Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Capital Request topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
School board asks county for $1.8 million for two new middle schools; commission sends the request back for corrected procurement language
Summary
The Franklin County School Board requested $1.8 million for design and construction‑management services for two new middle schools; the County Commission voted to return the resolution for redrafting after questioning procurement and 'construction manager' wording.
The Franklin County Board of Education asked the County Commission on June 18 to appropriate $1.8 million for design and construction management services related to constructing two new middle schools, but the commission declined to approve the appropriation and sent the resolution back for reworking.
The School Board's resolution (Resolution 8h‑0618) requested county funds to pay for design and construction‑management support for a two‑campus plan. Gary Clardy of Clardy Construction Consulting, who told commissioners he served to advise the school board as a consultant, presented the plan and said estimated work would begin November 20, 2018 and take roughly 20 months to complete.
Chairman Eddie Clark said the resolution’s text referenced "construction management" in a way that could require a different procurement path, and recommended the board correct the language before the county considers any appropriation. Commissioner Gene Snead asked for a longer‑term cost comparison between building two separate campuses and consolidating to a single campus over a 50‑year horizon. Commissioners voted to return the request to the School Board and the county Finance Committee so the document could be redrawn to match procurement requirements and provide clearer cost comparisons.
What was proposed: The School Board’s request asked that the county appropriate $1.8 million to cover design and construction‑management services for two new middle schools. The staff packet notes the School Board intended to engage Binkley Garcia Architects for design and had engaged Clardy Construction Consulting in an advisory capacity.
Why the commission returned the request: County leaders said the resolution did not correctly distinguish the advisory consultant role from a construction manager and could confuse bidding/contracting rules. Chairman Clark said the county needed language that matched how the services would be procured and whether the work required formal construction‑management bidding.
Next steps: The School Board is to redraft and resubmit the resolution with corrected procurement wording and clearer cost comparisons for return to the Finance Committee and the full commission. Any county appropriation would require a future formal motion and vote.
Attribution and sources: The request and its timeline were described in the School Board resolution read into the county record; the packet attributes the presentation to Gary Clardy (Clardy Construction Consulting) and references an intended start date and a 20‑month completion estimate. County Chairman Eddie Clark and Commissioner Gene Snead were the primary commissioners pressing for clarification.
