TTSD bond projects advance; Fowler site constrained by wetlands and soils
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The district reported three summer bond projects, rebid HVAC work, and two potential Fowler footprints limited by wetlands and stormwater; architects, geotech results and community input are guiding schematic design.
Kevin Montag, bond program manager for the Tigard‑Tualatin School District, reported progress on bond projects and early findings for the Fowler site at the Jan. 15 board meeting.
Montag said three projects are scheduled for the coming summer: Deer Creek security and infrastructure (classroom doors, boiler and fire alarm replacement, kitchen and ADA upgrades, parking and lower playground work), duplicate standalone restroom buildings at Tigard and Tualatin high schools, and HVAC replacements at five schools. He said the Deer Creek construction budget was $2.2 million, the design‑development estimate came in near $1.8 million, and the district received 18 contractor qualification packages for the Deer Creek project.
On HVAC work, Montag said the district rebid a previously postponed project (initially bid last year) and that strong contractor interest forced rescheduling of bid walks. The rebid reflects changes to project scope and an improved procurement environment compared with the prior year.
Fowler remains a major focus. Montag said predesign completed in November identified two potential footprints — roughly 126,000 and 161,000 square feet — but wetlands, sensitive areas, topography and stormwater retention are major constraints. Geotechnical surveys indicate soils that will likely require “pretty beefy foundations.” The district is studying whether it can reuse the existing gym to improve stormwater outcomes; preliminary site plans are expected by the end of the month and the district hopes to have a Construction Manager/General Contractor (CMGC) contracted by April.
Montag also provided updates on four elementary school modernizations (Byram and Mary Woodward in schematic design) and bond‑funded technology projects (K–5 device replacements, secondary lab refreshes and licensed staff laptop refresh). The board asked whether leftover bond funds can move to operations; Montag said bond funds are specific to bond projects and cannot be transferred to operations, though a “parking lot” list exists for bond‑eligible items.
No action was taken; the report closed with board questions about device strategies, curriculum dependencies on 1:1 devices, and the district’s approach to balancing technology investments with instructional priorities.