ELY — The school board here, on Monday, approved a $395,560 contract with SEH engineering to design improvements for the district’s athletic facilities, moving forward with plans to spend a $5.25 million state grant.
The contract with SEH covers design and bidding documents for the sports facility improvements project, with construction planned to begin in 2026. The approval came after discussion about lessons learned from the district’s previous building project.
“Past experience from this facility project was painful,” said board member Tom Omerza, referencing cost overruns and delays that have made the board cautious about the new project.
SEH project manager Jason Chopp assured board members that the current contract only covers the design phase through bid completion. Additional costs for construction management — whether through SEH or a construction manager — would be determined later in the process.
“The services contract you have for us right now is to take you through completion of design and bidding documents and put the project out for bids to contractors,” Chopp said.
Strict budget controls
Omerza emphasized that the district cannot exceed the $5.25 million grant amount, as the school has faced financial challenges in recent years.
“We don’t have $5.25 million and one dollar to spend on the project,” he said, highlighting the need for careful budget monitoring throughout the process.
To address these concerns, Chopp outlined several safeguards. The project will include bid alternatives that can be removed if costs exceed budget, and the design will be split into preliminary and final phases with cost estimates at each stage.
“If we need to, we have room to expand or reduce, and we can do that before we go to bid,” Chopp said. “The goal is to have everything finalized and be in a situation where we’re doing construction bidding.”
Construction options
The board will need to decide between two construction delivery methods by late October or early November: traditional design-bid-build with a general contractor, or construction manager at risk. Chopp promised to provide a detailed comparison of both approaches to help inform the decision. Typically, a construction manager at risk provides a guaranteed maximum price for a project.
Board members expressed particular concern about project oversight and cost control, with Tony Colarich asking about monitoring procedures.
“As far as how we’re watching the numbers. You’re monitoring the draws, you’re monitoring things. And if you see something … an issue … we want a ‘raise it right now’ type thing, not one month before the project’s supposed to be done, and the money’s gone,” he said.
The contract approval moves the district closer to beginning construction on facilities, some that haven’t seen major improvements in quite some time. The board plans to review project progress through regular budget updates and meetings as the design phase proceeds.
Construction could begin as soon as next year.