Architects present schematic designs and warn project is over bond estimate

Architects for the East Marshall Community School District presented schematic designs for a multi-school rebuild Wednesday, walking the board through plans for a high‑school addition and renovations plus additions at the middle and elementary schools, and delivering a preliminary cost opinion that officials said would exceed the district’s current bond funding unless changes are made.

The design team described a two‑phase approach at the high school that requires an east‑side addition to be built before the district can remove the older 1925 building and construct a connector "student hub." Brady Daniel, a project architect on the team, said the plan uses dedicated renovation zones and limited‑work zones to control scope: "The red is intended to show where we are going to have renovation, meaning primarily new ceilings, new carpet, paint," he said during the presentation (Brady Daniel).

The team also walked the board through circulation and life‑safety constraints that shaped the plan: two stairways and an elevator are required for the new second floor; the site slope and fire‑rated wall between the addition and the old barrel‑vault gym affect egress and ramping; and temporary security points will be necessary during construction.

On cost, the design team presented a multi‑line budget. "Our subtotal right now is 22.7" million for construction alone, the presenter said, and after adding design contingencies, construction contingencies and soft costs the team’s total moved toward roughly $29.8 million. The presenters noted known funding lines — a bond referendum of about $19.8 million and approximately $6.5 million in saved/bonded funds — and said the current design would leave a gap of roughly $3.5 million.

"If we want everything that we just talked about tonight, we're over budget currently and we may have some hard choices that we are going to have to make," the architect told the board during the budget review (Tyler).

To close the gap, the architects recommended a mix of approaches: identify bid alternates (for example, hold off on full air conditioning of the barrel‑vault gym, reduce corridor cosmetic upgrades, split the addition to reduce mat space), remove non‑essential elements, and wait for SS Construction’s soon‑to‑be‑delivered cost opinion to compare against market bids. The presenters also emphasized site unknowns — utility relocation, potential deep plumbing, or unforeseen subsurface conditions — that justify conservative contingencies.

Board members pressed on sequencing and construction logistics — dumpster and delivery access behind the buildings, potential relocation of propane tanks, and parking during construction — and asked the team to return in two weeks with SS Construction’s cost opinion so the board could decide which alternates to adopt and whether to proceed to design approval.

Next steps: the team said they will produce a more detailed cost opinion from the construction manager at risk and return to the board with updated pricing and recommended alternates. If the board chooses scope reductions, staff said those options can be packaged as bid alternates to lower risk and preserve schedule.