Detailed 5/6 School Plan Reveals New Costs

By Jeff White

The district’s proposed school for fifth and sixth grades sat in the middle of the Board of Education’s conference table Tuesday. After months of looking at the school on paper and through drawings, the small, compact model gave the panel its first concrete picture of what the facility would look like.

Revised cost estimates and design schematics also focused the board’s attention.

Jeter, Cook, and Jepson (JCJ), the school’s architects, and Strategic Building Solutions (SBS), the project’s manager, met with the school board to present updated schematic and financial plans for the 5/6 school. It was a meeting that ended with both good and bad news: specific decisions were made concerning the school’s design that would allow the planning phase to move ahead, yet those decisions could push the project $1.027 million over budget.

“This was the first time we have put a real estimate together,” said JCJ architect Jim LaPosta, who last met with the school board when two sites for the proposed school were being considered. “We now have an actual estimate for this project. Before, we were looking at unsure budgets.”

SBS presented a revised project cost of $33.2 million, an increase over the $32.2 million budget proposed in April. A slightly bigger building, increased site utilities and costs, sloped roofs, and additional contingency costs contributed to the budget increase, SBS’s Mel Overmeyer and David Valeire explained.

Superintendent of Schools John R. Reed confirmed Thursday morning that although he felt “we are close to the number,” the project would probably cost more than the district originally thought. “It is certainly apparent that the board and the people are working very hard to remove cost items from the project,” Dr Reed said. “It’s very hard to come up with a specific number.”

Indeed, Mr Overmeyer said that his firm would return to the school board with two more financial updates before an actual number is established.

The project has not exceeded the cost ceiling established by the state for reimbursement, however.

The prospect of a more expensive school notwithstanding, school board members made some concrete decisions Tuesday night at the request of project officials that would allow school planning to continue through early design and planning phases.

The board unanimously agreed to reject JCJ’s proposal to increase the school’s size by 1,900 square feet, which increased the project’s cost by $260,000.

In addition, there was a consensus among board members that sloped roofs on the 5/6 school were the way to go, a decision that was supported by Legislative Council and Building Committee members that were also in attendance. Deciding to go with sloped roofs on the school contributed $300,000 to the budget increase.

Some consensus was also reached on the school’s building material, in this case colored concrete block instead of brick, which would reduce costs.

Project officials left the meeting satisfied that certain decisions were made that would allow them to progress with their plans. “We wanted you to recognize that there are options,” Mr Overmeyer said. “There are choices to be made, but some of those choices need to be made [now] before we go on to other phases.”

The board would need to debate back and forth about what to eliminate and what to add to the project, board Chairman Elaine McClure said. The crux rests in whether or not the board could live with those additions, she added.

With Watertown Hall as the designated site and a more specific design plan in front of them, there is a feeling among board members that the 5/6 school project has more focus. There are still decisions and refinements to be made, but the project is moving forward.

“We’re still a long way from completion,” cautioned Mrs McClure Wednesday, as she conceded that it was nice to see an actual miniature of the new school. “We have seen the pictures before, but to see the model did make it feel more realistic.”

Unfortunately for the school district, what was also realistic Tuesday night was the fact that in all probability, its school would not be ready until January 2003, significantly later than they wanted.

Since the school board has decided not to fast track the project, at the suggestion of both JCJ and SBS, Mrs McClure said that there might not be much the board could do about the later opening.

Project officials told the school board that although the 5/6 school was a few months behind schedule, in all likelihood the project could make up time in future phases.

As of this week, the project was still scheduled to break ground next June.

The school board will continue discussion on the specifics of Tuesday night’s presentation at their August meeting.

At its meeting in two weeks, the town’s Public Building and Site Commission will draft a formal letter to the school board with its suggestions on specifics gleaned from this week’s 5/6 school update, commission Chairman Frank Krasnickas said.