Norwin stalls on stadium replacement; board rejects motion to replace larger option A with reduced option B

The Norwin Board of Education heard a detailed presentation of a reduced‑scope stadium design (option B) and debated whether to replace the previously approved, larger option A. After extended discussion and a roll‑call vote, the board rejected a motion to substitute option A with option B.

Draw Collective architect Mark Scheller and a representative from Massaro presented option B as a smaller, lower‑cost alternative designed to reduce building square footage and materials to approach a $15 million target. Scheller said the reduced plan cuts total building square footage roughly in half (from about 10,460 sq ft to 5,311 sq ft on the lower level), reduces bleacher capacity (the presentation listed option B capacity at 1,688 on the home side versus existing 2,400 and option A at 2,773), and lowers fixture counts and some amenities (fewer restrooms, smaller concession space, no indoor multipurpose space on upper levels).

Scheller said the subtotal construction estimate for option B’s hard costs was $13,894,860, and with standard soft‑cost adders (about 18%) the total design estimate shown was $16,395,935; the presentation listed deduct alternates (for example, omitting turf or track) that could reduce cost by approximately $1.2 million. Scheller also warned that completing a full design for option B would take about a year and that bidders are typically most competitive in the January–March bidding window; delaying full design to meet that window could expose the district to higher inflation and cost increases.

Board members pressed on several points: preserving seating capacity, the tradeoffs between fewer amenities and long‑term maintenance, scheduling and the risk of inflation if option B were delayed by a year for redesign, and whether add/deduct alternates at bid could produce sufficient savings. Several board members said maintaining current seating (2,400) was a priority; others emphasized fiscal constraints and urged the board to reduce scope.

The board took a roll‑call vote on a motion to replace option A with option B and proceed with option B; the vote recorded six board members opposed and three in favor. The transcript records the roll call as follows: Mr. Shrum—no; Dr. Thomas—no; Mrs. Totten—no; Mrs. Berverso—no; Mr. Detshell—yes; Mrs. O'Logan—yes; Mr. Kozak—yes; Mr. Koch—no; Mr. Bojalad—no. With a majority opposed, the motion failed and option A remained the active plan for procurement and bidding activity already underway.

Nut graf: The presentation revealed a sizable gap between the district’s $15 million target and the projected cost of a fully featured stadium; option B cuts amenities and capacity to lower cost but would require more design time and still exceeded the target without further deduct alternates.

Ending: With the motion to substitute failed, the administration and design team will proceed with the previously authorized procurement steps for option A; the board retained the opportunity to review bids in the spring and to consider alternates or scope adjustments if bids exceed the district’s budget constraints.