Banks SD 13 advances high-school master plan, recommends CMGC procurement and selects Bridal Architecture as top choice

District staff and the owner'representative candidate presented findings of fact and procurement recommendations for a multi-phase high-school project, urging the school board to approve a nontraditional procurement route and to move forward with a selected architect.

John Abel of Cornerstone Management Group (speaker 4), the owner'representative on the agenda, described why the CMGC (construction manager/general contractor) delivery method is appropriate for an occupied, phased high-school remodel. "CMGC was sort of, envisioned from the start," John Abel said, explaining that bringing a contractor on early helps the design team identify phasing issues, coordinate safety and egress plans and permit early procurement of long-lead items.

Staff summarized three common delivery choices: traditional design'bid'build, CMGC, and design'build. They said design'bid'build often shifts more risk to contractors and can be cheaper but offers fewer benefits for complex phasing. Under CMGC, the district negotiates general conditions while subcontract packages remain competitively bid; staff noted the CMGC approach uses open'book reporting and allows early letters of authorization for critical long'lead purchases.

On architect selection, district staff (speaker 11, "Rick") said the district received 12 proposals, interviewed three firms and named Bridal Architecture the top choice. "They only do K 12 work," Rick said, pointing to the firm's specialized focus and enthusiasm for master planning. Staff reported no protests to the notice of intent and said a master'planning kickoff is scheduled; the district expects to bring a master plan to the board in January and aims to start gym construction in March 2025 so a new gym could be available for the 2025'26 school year.

Board discussion covered enrollment and campus-capacity assumptions, trade-offs between maximizing occupant load and practical two'story classroom configurations, and whether to prioritize CTE upgrades. Board members referenced earlier studies and population forecasts and noted that the campus footprint, traffic flow and parking must guide the architect'provided guardrails.

A prominent point of contention was whether to retain an older campus gym building. One board member argued the structure is "unreinforced brick, which means it has no structural integrity to speak. Any whisper of a shake will cause it to fall down," and said keeping it could confound the campus plan. Other board members, including a historical society member, urged care and suggested salvaging historic elements if the board elects demolition.

Staff asked the board whether to present the architect with one directive (demolish or keep) or two options. The facilitator recommended giving clear guardrails on budget, timeline, scope and program needs and asked for direction; the board signalled that staff should provide data and two feasible options so community input can inform the choice.

What happens next: staff said the procurement/finding-of-fact paperwork will be bundled in the consent agenda (no separate hearing tonight unless requested), a contract with the selected architect is expected to appear at a future meeting (staff mentioned a contract by September), and master-plan deliverables will return to the board for review and decision-making.