Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Program Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews Measure W project plan: $591.5M bond, 24% contingency and DSA review flagged as major schedule risk
Summary
Staff presented the Measure W master-plan schedule and budget: a $591.5 million bond with a built-in 24% escalation contingency (~$143M), phased projects through 2029–2031, roofing and solar plans, and sequencing that depends heavily on DSA reviews; members urged strong cost controls and clearer project-level contingency accounting.
District staff and the program team presented an overview of the Measure W capital program and the project schedule. The bond program was described as a $591.5 million authorization approved by voters with roughly 62% support; the master plan includes a 24% escalation/contingency allowance (about $143 million) that was distributed across project budgets.
Staff said projects are prioritized into four phases so construction can be sequenced to limit campus disruption. Phase-one work (major projects) has been kicked off and includes new classroom buildings, infrastructure and athletics work at several high schools; later phases include modernization of main buildings and site work with estimated completion windows stretching to 2029–2031 depending on approvals.
Members focused substantial attention on three program risks: (1) the large 24% contingency and how that contingency is allocated and managed across sites and projects, (2) the unpredictability and timeline of DSA review and interpretation (recent IRA guidance and DSA fees were discussed), and (3) roofing choices and solar readiness. Staff explained contingency is embedded across project budgets (soft- and hard-cost contingencies vary by project size) and that value engineering during design development is a primary tool to keep work within fixed budget limits.
On roofing, staff described a three-year phased reroof program (with initial work at Carmon, Menlo and Sequoia) and said new roofs must comply with California code requirements for future solar capacity; the bond includes approximately $20 million for solar. Staff cautioned that many existing tar-and-gravel roofs cannot support solar without structural changes and that some reroof work may therefore not immediately host solar equipment unless additional scope or DSA approvals are obtained.
Committee members pressed staff about recent DSA interpretations and invoiced review fees (a figure of about $22,000 for certain review components was mentioned in the discussion) and asked staff to pursue negotiations or clarifications with DSA to avoid unnecessary review costs that could reduce funds available for solar and other priorities.
Staff described procurement controls: a planned RFQ to prequalify contractors, use of third-party estimators via the program manager Kitchell, and continuous monitoring during design and construction. Staff did not propose any formal committee action at the meeting but agreed to provide committee members with the full master schedule (attached to the agenda) and to return with further clarifications on contingency allocation, DSA fee outcomes and any revised timelines.
