Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Facilities Seismic topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears urgency and uncertainty on Oakland High School seismic rehab; costs and asbestos raised
Summary
Board members and staff discussed significant unknowns and likely costs tied to Oakland High School seismic rehab, including possible groundwater/fill problems under the counseling area, extensive asbestos abatement and a large chimney removal that could increase project costs beyond the state's $2.5 million grant.
The Oakland SD 1 board spent substantial time on Sept. 10 discussing seismic rehabilitation at Oakland High School and whether the state's $2.5 million seismic grant will cover the needed work.
Superintendent (Speaker 1) said engineers and the district remain unsure about persistent floor movement in the counseling area and possible groundwater or poor-fill conditions. "We still don't know why... Lots of water underneath there," he said, describing recent potholing and geotechnical assessments. He added that asbestos-wrapped piping throughout attics and mechanical areas would substantially raise abatement costs and that the roof will need to be re-sheeted as part of any seismic work.
The superintendent said the district obtained the drawings used for the grant only recently and will ask the engineers and the state for updated cost estimates. He warned that if the district proceeds in phases, splitting the building could leave other scheduled projects — including the cafeteria and elementary work — pushed back a year.
Board discussion focused on options to split the project and on whether to return grant funds if the scope is unworkable. The superintendent said his plan is to get pricing from the engineers and present that to the state, noting "the asbestos alone is gonna be huge" and asserting the district must decide whether to proceed.
Next steps: staff will obtain updated cost estimates from the engineers (Mackenzie and CMGC referenced in meeting) and bring revised options to the board at a subsequent meeting; the district will discuss potential phasing with the state.
No formal vote was taken on project selection during this meeting.
