Fairfield Area SD board hears Crabtree presentation on districtwide facilities feasibility study; motion made to proceed

Fairfield Area School District board members on June 22 heard a presentation from consultants at Crabtree outlining what a districtwide facilities feasibility study would examine, how long it would take and how the district could use the report to prioritize repairs, renovations or new construction.

Leah Shily, a principal and director of client relations at the consulting team, said her role is to ensure the board’s goals are defined and met, and to lead community engagement and potential grant-writing support. “If there’s any type of community engagement or public relations that would be a part of it, I would be involved,” Shily said during the presentation.

John Badilla, the consultants’ management partner and architect, reviewed the study process the firm uses: defining district goals, a building-by-building assessment of architectural and mechanical systems, code and site reviews (including parking and traffic), enrollment modeling, and order-of-magnitude cost options that show trade-offs between renovation and replacement. Badilla said the firm would bring mechanical, electrical, plumbing and civil engineers onto the team as needed and would work with districts at a pace set by the board.

The consultants described typical outputs as a planning document that helps the district prioritize projects and justify them to the public. Badilla said the team would compare multiple enrollment models (state data, proprietary analyses and any district projections) to arrive at a recommended planning horizon; he noted some studies look 20 years ahead to test long-range options.

On schedule and cost, consultants described a flexible approach: a study can often be completed in roughly six months but can be paced to district needs. They described a fixed-fee approach based on effort rather than fluctuating construction-bid results; the transcript referenced sample fee figures in the neighborhood of $7,500–$12,000 as examples but the exact proposed fee for Fairfield Area SD was not finalized in the discussion.

Board members asked about next steps, committee involvement and public engagement. Several members stressed the importance of timing — for example, avoiding summer-only processes that limit community input — and asked how the study would account for proposed housing development and its effect on enrollment. Badilla described methods to convert housing starts to expected students using national and local data, and noted a study would provide a range of projections rather than a single asserted figure.

Members also raised concerns about deferred maintenance and the potential public reaction to large cost estimates. The consultants said the study often reveals maintenance needs and can package findings so the board can set realistic priorities and financial plans. Badilla gave a simplified cost-comparison example in the presentation—citing a renovation figure and a higher new-construction figure—to illustrate how the study would present options, but those project examples were illustrative rather than specific recommendations for the district.

At the meeting’s close, the board chair asked for a motion. One member said, “I’ll make a motion,” and another replied, “Second.” The motion text and any vote were not included in the transcript.

The consultants said they would provide materials in stages, allow board comment before finalizing recommendations, and could arrange facility tours of comparable projects. The board’s next regular meeting was scheduled for June 22 at 7:00 p.m. in the district boardroom.

What happens next: The transcript indicates a motion was made and seconded to proceed with the engagement process; the record included here does not show the motion’s exact wording or whether the board voted at that meeting.