Consultants tell Banks SD 13 board renovation could cost about $3.9 million more than earlier budget; board weighs options

Consultants advising Banks School District 13 told the board the district—aces a meaningful cost gap between renovating a historic campus building and building new, and urged targeted investigations to narrow uncertain structural and hazardous-materials risks.

"The revised budget estimate ... is about $3,900,000 higher than the previous," said the presenter, summarizing the updated project budget and drawing a distinction between design-level estimates and high-level budgets.

Consultants said mechanical and systems allowances appear low in previous work and recommended adding roughly 20% to mechanical allowances and a 10% project contingency because renovation of an unreinforced, early-20th-century building typically uncovers hidden conditions. One consultant described the physical work likely required: "the majority of the work is in just unearthing, building these big anchor foundations essentially for that new wall to sit on."

Board members pressed for clarity on what counts as real incremental cost. A board member said the district must separate program transfers (moving classrooms or library functions between buildings) from true renovation overages that represent additional public expense.

Consultants offered three actions for the board to consider: proceed with the master plan without preserving the building, pursue parallel designs (one that saves the building and one that does not) to get apples-to-apples cost comparisons, or run a limited set of investigative tests first. They recommended selective intrusive investigations—utting small openings, exterior footing excavations and abatement sampling nd said the investigation-only work would likely be in the low tens of thousands of dollars.

Board members asked for more supporting documentation (engineer photos, attic and wall connection evidence) so the district can explain either demolition or preservation decisions publicly. A historical-concerned member said, "I'm a historian. I love keeping our history of women," noting community attachment to heritage, while others cautioned that even with community interest, cost and program impacts could favor new construction.

Consultants said a high-level comparison showed roughly $6.8 million for a comparable new-construction footprint (using about $740 per square foot) versus an approximately $10.7 million project budget for renovating and placing the program in the existing building; consultants emphasized those figures are early budgets, not design estimates.

The consultants recommended lab sampling for asbestos and other hazardous materials and said the district will solicit multiple quotes for the survey. They also advised that more detailed design work would be required to reduce contingency amounts; that work could take months and add several hundred thousand dollars in fees if the board chooses the parallel-design path.

Procedurally, a board member put a motion on the table to direct next steps on the building; the transcript records the motion being seconded but does not record a formal roll-call tally. The consultants said they could return with option comparisons in November and noted the board would need to make a decision by December to keep to the current project schedule.

Next steps the board identified were to obtain three quotes for hazardous-materials testing, clarify which contingency amounts are assumptions versus validated costs, and decide whether to fund further design work to compare renovation and new-construction options.