some figures in the committee packet reflected an earlier snapshot, while the contractor said its figures were current as of the prior week. Construction managers said several security-related items and code-driven safety upgrades were handled from contingency to avoid formal contract change orders, and that contingency use had been tracked and would be made available for committee review.
The panel tasked staff to produce a concise public-facing cost summary and asked contractors to provide the requested category-by-category GMP summaries (contingency, general conditions, allowances) in advance of the next meeting.
The committee did not take formal action on the project during the meeting; members requested the additional documentation and scheduled follow-up review.
