Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Construction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lowell council hears request for nearly $40 million to finish high school renovation
Summary
City and project team briefed council on a proposed $39.8 million addition to the Lowell High School project budget, citing schedule extension, contingency depletion and unforeseen conditions in century‑old buildings; councilors pressed for state aid and more details but took no vote.
Lowell City Council members on Tuesday heard a detailed briefing from the high school project team asking the council to consider an additional $39,800,000 to complete the Lowell High School renovation, which the project team said would raise the total authorized project budget to $420,000,000.
The request came during a presentation by the project team led by Jim Dowd and contractor and architect representatives from Skanska, Suffolk and Perkins Eastman. Dowd said the extra funds are needed primarily to replenish construction contingency and to cover schedule‑related costs caused by a delay in handing over the east side of campus. “That is why we’re going to run out of contingency around the first of the year,” Dowd told councilors during the presentation.
The presentation, delivered after the council took the item out of order so the public and councilors could hear it, summarized the schedule and cost drivers: Phase 3 (the east side of campus) will extend into winter 2025–26, delaying the start of Phase 4 until January 2026; Phase 4 is now estimated to take roughly 18 months with turnover in mid‑2027. The project team said the originally reported $47 million increase figure had been refined and reduced to $39.8 million after negotiations and value engineering.
Why it matters: the additional request would increase the city’s borrowing for the school and, absent more state support, raise the city’s debt service and property tax burden. The city manager and council discussed the effect on FY27 debt service and the possibility of MSBA (Massachusetts School Building Authority) grant adjustments. City Manager Golden told the council the city has excess levy capacity and that, if fully borrowed, the new debt would be paid over time; he estimated the extra borrowing could translate to roughly a 1.6 percent increase in the next fiscal year’s tax levy if the full amount were required from local sources.
Councilors pressed the project team on the count and adequacy of subsurface testing and on whether the same contingency burn rate that occurred in work on the 1922 building should be applied to the 1892 building. Justin Lyons and Bob Bell of the project team described additional borings and testing performed this year and said the 1892 building showed inconsistent slab conditions; they explained the team used a historical contingency burn rate of about 12.5 percent for similar renovated sections when calculating the requested contingency replenishment ($14,750,000). The presenters also said current contingency in the GMP stood at $21,200,000 of which about $16,000,000 has already been spent and roughly $5,000,000 remained, with about $6,000,000 in known changes pending negotiation.
Council pushback and next steps: Several councilors described “sticker shock,” asked how the city would prevent more overruns on future projects, and urged an after‑action review once construction is complete. Councilor Jeunesse said, “the only way we can go is forward,” urging completion so students can use the improved facilities; other councilors requested a formal post‑project retrospective to document lessons learned and changes to procurement and testing practices. Councilor Scott and others asked whether alternative scheduling or temporary leased space had been considered to reduce the schedule extension and related costs.
No vote was taken on the extra appropriation at the meeting. The project team said the next steps include finalizing the revised budget numbers, negotiating with subcontractors and submitting an updated project funding agreement to the MSBA so any additional state grant share would be reflected. The team and the manager said they will continue to press state delegation members for assistance and to seek to limit the local share of any increase.
The presentation included drawings and a phased schedule, and the project team said portions of the campus (the 1980s building and the east campus areas) are on track for near‑term occupancy. The council requested further written details and additional follow‑up briefings on contingency use, borings and measures to reduce the risk of future overruns.
Ending: Councilors said they want both short‑term follow up on technical questions (borings, water intrusion fixes and contingency accounting) and a more comprehensive review once the project is complete to capture lessons for future large capital projects.
