Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Villa Park pool project estimate rises by roughly $4 million; board asks staff to return with options
Summary
Pre‑construction investigations at Villa Park High revealed underground utilities and a high water table that raised the project's updated estimated cost from about $15.8M to $19.8M. PBK Architects presented relocation/rotation options and a menu of cost‑saving measures; the board requested further analysis including smaller pool options, schedule impacts and CEQA implications.
District staff and PBK Architects briefed the Orange Unified School District board on July 18 about discoveries made during the Villa Park High School aquatic center pre‑construction phase and an updated project estimate.
PBK’s principal in charge (Bruce) told the board the site investigations found multiple unforeseen subsurface constraints — including a gas main, an underground conduit for photovoltaic (solar) infrastructure, a separate power conduit and a high water table — that were not fully accounted for in the preliminary December estimate. Project manager Ariel (PBK) said the initial December estimate of $15.8 million (hard + soft costs) predates the most recent due‑diligence mapping and geotechnical studies; the updated total presented at the meeting is about $19.8 million, an increase of nearly $4 million. The consultants attributed portions of the increase to escalation, constructability changes and additional work required to address the utilities and site conditions.
PBK presented two primary alternate site options intended to avoid some utilities: (a) siting the new pool in the footprint of the existing pool (bypassing certain utility relocations and reducing demolition) with an updated estimate of about $19.2M; and (b) rotating and relocating the pool to avoid multiple conduits and retaining existing relocatable classrooms, which the consultants estimated could lower the updated total to about $18.7M. The team also offered a menu of potential cost‑savings measures — including reducing pool deck area, deleting shade structures, substituting building‑mounted lighting for stadium lighting, deferring bleachers/scoreboard, reducing storage or using relocatable classrooms in lieu of a permanent team room — and estimated that some single items could save roughly $400,000 each.
Public commenters urged caution. One resident (Jolene) told the board the project had seemed rushed earlier and urged a pause to consider a site or districtwide aquatic center that could serve more schools. Several trustees expressed frustration that subsurface utility mapping and geotechnical work were not completed earlier and pressed staff and consultants for alternatives, including the tradeoffs of a 33‑meter pool (which allows CIF finals under certain rules) versus larger options, impacts on DSA approvals, CEQA review needs, and how the district’s previously ordered pool equipment purchase might be adjusted if size changes are directed.
Board direction: trustees asked staff to return with a fuller set of options and cost comparisons (including the cost and implications of a 33‑meter pool, potential savings from the various reduction measures, implications for the purchase order on the pool equipment, schedule impacts tied to the 500 Building occupancy and DSA approval timeline, and CEQA scope/notification approach). Staff said they would bring updated options, cost estimates and any needed environmental analysis back to the board for a decision.
