Cedar Springs board weighs $17 million-plus renovation vs. demolition for vacant Hilltop building

Superintendent Smith and district facilities and construction partners told the Cedar Springs Public Schools Board of Education on Jan. 12 that the district’s vacant Hilltop Administration Building is suffering mounting mechanical, plumbing and structural problems and that the district faces three realistic options: pursue a large-scale renovation, demolish the building and retain the land, or sell/donate the property with risk of limited proceeds.

“Water has not been our friend,” Superintendent Smith said, describing recurring leaks, one boiler out of service and corroded metal straps that are detaching the exterior brick from the building’s interior structure. Facilities director Vic Matoulis and finance staff confirmed ongoing monthly utility and upkeep costs of about $5,000 and roughly $90,000 spent over the last 18 months on utilities and related repairs.

Contractors from Triangle Construction and district consultants used the recent Redhawk renovation as a comparable project. Using Redhawk’s $12.4 million contract (2022 work) as a baseline, staff and Triangle estimated an interior-renovation baseline in the ballpark of $14.5 million, and after accounting for construction‑cost escalation to date (contractors used an illustrative 4% annual multiplier) raised that interior-only estimate to about $16.9 million. Triangle cautioned that the Hilltop building’s exterior brick shell and compromised foundations could add materially to that figure.

“We don’t have $16.9 million sitting in the bank,” Superintendent Smith said, noting that the district would likely need to pursue a bond to finance a comprehensive renovation. Staff said a sinking fund millage would not provide the large, immediate spending capacity required and that the earliest realistic bond elections would be May or November 2027 after detailed planning and state approvals.

Contractors also outlined demolition and abatement costs. A contractor estimate for demolition of a roughly 60,000-square‑foot structure — after asbestos removal and landfill certification — was given as roughly $300,000–$350,000 to bring the site to a graded, seeded condition. Asbestos abatement itself remains to be scoped: a district official said testing is underway and that abatement could range (preliminary) from tens of thousands up to more, and that the board would receive abatement bid estimates at the February meeting.

Contractors raised additional risk factors the board should weigh: corroded steel lentils above windows, interior roof joists losing bearing points as exterior wall elements shift, sinkhole formation near the north parking area, and concealed infrastructure buried in concrete that can create unpredictable long‑term maintenance costs even after renovation. Scott Jernberg of Triangle and others urged the board to consider the full lifecycle cost: fixing visible issues could be feasible, but unknown buried conditions can significantly raise cost and maintenance obligations.

Board members asked about alternatives, including selling or donating the property to outside groups; staff said preliminary outreach produced limited interest and that potential buyers would likely expect to invest in substantial grant-supported redevelopment (for example, housing) and that sale proceeds would likely be modest. Staff described plans to salvage historically significant elements (the Hilltop bell and statues have been preserved and relocated) if the property is demolished.

Next steps set by the board and staff: district administration will solicit and bring asbestos‑abatement bids to the February board meeting, pursue demolition bids to establish that option’s true cost, and provide additional details to inform any decision on whether to pursue a bond for renovation. Contractors warned that market timing affects demolition pricing and recommended getting current bids rather than waiting until peak construction season.

The board did not take a final direction at the Jan. 12 meeting; staff emphasized the need for more complete testing and cost estimates before a bond or demolition decision is made.