Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities And Bond topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
East Marshall board approves long-range facilities plan, begins procurement for construction manager
Summary
The East Marshall board approved a long-range facilities plan tied to a possible $19.88 million bond, discussed options for Gilman and a 1923 building replacement, and directed staff to begin a formal construction-manager procurement (favoring a construction manager at risk).
The East Marshall Community School District Board on Oct. 15 approved a long-range facilities plan that lays out a phased approach tied to a potential $19.88 million bond and directed staff to begin a formal procurement for a construction manager at risk.
Kevin, the district's lead presenting the facilities review, told the board the district's available SAVE capacity is about $5.3 million (lower than an earlier $6.3 million estimate) and that the bond scenario would fund an initial set of classroom projects while deferring larger items such as a potential Gilman modification and replacement of the 1923 'grand' building to later phases. Kevin said the $19.88 million bond scenario is the planning assumption if voters approve the measure.
The plan lays out multiple timelines and contingencies: if the bond passes, staff proposed phasing classroom construction first and pursuing additional voter actions (including possible SAVE or levy adjustments) later; if the bond fails, staff described an immediate response that would include a SAVE-resolution effort and potential campus consolidations with an estimated annual savings of about $210,000.
Board members spent significant time on how to manage a multi-site construction program. Staff explained the difference between a construction manager as agent (CMA) and a construction manager at risk (CMR), noting that a CMR can provide a guaranteed maximum price and shift some cost-overrun risk to the firm, while a CMA typically acts more as an advisor. Kevin said the district lacks internal capacity to manage multiple prime contractors at scale and recommended a CM/CMR approach.
A board member cited the district's prior relationship with Estus Group and encouraged the district to favor local contractors where feasible; another member noted a local firm (Denovo) had contacted the board to offer local project-management services. The board agreed to start a transparent procurement process (RFQ/RFP) for a construction manager at risk or similar firm, and staff committed to work with legal counsel to draft AIA-based contracts.
The long-range facilities plan was approved by board vote; the bond itself would still require voter approval and individual contract awards will follow a formal procurement and bidding process. Next steps include issuing the RFQ/RFP for construction management, refining project cost estimates with bids, and public communication around any voter measures.
Board materials and the presentation made clear that the plan's phases and timing are contingent on voter approvals and final bids; the board did not commit bond proceeds or sign construction contracts at the meeting. The district will return to the board with procurement documents and recommended firms for a formal selection and contract award process.
