Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County'commissioner-appointed review finds Justice Center close to original financing estimate; dewatering and change orders account for most differences
Summary
A financial review of the Justice Center accounting and contracts found the guaranteed maximum price paid to the contractor totaled about $59.15 million, change orders added about $1.5 million, and FF&E costs paid from local income tax were about $5.86 million; after reconciling bond payments and other items the reviewer concluded the project was not $7 million over budget as previously suggested.
County staff presented a review of the Justice Center financials after questions that the project might be roughly $7 million over anticipated costs. The presenter said she and staff reviewed a banker's-box collection of documents, contractor invoices, bond-fund transactions and change orders to reconcile totals.
Key figures presented: the guaranteed maximum price (GMP) contract with GM Development was $59,151,323; change orders totaled roughly $1.5 million (with drainage and dispatch rework among the larger items); and furniture, fixtures and equipment (FF&E) paid from local income tax totaled about $5,856,685.11. The reviewer said that some payments recorded in the bond fund appeared to be bond payments or transfers to treasurer/commissioner line items and therefore not direct construction fees.
After backing out bond payments, FF&E paid outside the bond proceeds, and approved change orders, the presenter concluded the total project costs the team could attribute were close to the anticipated funding envelope and not near a $7 million overage. The reviewer identified dewatering as a primary cause of an unanticipated increase (the dewatering allowance was originally $50,000 but final costs recorded near $176,009), and said more granular follow-up could examine whether specific drainage/floor-drain items were missing from original drawings or arose during construction.
Council members asked for additional detail on specific items (architectural drawings, the origin of change orders and fund accounting); the presenter said staff could dig further into the drainage question and supply clarified documentation.
