Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Capital Projects topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

District pivots on capital projects: considers partnership with youth residential center to expand Morton Academy; bids due in July

5841657 · June 11, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

District leaders told the board they are exploring a cost‑saving pivot: adding Morton Academy space at the Center for Youth and Family Solutions (Guardian Angel Home) rather than building full new additions on district property, and they outlined the budget and timeline for upcoming bids.

Morton CUSD 709 officials told the board they are exploring a new approach to planned construction after cost estimates for several school projects exceeded earlier budgets.

A district presenter said the district met with executives at the Center for Youth and Family Solutions (the agency that operates Guardian Angel Home) to discuss adding or renovating space at that site for Morton Academy students. The presenters said using existing building shell and lower‑level space could substantially lower costs — roughly $260 per square foot versus an estimated $400 per square foot for comparable additions on district school buildings.

District staff said the partnership could reduce project scope and accelerate availability of space for Morton Academy students while protecting the district’s investment through a formal agreement. Officials said they would seek contract terms such as usage protections, cost splits and options (for example, a first right of refusal or credit toward a sale) to limit long‑term district exposure for investments made on non‑district property.

The pivot comes as district facilities plans also include a proposed weight‑training facility at Morton High School and a lobby expansion to the Bertha Frank entrance. The district spokesperson said architects will include the Bertha Frank lobby expansion in the base bid — not as an alternate — to avoid design duplication and potentially higher bids if the lobby project is delayed and rebid later. The administrator noted that delaying a connected project could add approximately $500,000 to future cost because of construction inflation and the need to reopen separate contracts.

Finance Director Lisa Kowalski briefed the board on preliminary FY25 close estimates and FY26 projections. She warned that numbers presented were close estimates and that final figures will be available in July, but she gave detailed balances and funding notes: the district plans to use portions of its O&M (operations and maintenance) reserves for projects and expects to carry capital project bond proceeds into FY26. Kowalski told the board the capital projects fund had roughly $546,000 remaining tied to a prior bond issuance and that the district plans to transfer roughly $150,000 from working cash to the education fund; she also noted that transportation expenditures increased this year after adding routes, which reduced transportation reserves temporarily.

Kowalski said the district expects to use about $11 million from O&M set‑asides for facility projects over the near term but stressed that project timing affects cash flow and some expenditures will carry to the next fiscal year. She reiterated the district’s policy to maintain approximately 180 days of operating reserves and said current plans keep the district above that floor in FY26 projections.

Administrators summarized next steps and key dates: bid documents are due to be completed around June 24; the district expects to advertise and receive construction bids in early July and to bring award recommendations to the July board meeting. Officials said they will continue negotiating with the Center for Youth and Family Solutions on cost‑sharing, design scope and legal protections before committing funds.

Board members asked about risk, timing and contingencies if the outside partnership does not proceed. Administrators acknowledged the timing was tight and said a clear partnership agreement before July would be ideal; if the partnership does not materialize, the board will still have full discretion to accept, reject or modify construction bids when received.

No construction contract was approved at the meeting; the board was asked to consider bids and final budget impacts at the July meeting once staff return with firm numbers and any partnership agreements.