Tetra Tech presents 10‑year building condition survey; estimates roughly $65.6 million in district needs

Tetra Tech, the district's architect/engineering consultant, presented the Cornwall Central School District's 2025 Building Condition Survey (BCS) to the school board, outlining system-level needs across all district facilities and offering a prioritized, cost‑escalated 10‑year plan.

The BCS compiles more than 650 SED data points per building into an Excel-based planning tool that assigns priorities and future-dollar escalations to each item. Chris Schmidt of Tetra Tech described the BCS process and its regulatory purpose: "Every school district in New York needs to do this every 5 years." The firm said the full report exceeds 100 pages and that its findings have been uploaded to the SED portal.

Why it matters: the BCS is the basis for long‑range capital planning, prioritizing urgent repairs and helping the district present a defensible, cost‑estimated list to the community and potential funding authorities.

Key findings and numbers

- Total 10‑year estimated work: approximately $65,600,000 (Tetra Tech's all‑in projection, including escalation, contingencies and soft costs). This is the high‑level sum of prioritized projects across district buildings. - High school: about $7.5 million in current construction‑dollar items identified; when escalated over time those items project to roughly $9 million. Top cost drivers at the high school were interior repairs, electrical systems, site features and HVAC. - Middle school: roughly $1 million in high‑priority work tied to interior systems, electrical and localized repairs (including an area in the cafeteria with temporary shoring that requires investigation). - Cornwall Elementary: about $360,000 of identified projects so far, including replacement of cafeteria and stairwell doors with fire‑rated doors and a chimney metal flue liner replacement. - Willow Avenue: near $760,000 in priority 1–2 items, including switchgear replacement, feeder work and investigation of gym floor moisture issues. - Central administration: higher‑cost items driven by a full heating system replacement, full window replacement, front entrance work and masonry/stair repairs; the total of the highlighted items was about $885,000. - Buildings & Grounds (vehicle/maintenance bays): Tetra Tech provided a forward‑looking estimate for a possible 6‑bay addition; preliminary green‑dot (high priority) items in that area totaled about $4.6 million.

How priorities work

Tetra Tech explained the firm's priority coding: Priority 1 items are roughly those to be completed within 3 years; Priority 2 within 5 years; Priority 3 within 10 years. The consultant applies escalation percentages to model inflation so the district sees both present‑day construction dollars and projected future totals.

Process and next steps

Tetra Tech said its team met with facilities leadership and maintenance staff to develop the baseline data and then performed on‑site inspections. The consultant noted the facility committee has already reviewed the findings in greater detail; the full board presentation summarized the highest‑cost drivers and highlighted items Walter and John (district facilities staff) had flagged as high priorities.

Board members asked about further triage within the Priority 1 group. Tetra Tech advised that district facilities leadership (Walter, John) is best placed to refine which Priority 1 items should be advanced first, because they maintain day‑to‑day knowledge of building conditions.

The board's facilities committee will meet next week to combine the BCS findings with an additional project list the district generated earlier in the year; the committee intends to refine priorities and prepare a package the full board can present to the community in the spring.

Evidence

Tetra Tech's presentation and the board's questions were contained in the meeting presentation; the firm said the detailed workbook and the executive summary will be available to the district and have been uploaded to the SED portal.

The board did not take a formal vote on the BCS itself during this meeting; the presentation was received and scheduled for further committee review.