Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Construction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Edgecomb board hears three architecture teams for grant-funded preK–12 consolidation; decision deferred
Summary
Three architecture teams — Moseley Architects, Vines Architecture/Design Collective, and a local K–12 firm — presented competing plans for a needs-based grant project to consolidate multiple campuses into a single preK–12 site. Board members pressed presenters on schedule, budget controls, flood resilience and phasing; the board will decide at Monday’s regular meeting.
The Edgecomb County Board of Education on Dec. 4 heard 30–45 minute presentations from three architecture teams competing to design a needs-based grant-funded preK–12 consolidation project, then questioned each on schedule, budget controls, construction phasing and flood resilience.
Moseley Architects’ managing principal, Ashley Dennis, led the first presentation and framed the firm’s pitch around teacher engagement, lifecycle-cost analysis and quality control. “We want to save you money by designing flexible, multiuse spaces and by doing thorough clash detection so fewer changes occur in the field,” Dennis said, explaining Moseley’s use of Navisworks coordination and third‑party estimating. The Moseley team identified career-technical education (CTE) spaces, resilient HVAC strategies and alternate bid packages as ways to keep the project within the district’s funding envelope while meeting program goals.
The Vines Architecture / Design Collective team emphasized campus planning and modern learning environments. Victor Vines and Fred Marino highlighted 21st‑century strategies — makerspaces, flexible media centers, and strong visual connections to the exterior — and described how early involvement by a construction manager at-risk could help establish a GMP (guaranteed maximum price). Vines said the team plans structured milestone reviews and frequent owner meetings to keep design phases on schedule.
A local K–12 specialist team led by project architect Jimmy Hite focused on durability and long‑term maintenance. Hite described a “Unitary Systems Approach” that uses platform zones for mechanical and electrical infrastructure, pitched roofs and durable exterior materials to reduce life‑cycle costs and simplify future upgrades.
Board members asked all teams similar questions: how they would maintain a tight design schedule, how frequently they would produce cost checks and alternates, how they handle RFIs and submittals during construction, and how they would phase work while keeping the existing high school occupied. Firms pointed to micro‑deadlines, third‑party estimators and dedicated construction administration staff as the primary tools to keep schedule and costs on track.
Several directors also raised past flood events and mitigation measures for Princeville/Princeville Montessori, asking which firms had carried out previous flood‑resilience work and whether base‑elevation, flood gates or other measures were included in prior designs. The board asked staff to verify past contracts and flood-response details before making a final selection.
No formal selection was made at the special call. Board members agreed to place a decision on the agenda for the regular Monday meeting so members could review materials and follow up on outstanding questions.
The board chair said the schedule ahead will include that regular meeting vote; in the meantime, administrators were asked to provide documentation on prior flood‑mitigation work referenced during the presentations.
