Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Construction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tolleson district says School 8 won’t open partially in 2027; full opening now set for 2028
Summary
District and contractor told the board unique circular design, permitting delays and procurement timing make a phased 2027 opening unsafe; officials said the contract’s full completion date remains 2028 and explained causes of the delay.
The Tolleson Union High School District was told by its facilities director and construction manager that School 8 (referred to in materials as Estraa Vista Academy) will not be safe to open partially in July 2027 as earlier discussed, and the district should plan for a full opening in 2028.
Gabe Martinez, the district’s facilities director, said earthwork and utilities are underway but that permitting from multiple jurisdictions and the school’s circular design make it unsafe to occupy part of the building while construction continues in other portions. A representative from Chase Construction told the board code- and safety-review recommendations do not allow a phased occupancy of the circular layout.
The board pressed staff on cost exposure under the guaranteed maximum price (GMP), contingency treatment, and whether project phasing had been considered. District staff and the construction manager explained the procurement approach (construction manager at risk) and that delays in bringing the contractor, finalizing the GMP and redesign work created a roughly ten-month gap in the schedule that undermined the earlier ambition of a partial 2027 opening.
"This design does not yield itself to a phase delivery," the district’s project lead said, citing the building’s circular plan and departmental compartmentalization that would force contractors and students to occupy the same work zones. Staff said the original contract did not require a 2027 phased deliverable and that the 2028 full opening is consistent with the contract language.
Board members pressed whether a different procurement or earlier approvals would have changed the outcome; staff said that if approvals had occurred in April rather than December the district might have met the earlier ambition, but the combination of municipal permitting, design complexities and a year of redesign meant that catching up was unlikely.
Several board members asked for clearer timeline documentation and requested future updates on permitting, GMP contingencies and access for district oversight during construction. The board did not take additional contract action at the meeting.
The board also discussed risks of locking future boards into design decisions and whether phased delivery restricts future oversight; staff said district facilities retained inspection and access rights and would continue to report progress to the board.
