Board debates P3 high-school land assignment; members question flood risk, appraisals and timeline
Summary
A protracted board exchange centered on a proposed land assignment and public-private partnership (P3) for a new high school. Members pressed the superintendent and counsel for clarity on appraisals, FEMA flood-zone designations, a BAFO price (reported near $180—187 million), the 90% design and comprehensive-agreement timeline, and the costs the district may have incurred so far if it walked away from the project.
A lengthy portion of the Jan. 27 work session focused on a proposed land assignment and public-private partnership (P3) for a new high school. Board members raised detailed governance and fiscal questions about the project's cost, timeline and site conditions, including floodplain designations and multiple appraisals with wide valuation ranges.
Several board members said they needed more time to resolve concerns before voting to accept a land assignment. Board Member Keys described a site he characterized as "not the most favorable" and relayed multiple appraisals showing widely varying values and statements that roughly 65% of the property sits in a FEMA Flood Zone A; he said that raised doubts about buildability and long-term suitability.
Staff and counsel responded that Flood Zone A is a broad FEMA label and that substantive re-mapping (a Letter of Map Revision) can follow focused due diligence. Mr. McLemore and representatives for the developer (Fortress) have already conducted soil borings and other analyses and said additional work will be submitted to FEMA as part of an LOMAR process. Counsel also explained that under the interim agreement the developer would provide a stipulated, stipulated-sum project budget based on 90% plans; that budget and the 90% plans are due imminently, and upon acceptance by the board the parties will negotiate a comprehensive agreement.
Board members also asked about the relationship between the district's previously published five-year work-plan estimate (which showed higher preliminary figures) and the developer's BAFO (best and final offer), which staff said came in lower than earlier planning estimates. Attorney Green read clauses from the interim agreement clarifying the developer's obligation to assign the land and the 90%-plan / project-budget sequence; staff said changes to the 90% plans that increase the project budget would typically be the developer's responsibility under the interim agreement.
Superintendent Hyde acknowledged the board's concerns and said staff would provide additional documentation on funds already expended and further technical reports in the coming weeks. Several board members proposed postponing any land-assignment vote until the board has the 90% plans and the stipulated project budget in hand; staff said the developer is scheduled to deliver those documents soon and the board will have the option to accept or reject the comprehensive agreement after reviewing final numbers. No final vote on the land assignment occurred in the work session.
