Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Construction Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
College Station ISD reports progress across bond-funded construction projects; stadium GMP expected to be below budget
Summary
College Station ISD Trustees heard a wide-ranging construction update at their May 20 workshop covering middle-school athletic fields, two high school additions, a large CTE expansion, elementary work and districtwide roof repairs.
Get email alerts on the Construction Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
College Station ISD Trustees heard a wide-ranging construction update at their May 20 workshop covering middle-school athletic fields, two high school additions, a large CTE expansion, elementary work and districtwide roof repairs.
The update, presented by Mr. Simec, said work funded by the 2023 and 2024 bonds is underway at multiple campuses. Mr. Simec described completed items (turf and track at several middle schools), near-term work (bleacher and restroom/concessions finishes), and longer projects including two comprehensive high school additions and a multi‑year roof program.
The presentation said the middle-school turf and track work is substantially complete (Wilbur Middle School missed stripe-painting by two to three days because of cold weather) and that bleacher expansions and restroom/concession facilities at AMCMS and CSMS will model the existing facility at Wellborn Middle School. Jacoby (contract manager at risk) is leading middle-school work and was described as a local contractor on daily site presence.
At A&M Consolidated High School, the district described a two-story, roughly 60,000-square-foot addition that will include 16 science labs, four special-services rooms, a weight room and a film room; the presenter said work is planned to continue through summer 2026, with the roof replacement slated as an 18-month project. The staff noted repeated gym-floor damage from roof leaks as a rationale for prioritizing roofing work. For College Station High School the team reported planned pier drilling (the presentation named a 96‑pier drilling activity at one high‑school site and 48 piers at another) and a goal to accelerate work to complete as much as possible before the next school year.
CTE Phase 2 (Poe Construction) was reported to have started site fencing and initial mobilization. The phase described in the presentation totals roughly 58,500 square feet and will include ag mechanics, animal science, auto tech, construction, cosmetology (moved from a prior site), vet tech and related support spaces. The district said that cosmetology was added into CTE Phase 2 to allow a full three-level program and avoid creating a program of incomplete credentials.
Stadium and athletic improvements were a focus: the district told trustees it will present a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) for stadium work at the board meeting that followed the workshop. Mr. Simec said the stadium project was originally scoped near $30,000,000 and that the GMP being presented would come in “about 3 and a half million dollars under budget” (presenter’s words). The presentation listed expanded scope made possible by savings, including full bleacher replacements on home and visitor sides at both comprehensive high schools, press-box improvements, additional electrical transformers for field houses and left-field areas, HVAC control upgrades and roof replacements tied to the stadium work.
District staff discussed new digital scoreboards (installer Symmetry for turf; a separate vendor for digital displays) and described scoreboard software that supports iPad control and advertising packages; the presenter said scoreboard advertising and related sales would be managed by district communications ("That'll be by the district. That'll be Mr. Dunson's office in communications."). Digital scoreboard installation and D‑zone turf work were described as early June activities pending permits and stamped plans.
Roofing and deferred maintenance across the district were detailed. The presenter said the district is working through damage assessments after recent hailstorms and referenced specific campuses that need full roof replacement (College Hills named as highest priority) and other campuses with repairs or core-sample testing planned (Oakwood, AMCMS, Collegeview, Barbara Bush Parent Center, Cypress Grove Intermediate and Spring Creek Elementary). The presentation also flagged insurance-deductible implications for hail-related work (a 2% building-value deductible was mentioned).
Contract managers at risk named in the presentation included Jacoby, Durotech, Jamal (named on some sites), Poe Construction and others; vendors for turf, scoreboards and sound systems were identified on slides. Mr. Simec and district staff described daily coordination with contracted superintendents and a multi-person facilities team overseeing six-day-a-week construction activity and substantial on-site safety and contractor screening for occupied campuses.
Why this matters: the update details district expenditures and timelines for projects that will affect athletics, fine arts, classroom capacity and campus safety. Work that is not complete before fall can affect access, traffic and temporary relocations; roofing and HVAC fixes were emphasized to avoid redoing interior work later.
What’s next: staff said the stadium GMP would be considered by the board at the subsequent meeting and — if approved — mobilization and contract signings would begin. Several projects will continue year‑round (the two comprehensive high schools) while other work is being scheduled to concentrate heavy activity in summer months to limit disruption to occupied campuses.
Discussion points and speaker questions included advertising control for the scoreboards, safety planning for potential cross‑country meets at active construction sites, and staff capacity for coordination; the district said it will continue daily site reviews and safety protocols for contractors on occupied campuses.
Ending: trustees were told staff will return with required votes and GMP documents for formal approval; project staff emphasized weather and material lead times as the primary risks to aggressive schedules.

