Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Board directs design for high‑school exterior upgrade, approves option 1 to proceed with pricing
Loading...
Summary
The Timberlane board approved the facilities committee’s recommendation to pursue design work assuming removal of interior gypsum substrate and the use of an aluminum composite panel system (Option 1); designers will complete destructive testing and return with firm cost estimates before any construction contract is awarded.
The Timberlane Regional School District board voted to direct design work on the high‑school building envelope under the assumption the existing gypsum wallboard is an interior (non‑exterior‑grade) product and to proceed toward specifications for an aluminum composite panel exterior.
At the April meeting, facilities consultants told the board that destructive investigation had uncovered gypsum wallboard behind the existing sheathing and that, in many locations, there was no marking indicating an exterior grade product. The presenters said that leaving the gypsum in place and covering it with a self‑adhered membrane (the lower‑cost option) could limit warranties and conceal structural issues, while removing the substrate to the studs and installing a dense element system would increase initial cost but reduce long‑term risk. "When they got to the stuff, the sheathing that is attached to the studs, they discovered that it's what we in the business call gypsum wallboard or or sheetrock," the presenter said.
After discussion about timing and cost uncertainty, board member (speaker 4) moved and Jack Sapiette seconded a motion "to approve the facility committee's recommendation for option number 1 for the high school envelope and to use the aluminum composite panel system (AL13)." The motion passed 6‑0‑0. The vote authorized design professionals to begin detailed design for Option 1 so that EEI can generate bid documents and pricing; if subsequent invasive testing shows the existing product is suitable, the dense element scope could be removed from the design.
Administrators and design staff said the district expects to have definitive material verification within a few weeks after planned panel removals and a design‑phase cost estimate by the end of summer, prior to the next school year. The board emphasized it would review the price and could reject construction if bids exceed available funds. A board member asked for clarity on whether the variance funds from the prior pack roof decision would cover any overage; presenters responded that design must be completed before a reliable dollar figure can be produced.
The decision does not commit the district to a construction contract; it sets a design direction that, by the presenters' estimate, could raise the project cost by approximately 25–30% compared with the cover‑over option if full substrate replacement is required. The board requested follow‑up reporting on destructive testing results, a final design cost, and options for phasing work if bids exceed available budget.
