Franklin board hears detailed Franklin Forward update on high‑school renovation, phasing and budget

Franklin Public School District trustees received an update Nov. 11 on the Franklin Forward high‑school addition and renovation project, including renderings, a 13‑minute walkthrough video, a multi‑phase construction schedule and a budget overview tied to the district’s referendum bond. District Administrator Dr. Bennett introduced the presentation and said the design work had been iterative and collaborative with staff and community participants.

The project team — including Phil Jaskolski of contractor CD Smith, Michael Hacker of Cadence Consulting and designers Devin Kack and Nick Kents of PRA — walked the board through planned spaces and circulation. Jaskolski described new CTE facilities (autos, construction, hydroponics greenhouse, a CNA lab), an expanded athletics complex and a natatorium, and said the design emphasizes flexible, daylight‑filled learning spaces and community access. “We have images and a walk through of what Franklin High School will be with the addition and the renovation,” Dr. Bennett said.

On phasing, the team said Phase 1 centers on the field‑house addition and runs from mobilization after permits through June 2027, followed by phased demolition and Phase 2 (CTE/family and consumer sciences) through May 2028. Phil Jaskolski said the district plans to decouple construction zones from occupied school space, route deliveries to the south to reduce interaction with buses and create designated outdoor corridors so students can move between building halves during mid‑project demolition.

Andy Daniels presented a budget snapshot. The district’s principal bond amount is $145,000,000 from the referendum; interest earnings to date are about $2,850,000, with an estimated $8.5–$9.0 million available after arbitrage calculations. Daniels said the Franklin High School portion of the work is estimated at roughly $126,000,000 with approximately $8,600,000 in soft costs and that some CIP (capital improvement project) items are commingled and may shift between budget buckets as contracts are finalized. “We are clearly on track to earn the minimum of $6,000,000,” Daniels said about earmarked interest, while noting the team is monitoring how bid results affect allocations.

The board asked about contingency and bid results. Daniels said several early bid packs had been issued; some bids came in over estimates, leaving the project roughly $1.5 million “in the red” relative to initial expectations. He described ongoing design refinement and value engineering to realign specifications where possible without sacrificing a space’s purpose. The district is holding contingency funds — estimated at about 5–7% depending on phase — and Daniels estimated total contingency currently in the neighborhood of $7–$9 million to cover soil or unforeseen renovation risks.

On permits and external constraints, presenters said demolition of the old pool is nearly complete but a soil‑disturbance permit from the city is still required before major excavation. The team also noted separate litigation related to an access road that the site plan approves; the litigation may affect who uses the road but does not, the presenters said, change the scope of the project. The district scheduled a meeting with city representatives to discuss the access dispute.

Board members and staff also discussed community amenities such as a walking track and accessible natatorium seating and pressed the team for detailed floor prints and signage/wayfinding plans. The project team said those drawings are in the board packet and that further wayfinding and branding work is planned.

The presentation concluded with the team noting that further bid packages will be issued after the new year as interior design components are finalized and that the district expects to continue updating staff and the public as milestones are reached.