Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Escalation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
What it would cost: board weighs $275K tradeoffs versus up to $4M of delay and escalation
Summary
Administration and consultants told the board the 75‑foot compromise (Option 2) would cost about $275,000 to reconfigure storage and office space, while enlarging to a full 84‑foot court could add $800K–$1M plus roughly $3M in escalation if the project were delayed by a year for zoning and land‑development work.
District staff and the project consultants presented the board with a range of incremental costs tied to different gym options. Option 2 (75‑foot) was estimated to add about $275,000 for redesign and construction of storage/office reconfiguration; administration said that option would likely not trigger additional parking requirements or a full land‑development re‑start.
By contrast, administration and ICS warned that Option 3 (84‑foot) would add roughly $800,000–$1,000,000 of direct construction cost and, because it would push the project over impervious surface limits and require zoning relief, could necessitate restarting approvals. ICS estimated about one year of delay with roughly $3,000,000 of construction escalation across the whole project, producing a combined incremental impact closer to $3.8–$4.0 million. Mr. Murphy of ICS also explained bidding and contingency practice: "The bids we receive are lump sum...we have contingency in the budget to cover some of those delays," he said, and noted the contractor must justify claims for delay-based cost increases.
