Board questions $12 million Robertsdale stadium estimate, urges district facilities plan

A committee member raised concerns about a proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the City of Robertsdale that includes an architect's approximate estimate for a football stadium, saying the board had not previously discussed the project or agreed on district priorities.

The committee member told the board that the MOU carries an approximate $12,000,000 figure for the stadium and an additional roughly $1,500,000 for a field house, and questioned how those dollar amounts were derived. "We never really had a discussion about any of these projects ... and now we have a $12,000,000 MOU, and I don't have a basis of what the dollar amount even came from," the committee member said.

A staff member responded that the district obtained historical data and cost estimates from an architect (identified in the meeting as Mr. McKee) to provide the city with a written approximation so the city would be willing to deed approximately 10 acres. The staff member said such estimates are commonly used to inform capital planning and partnership discussions and that the estimate language was intentionally loose to allow for lower final bids.

Several board members pressed for a district-wide facilities plan. One member said the board needs an explicit, ranked list of priorities for future construction, closures and disposals, and questioned whether stadium projects should take precedence over classroom needs. "We need to have a discussion of what those priorities are, with the board and not just the one-off projects," the committee member said, noting concerns about students still being served in portables while stadium work was being planned elsewhere.

Members also debated procurement strategy. A committee member warned that repeatedly sole-sourcing to a single architecture/engineering (A&E) firm can create bottlenecks that slow project delivery and suggested the district expand its pool of engineering firms and consider RFQs to increase concurrent work. A director cautioned that bottlenecks can also come from engineers and trade contractors and said the district's consistent use of known engineers had helped avoid problems such as indoor-air-quality issues in past projects.

The discussion also addressed coordination opportunities. Staff said cafeteria renovations, several already underway, had been designed so they could be bid alongside stadium work where feasible to reduce costs and limit the number of contractors on a site. Staff promised to provide the board a more detailed, itemized estimate from the architect when available and to bring cost and scope documentation back to the board before formal commitments are made.

The board did not take a formal vote on the MOU during the work session. The board's next steps, as discussed, include requesting the architect's itemized estimate, considering a district facilities-prioritization plan, and exploring broader procurement options to avoid single-firm bottlenecks.