Regional School District 13 building committee removes irrigation, deletes front entrance canopy to narrow budget gap

The Regional School District 13 Building Committee voted Wednesday to remove a $30,000 irrigation allowance from the school expansion contract and to delete a front-entrance canopy alternate worth $164,378, moves the committee said will help close an approximately $180,000 project shortfall.

The decisions were announced during a discussion of bid alternates and value-engineering options for the memorial renovation and expansion project. Howard Weisberg, identified at the meeting as the building committee’s lead, moved to remove the irrigation allowance "to accept the removal of irrigation from the contract," and the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote.

Committee members then debated several alternates, including decorative stamped and colored concrete, benches, tennis/pickleball court surfacing and lighting, and a proposed outdoor classroom. Rob Craftsman moved to delete front entrance canopy number 4 without benches as an alternate (alternate 10b), for a credit of $164,378; the motion carried after a voice vote that included recorded 'Aye' responses and at least one recorded opposition. The chair declared the motion passed "not unanimously, but [the] motion does pass."

Supporters of removing the canopy and irrigation said those elements either raised maintenance costs or could be restored later if funding becomes available. Members noted the risk of removing substantial site work now, since remobilizing contractors and re-permitting would make future additions costlier. One member summarized the trade-off: leaving grading and drainage in place but deferring surfacing or lighting preserves options while saving money now.

The committee spent extended time on the outdoor classroom alternate, originally estimated at about $275,000. Architects and consultants described the design as two separate classroom zones with low-maintenance plantings, crushed-stone paths, a 30-by-30 shade element and limited occupancy to comply with egress requirements. Several members argued the alternate could be simplified and phased — for example, smaller shade sails, more planting and fewer concrete elements — to bring the cost down substantially. The committee did not adopt the $275,000 design; members agreed to form a smaller subcommittee to produce revised, lower-cost options.

Parents and staff raised accessibility and safety concerns about some lower-cost surfacing options. One participant, identified at the meeting as a parent, said, "I would honestly tell you that my kid cannot go out there," criticizing stone-dust paths as slippery for children who use wheelchairs or walkers. Committee members requested firm pricing and revised drawings on lighting, surfacing and canopy options before making further cuts.

The committee also approved invoices presented at the meeting, including utility and construction-administration bills, and set a process to return with updated cost estimates. Next steps listed by members: convene the outdoor-classroom subcommittee, obtain revised pricing for court lighting and surfacing, and develop a final list of alternates to balance educational priorities and budget limits.

The meeting adjourned after committee members agreed to continue work on the alternates and return with the subcommittee’s recommendations.