Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities Renovation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Architect outlines renovations for Heritage, Holt and Wentzville Middle; board questions change orders and consultant donations
Summary
Architect Matt provided drawings and a phased plan for Heritage Elementary and legacy building updates across the district, described required storm‑structure and bus‑loop work, and answered questions about change orders and his firm's past donations to the district campaign fund.
An architecture and facilities update gave the board a multi‑phase plan for work at Heritage Elementary and renovations prioritized for other legacy buildings.
Presenter Matt described phase 1 at Heritage as a bus loop to move bus stacking off neighborhood streets, a storm‑structure sized to code (similar in scale to Journey Elementary), and an indoor collaboration/play area. He said the plan will keep overall classroom counts by converting existing intermediate spaces and noted sidewalk improvements along Blumhof Street. "Our goal is to incorporate that for the students that are walkers along Blumhof Side," Matt said when showing site plans.
Board members asked several operational and oversight questions. Director Lewis asked about the number of district buildings Hohner (the firm identified in discussion) had worked on; Matt said he had "touched every building in your district." Director Lewis also raised a potential conflict concern after noting the architect's firm had donated to the district campaign fund; Matt said donations support district printing and displays and are made to many districts.
On the Reach project and other recent work, Matt addressed change orders. He said industry norms for change‑order totals range from 8–12 percent but that the firm aims to keep district projects near 1 percent; he described most change orders as fine‑tuning (locksets, access readers, ductwork) during construction and said change orders are typically less costly when handled on‑site than after project completion. Board members asked whether some changes might reflect omissions in bid documents and requested follow‑up to review which items represented design errors versus scope refinements.
The board also discussed vendor procurement and whether architectural services were competitively bid; administration said there is an ongoing agreement with the architect that came to the board through a bid process when the contract was established, and said staff would retrieve the contract documents if the board wanted to review them.
No vote was taken; the presentation was informational and board members requested additional follow‑up on change‑order justification and the district—ontracting arrangement with the architect's firm.
