Petersburg board opens PPEA review for Walnut Hill/Westview school; panel to add community representatives

The Petersburg City School Board on Oct. 15 kicked off a Public‑Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act (PPEA) review after receiving three conceptual proposals for a replacement Walnut Hill Elementary/Westview early childhood facility.

Assistant Superintendent for Operations Jay Martinez told the board the district received an unsolicited conceptual proposal from Gilbane (with Moody Nolan noted as an architect partner) on Aug. 6 and, under PPEA rules, opened a 45‑day window that brought two additional proposers: a team led by MCN with Perkins Eastman and a team led by English with Moseley Architects. Each proposer paid the review fee required by the division; Martinez said the $25,000 review fee accompanies the submissions.

MBP engaged as advisor; review phases

The school system has engaged McDonough, Bolyard & Peck (MBP) to assist the evaluation. MBP’s project lead Jim Yatsik and senior project manager Brian Haskins outlined a phased PPEA approach: a conceptual review (now), a detailed review in which proposers respond to committee questions, interviews with finalist teams, and then selection of a design‑build partner followed by an interim agreement to advance design and refine cost estimates.

“Typically what happens is, unless there’s an outlier, there’s no reason not to move forward with all three,” MBP said, noting that the competition helps the district compare design approach, systems, schedule and square‑foot costs before making a choice. MBP emphasized that the interim agreement generally commissions early design work so the district can get a firm cost before entering a comprehensive agreement.

Committee expansion and community involvement

Martinez described a seven‑member conceptual review committee that includes the superintendent, CFO, operations staff and several board members to perform the initial technical evaluation. Several board members asked that neighborhood and school representatives be added earlier in the process; after discussion the board agreed to expand the review group to include a Ward 3 representative (the school site’s ward) and a Westview community representative, and to involve principals as the effort moves into the design phase.

Timing and next steps

MBP and district staff said the conceptual review will include detailed technical analysis followed by a request for additional information from proposers during a detailed review. The advisory team estimated the conceptual phase could move into the detailed phase in November, depending on the volume of follow‑up questions and the proposers’ response time. After the detailed phase, MBP said the selection committee typically interviews finalists and then recommends a single design‑build partner for board approval and contract execution.

Martinez told the board that public engagement will continue and expand during the design phase: once an interim agreement is executed the district will form a larger design committee with community stakeholders, school leaders and subject matter experts to refine layout, program adjacencies and operational details.

What the district emphasized: transparency and due diligence

Board members repeatedly requested transparency and community representation through the procurement. Martinez said MBP will provide evaluative matrices and documentation so the review process is auditable and defensible; MBP reiterated that thorough technical review is standard and intended to protect taxpayers and ensure the selected team can deliver the project on schedule and budget.

No selection or final contract was approved at the Oct. 15 work session. The district will return with a recommended timeline and schedule for committee activities, detailed review questions and anticipated public engagement sessions.