Tomball ISD approves $2,646,800 renovation of Building 4 at Tomball Innovation Center

3355838 · May 13, 2025

Loading...

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

The Tomball ISD Board of Trustees voted unanimously to hire Eleazar Constructors Inc. to renovate Building Number 4 at the Tomball Innovation Center, using Bond 2021 funds for a project budget of $2,646,800 that includes a $300,000 contingency.

The Tomball ISD Board of Trustees approved the selection of Eleazar Constructors Incorporated as general contractor to renovate Building Number 4 at the Tomball Innovation Center, authorizing a construction budget of $2,546,800 plus a $300,000 contingency for an overall project budget of $2,646,800 to be paid with Bond 2021 funds. The motion, made by Trustee McStravick and seconded by Trustee Bass, carried unanimously.

The contract award was presented at the board’s regular meeting at the John P. Neubauer Administration Building in Tomball. The board reviewed schematic plans and heard a project overview from Jim Ross, a construction representative, who described office and workspace restorations in the front portion of the existing warehouse and infrastructure upgrades to make the building fully operational for maintenance functions.

The project will convert a gutted portion of Building 4 (previously damaged by water) into consolidated maintenance offices, workspaces for technicians, restrooms (men’s and women’s), a large break room, electrical and MDF rooms, custodial space and low-walled work areas for locksmiths and technicians. Ross told the board the work includes ceiling, wall and restroom construction, electrical upgrades, HVAC replacement, and tying fire-system upgrades into the renovations. He said the receiving/loading docks and the main warehouse storage areas will remain in place; the front portion will be repurposed for maintenance functions and related staff operations.

Board members and staff described the renovation as a way to consolidate maintenance operations now spread across multiple facilities. The plans call for maintenance staff — described by trustees as roughly five dozen employees — to report to the renovated Building 4, and for transportation functions to relocate into a different portion of the district’s ancillary buildings so that maintenance and transportation are better separated and workspace is more efficient. Trustee McStravick asked for clarification on parking and receiving; Ross said the warehouse already has loading docks along the east wall and cited about 52 parking spaces at the rear of the building.

District staff noted the front offices of Building 4 were removed after water intrusion; the transcript includes two differing recollections of when the damage occurred (“about eight months” and “over a year”), and the timeline was not conclusively resolved in the meeting record. The board was told the drainage issue that caused the damage was repaired after the event.

During the presentation, trustees asked questions about circulation between maintenance and transportation, the scope of electrical and HVAC work, and how consolidating staff would affect operations currently based on Baker Street. Superintendent (referred to in the meeting as Dr. Z) and staff confirmed child nutrition operations in an ancillary building would remain unchanged; transportation would move into space vacated by maintenance so each operation is consolidated in defined locations.

Trustee McStravick made the motion to approve Eleazar Constructors under RFP number 986-25; Trustee Bass seconded. The board voted to approve the contract and the project budget as presented.

Less critical details discussed during the presentation included the extent of interior restoration (walls, lounges and a large conference room identified as Room 1016), low-partition workspaces for technicians, and upgrades to drainage, electrical and fire systems. The board did not identify additional conditions or timeline milestones in the public portion of the meeting; implementation steps and schedule were not specified in the transcript.