Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Track Resurfacing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates subcontracting, $41,000 price gap and schedule for track resurfacing
Summary
Board members questioned whether general contractor Collins should subcontract track resurfacing to a local dealer or proceed with Fisher, weighing a roughly $41,000 price difference against warranty length, prior performance concerns and schedule impacts. Staff reported an asphalt pour set for the week of Aug. 17 with a 28-day cure period.
The Wahoo Public Schools board spent an extended portion of its meeting reviewing subcontracting options for the district's track resurfacing project and asking staff to get clearer pricing and warranty details.
Brandon, a district staff member, summarized options presented by general contractor Collins: Collins had received multiple bids from a local dealer (Crouch/Tincati) that were successively lower, but Collins's proposal included a general-contractor markup that left a roughly $41,000 gap compared with Fisher, a previously preferred contractor. "We had 3 different numbers that had come from...Crouch. Each one was successively less until we got to this last one that I had sent out last week," Brandon said.
Several board members pressed for specifics tying the extra cost to measurable value. Mike (board member) warned of district budget pressure: "I think we also have to remember we're 300,000 over budget," and asked what additional value would justify spending another $41,000 for what appears to be the same scope.
Supporters of locally based subcontracting pointed to warranty and longer field-life claims. One board member noted Crouch's warranty and local presence and said the vendor had experience with playground and turf projects on campus. Opponents cited recent performance problems reported at other Fisher installations, including early cracking and seams described by a board member as "already falling apart" in a site referenced as Battle Creek.
Brandon said Collins had represented that the schedule would be preserved regardless of subcontractor choice but that the contract would need amendment if pricing changed. On schedule, Brandon reported an asphalt pour is "set for the week of August 17," followed by a 28-day cure period; board members flagged student arrival and parking-lot impacts and asked for more specific sequencing and follow-up from Collins.
The discussion produced no formal contract award or final vote at the meeting. Board members asked staff to confirm warranty terms, verify whether Crouch or Tincati would match Fisher's total price (including GC markup) and obtain the promised follow-up information from Collins and from Eric, who had been assigned to follow up with Fisher about prior performance.
The board put the matter on the agenda for further review and asked staff to report back with clarified pricing, warranty language and any schedule adjustments.
