Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Construction And Capital Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves construction payouts, bus purchase and advances schematic design for HS/MS additions
Summary
The board approved a deductive change order for the baseball/softball complex, final pay app to the contractor, purchase of two buses, a software donation acceptance, a library agreement and moved the high school/middle school schematic design into design development while deferring final exterior material selection.
Clear Creek Amana board members approved multiple action items and gave design direction on the district’s planned high-school and middle-school additions.
The board approved several consent and action items by voice vote. Item A approved Change Order No. 3 for the baseball/softball complex as a deduct from retainage (recommendation referenced an amount as written in the agenda). Item B approved final payout No. 14 to Knutson Construction in the amount of $16,618.50. Item C approved the purchase of two buses from Hoglund Bus Company for $302,744. Item D accepted a $12,220 donation from the CCA Booster Club for Huddl streaming software. Item E approved the Amana Public Library agreement.
On the capital project, the board reviewed and approved the schematic design package for the high-school and middle-school additions so the project can move into design development. Designers presented revised floor plans and multiple exterior material options, including precast panels with embedded thin brick, an all-precast alternative and vertical metal panels. The packet included programmatic changes: a larger band area, flexible classrooms, expanded industrial-technology spaces, a proposed special-needs suite and a career-technology wing with culinary and ag lab spaces. Designers described adjustments for acoustical separation between band and classrooms and additional storage for fine arts.
Members debated the exterior finish at length. Concerns included the risk that the original brick used on older campus buildings is discontinued, the cost and schedule implications of staining or matching brick, and the trade-offs between the aesthetic of brick and the cost and coordination risks of precast. Designers advised that metal paneling would be more cost-effective and flexible in the event of later changes, while precast offers a durable look but requires more coordination. The board directed staff to move forward with the schematic design and return with more detailed exterior cost and visual options; a special virtual session was proposed within roughly a week to compare metal-panel mockups and brick-staining options before a final exterior vote.
At the conclusion of the action items the board approved the schematic-design motion by voice vote and the meeting moved toward closed session for the superintendent’s evaluation.
Votes and motions noted in the transcript were carried by voice; specific recorded roll-call tallies were not included in the agenda excerpt provided to the board.
