Board approves schematic design for Bettendorf Middle School addition and renovation

The Bettendorf Community School District Board on Jan. 15 approved schematic design for the Bettendorf Middle School addition and renovation and directed staff to move into design development for the first phase.

Board members and district staff spent more than an hour reviewing updated schematic drawings from the district’s design team, discussing phasing, classroom counts and sizes, circulation and locker strategies, bathroom layout, estimated costs and a construction timeline that would begin site work in summer 2026 and carry major work through 2029.

Schematic design matters because it fixes the massing and room counts for later design phases and the board’s approval lets architects and staff develop more detailed construction documents and refined cost estimates. District presenters said the plan reduces overall new square footage compared with earlier concepts while consolidating specialty classrooms and improving building systems.

District staff member Kurt introduced the presentation and said the board had previously given direction to explore an addition and renovation within a prescribed budget. Carrie, an architect working with Bray (the design firm identified in the meeting), led the schematic walkthrough and Alejandra, another project architect, assisted throughout the presentation.

The approved plan calls for a four‑phase build-out. Phase 1 is an exterior addition on the back of the building that would add 12 classrooms and new mechanical, electrical and a water room; the team estimated roughly a year of construction for that addition with occupancy planned in summer 2026. Subsequent phases would demolish and rebuild interior wings, consolidate STEAM and elective spaces into a single corridor, expand and reconfigure the cafeteria with a controlled exterior courtyard and finish remaining hall and life‑safety upgrades. Architects said typical new general‑education classrooms in the plan are about 900 square feet, with specialty rooms (science/STEAM) around 1,200 square feet.

On cost, the team presented a total project estimate near $34,000,000 (the design team’s current working figure was described as “right under $34,000,000”), including furniture, fixtures and equipment (the presentation noted approximately $1,000,000 for furniture/equipment). Presenters said the estimate has moved during design work (it had once approached $36 million and earlier had been $33.59 million at a prior design stage). The architects and staff said they are watching recent market trends but cautioned that phasing and the project’s complexity make long‑range price predictions uncertain.

Board members pressed on several operational and safety topics. One board member asked about corridor widths and whether removing lockers would create adequate circulation during passing periods; the design team said not reinstalling hallway lockers yields roughly two to three feet of effective width where lockers would have stood and that many middle schools are actively reconsidering hallway lockers. Another question concerned demolition duration: presenters estimated heavy demolition could be completed in a 6–8 week window during summer months with major demolition work staged July–September. The team described a strategy of staging heavy work in summer months to reduce classroom disruption.

Designers also described a change from traditional gendered multi‑stall restroom clusters to single‑stall toilet rooms with full floor‑to‑ceiling partitions and shared sink areas in a supervised corridor; architects said this saves square footage while providing privacy and allows supervision of common handwashing areas. The new cafeteria plan enlarges kitchen and service areas and provides direct visual and door connections to a courtyard the district could use on good weather days with additional adult supervision.

Regulatory and contingency topics were raised. Presenters said a potential trigger for additional cost would be a municipal requirement related to building code changes: the architects noted that if the city adopts the 2021 International Building Code (the meeting record referred to the “2021 … code” while saying the state currently uses the 2015 edition), a tornado/storm shelter requirement could be imposed for newly constructed school space; the design team said they have included contingencies in later phases for possible city requests and are pursuing a FEMA grant that could offset shelter costs if awarded.

The board discussed procurement and phasing strategy. The architects and staff recommended bidding each phase as it becomes ready rather than issuing a single bid package for the entire project, both to protect the district from long‑term market unknowns and to allow design adjustments between phases. Presenters said a construction manager or general contractor delivery method would be determined closer to bidding the first phase.

After discussion, the board voted to approve schematic design and to proceed into design development and construction‑document preparation for the first phase. The meeting recorded the roll call result as “motion carried 601”; the roll call included audible “yes” responses from Director Parkin, Director Larkin, Director Lynch, Director McGivern, Director Castro and Director Champion. The motion text as recorded in the agenda was: “Approve schematic design for Bettendorf Middle School addition and renovation as presented.”

The architects said design development is expected to be presented to the board in March/April, after which construction documents would follow and the district would pursue bidding with an anticipated bid/groundwork timeline in late summer or fall of 2025–2026 depending on schedule refinement. Presenters emphasized that phasing, contingency and potential city code decisions could change later phase scopes and budgets.

Board members and staff said they will continue user‑group meetings with school administrators and teachers to vet classroom adjacencies, access to the courtyard, and locker/ storage strategies as the project moves into more detailed design.

For now the district’s next steps are completing design development for phase 1, refining the phase‑1 budget and bringing a more detailed recommendation for construction‑document approval and bidding to the board in the spring.

The board’s approval applies only to the schematic design presented that night, not to any final construction contract or final budget. The district will return to the board with additional documents and budget updates in the coming months.