Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustees review $57M–$73M Brighton gym, pool and performing-arts schematic; designers recommend phased approach
Summary
Architects presented schematic designs and updated cost opinions for the Brighton Gym, expanded pool and a new performing-arts facility; construction-only estimates were presented at about $57 million and total project estimates including soft costs and escalation were discussed near $73 million. Trustees requested detailed cost breakdowns and phasing options before committing to priorities.
Design consultants presented a schematic design and updated cost opinions for the Brighton Gym, an expanded pool and an off-site performing-arts/band facility, framing the project in three areas (gym/pool/weight room; weight/cardio; and performing arts across Palm Court).
An R and T Architects representative summarized the program scope: Area 1 would rebuild the gym and provide a multipurpose room and pool support facilities; Area 2 includes a larger pool and weight/cardio facilities; Area 3 would add a performing-arts building across Palm Court with dance studios, a large band room, choir and theater spaces. Landscape firm Pacific Coast Land Design illustrated circulation improvements and terraces to solve steep site grades and improve accessibility between Building 500 and the stadium.
Consultants presented a construction-only figure of roughly $57,000,000 and indicated total project cost (including soft costs and escalation to mid-construction) could approach $73,000,000, noting that the performing-arts component is the principal programmatic addition increasing the budget. The team recommended several phasing approaches — building Area 1 first (gym and pool), then Area 2 and Area 3, or breaking the program into tranches — and emphasized that the board’s phasing priorities will materially affect schedule and escalation assumptions. The architects said escalation modeling assumed pricing through 2028 and that more-detailed cost reports will be returned at the design-development milestone.
Trustees pressed for clarifications on large site-development line items (one trustee noted an increase from $1.4M to $7.8M in a site-development line), asked whether the pool could remain operational if the board prioritized the performing-arts building, and sought a comprehensive accounting of available funding (existing bonds, insurance proceeds, developer fees and deferred maintenance funds). Trustee Sandoval noted declining enrollment and district budget constraints as context for prioritizing projects.
The board did not vote on the project; trustees requested a tighter cost breakdown, schedule options for phasing, and a return to the board with the cost consultant’s detailed report so members can prioritize projects across the district.
