Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
School Building Committee weighs keeping NACTEC building, sets March 1 funding checkpoint
Summary
The School Building Committee discussed preserving the NACTEC building and agreed staff would produce 50% design documents and pricing so the committee can decide by March 1 whether to commit funds; an initial design checkpoint was estimated at about $47,000.
At the School Building Committee meeting, members debated whether to keep the NACTEC building in service rather than demolish it as part of the larger school project. Becky Bollin, speaking for the committee, said the school committee has authorized "up to $47,000 and some change" for an initial plan that would let the committee gauge whether full preservation is feasible.
Keeping NACTEC would allow some career-technical programs — including cosmetology, culinary and carpentry — to remain on or near campus, proponents said. Deb (the OPM) told the committee SLAM and Gilbane are evaluating whether the existing building can be retained without delaying the main project schedule. Deb and Ted (SLAM) told members they expect a 50% design set to be available for preliminary review and pricing that would yield a mid-February cost estimate to inform a March 1 decision.
An agency official who spoke about building systems said federal funds administered through the utility could cover significant mechanical work: "We have $455,000 worth of work ... for nothing, from the utility," the official said, describing a funding opportunity to replace roof heat pumps and other systems. Committee members noted that while mechanical systems appear sound, upgrades for some program spaces (for example, cosmetology) could still be required; one participant suggested cosmetology upgrades could be on the order of $20,000.
Members raised operational concerns if the building were retained. One committee member argued that mixing outside users and city employees with students in the same building could create supervision and safety challenges unless access is carefully separated and vetted. Deb said legal counsel had reviewed authorities and that the school building committee may legally proceed to preserve the building, but any larger financial commitment would require coordination with the city and other approvals.
The committee set a procedural timeline: staff will prepare design documents and pricing (Ted said he will try to have 50% design materials ready for the next committee review) so the SBC can evaluate cost and schedule impacts; a funding decision would need to be made by March 1 to avoid disrupting the phase 2 release schedule. If the committee elects to keep NACTEC, the committee will then define how work proceeds without jeopardizing the main building’s June completion for the new school.
