Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Construction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears CMAR timelines and coordination challenges for Soddy‑Daisy, North River and other Phase 1 projects
Summary
Facilities staff outlined CMAR (construction manager at risk) selection timelines for multiple Phase 1 school renovations, warned construction could overlap with a YMCA partner’s separate CMAR, and estimated preconstruction and ground‑breaking timing that could push some builds toward 2028.
District facilities staff updated the committee on Phase 1 school renovation projects and a planned CMAR selection process that staff said will require careful coordination when partner organizations use different construction managers.
Mister Witt said architects are producing preliminary designs for several Phase 1 sites, including the Soddy‑Daisy center (transcribed in the meeting as "Saudi Daisy") where planned renovations will add parking and expand drive‑through access to reduce traffic on Highway 27. He said staff expect to advertise for a construction manager at risk (CMAR) and run the selection and approval process through February or March, then bring a recommendation back to the board.
"CMAR will be, I'm hoping, January when we bring a CMAR to approve. That will start the first phase, which is the preconstruction process," Witt said, describing an expected 8–9 month preconstruction phase to finalize designs and cost estimates. He added that construction could begin roughly a year after CMAR selection and said some projects could realistically break ground in 2028.
Board members raised concerns about the YMCA partner selecting a separate CMAR for work on the same campus and how two construction teams would coordinate. Witt said the YMCA’s chosen CMAR did not attend the district’s mandatory pre‑proposal and staff therefore expect two different construction teams. He acknowledged the coordination will bring complexity but said project phasing, fencing and careful contractor selection should allow both teams to work concurrently when needed.
Witt also reported progress on Franklin Roberts (Phase 0 existing‑conditions work), Brainerd (early programming), North River (anticipated CMAR responses soon) and Clifton Hills (architect selection pending and floodplain issues under consideration). For sites where the district controls most civil and parking work, Witt said the district would manage those elements and coordinate closely with partners.
The committee discussed contractor selection, phasing plans and the need to choose CMARs experienced with work in occupied school sites. No formal action was taken; staff will proceed with the advertised CMAR process and return recommendations to the board.
