Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Construction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves construction-manager-at-risk for K–5 school; utilization rate discussion to guide capacity
Summary
The Orange County Board of Education approved a resolution selecting construction-manager-at-risk as the project delivery method for the proposed K–5 elementary school and discussed a target utilization range of 85–95%; staff will return with capacity and redistricting analysis.
The Orange County Board of Education voted June 23 to adopt a resolution selecting a construction-manager-at-risk project delivery method for the planned K–5 elementary school, and heard staff and consultant presentations on educational specifications and utilization-rate options to guide design and redistricting.
Board chair Purcell introduced a consultant summary and frame: KEI and Clark Nexon prepared educational specifications that compare North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (DPI) minimums with design recommendations derived from community engagement and enrollment studies. “They looked at DPI standards. They combined the feedback and information that we gathered during our community engagement sessions earlier this year,” consultant Steve Hess said.
The nut graf: The board approved the construction-manager-at-risk method to give the district a collaborative design-and-cost process; staff and consultants recommended a district utilization-rate target between 85% and 95% and outlined an approach to design a school that can be built smaller and expanded if needed.
Hess summarized common K–12 delivery methods (design–bid–build, construction-manager-at-risk, and design–build), presented results from a survey of architects and contractors, and said construction-manager-at-risk gives the owner continual cost input during design. Board members discussed tradeoffs in team selection, cost certainty and owner control. Hess told the board that his sample of firms preferred construction-manager-at-risk for K–12 and that the method allows iterative cost and design reviews.
On utilization and capacity, Hess and staff described two options: design for a higher capacity (for example, 600 students) but initially build for a lower occupancy (for example, 450) with an expansion path; or fix a single design capacity. “We’re strongly leaning towards…looking at a 600 student school with the possibility that it could be designed for 600. But perhaps built for 450 and then expanded if necessary,” Hess said. The consultant recommended using a utilization target of roughly 85–95% to guide sizing and redistricting analyses.
Board members asked for further analysis of existing-school capacities and recommended that staff verify each building’s capacity against current educational standards before final decisions. The board did not fix a utilization percentage at the June 23 meeting; staff said they will return with more detailed capacity and redistricting work.
Ending: The board approved the resolution selecting construction-manager-at-risk and asked staff to continue master planning and return with refined capacity, redistricting and design guidance before authorizing final design or construction escalation.
