ELY – ISD 696 School Board members here approved some of the final pieces in the $20 million facility renovation project this week and signs point to the doors opening on the new enclosed campus on the first day of classes for the 2022-23 school year.
However, there weren’t many handshakes, back slaps and high fives in the board room this week as cost overruns and project design missteps were discussed.
For more than a year, the school district’s construction officials and the city of Ely have worked to solve a major infrastructure component of the project that was apparently overlooked in initial project design planning.
Century-old water and sewer lines must be upgraded and partially relocated due to the addition of the connecting building between the existing Washington and Memorial school buildings. An additional fire hydrant must be installed near the south side of the buildings as required by state fire codes. And the school campus is virtually surrounded by ledge rock, making water and sewer line relocation an expensive and time-consuming challenge.
“We’ve been looking at some of the infrastructure needs on campus since last February, said Ely Clerk-Treasurer Harold Langowski as he presented a proposal to the board Monday night. He described a water main replacement project with a cost of about $870,000.
Langowski had good news – state and federal funding will cover more than half of the infrastructure work.
“About two weeks ago we heard from the offices of Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Sen. Tina Smith that $245,000 in federal funds were earmarked through an EPA water and wastewater infrastructure program,” he said. “That was really good news as we had not heard anything since we put in the application last June.”
In addition to federal funding, the state Department of Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation has infrastructure funding available.
“We submitted an application (to IRRR) last Friday for $250,000 to match the federal EPA grant,” Langowski said. “If everything goes through as expected, we will have $495,000 in federal and state assistance for this water line project.”
Now the bad news. Construction cost overruns and delays due to COVID-19, inflation, supply line disruption and labor shortages continue to plague the renovation project. Langowski said project manager Kraus-Anderson has been working with the site engineer SEH and on-site contractor Rachel Construction on estimating the cost of the water line project.
“As an example, just the water main pipe materials are over $30 a foot and not available right now,” he said. “In the availability of materials and costs of those materials we have seen significant escalation in costs, as you well know, on all aspects of this project.”
The main water line on the north side of campus, coming from Fourth Avenue and running along Harvey Street, will be replaced. In addition, a fire protection line on the south side of the campus will be brought in from Pattison Street and run along the west side of the football field, with a fire hydrant located near the stadium and the Memorial building.
“We are waiting for the frost to come out of the ground and will start work in June. Our goal is to complete this project (this summer) and have a certificate of occupancy that meets the fire code requirement that says we must have a fire hydrant on the south side of the building,” Langowski said. The city of Ely will have an easement to the school campus to maintain the new water service.
The required water and sewer line work on the campus will cost the school district an additional $375,000 on a project that is already experiencing unforeseen cost overruns.
School board concerns
While the added cost of the water main work is just a fraction of the $20 million total project, board members voiced their frustrations to construction officials Monday night.
“There is a lot of respect behind what I want to say, but I have to tell you that I am extremely concerned about the project and the point of where we are at with some of the funding,” said temporary school board chair Rochelle Sjoberg.
“The trust that the board has put into (Kraus Anderson) and (Architectural Resources Inc.) is extremely important for you to understand. Not anyone at this table are architects or engineers and we don’t pretend to be. That trust, transparency and reliance on you for this project is extremely important,” Sjoberg continued.
“It has been troublesome to not be able to complete this project as intended or initially started at the beginning. From the start of this project, the blueprints and design of our intent to merge the buildings has always been. I am having trouble understanding where some of the newer expenses or developments come up with the fire hydrant. If that was a code requirement, why has that surfaced now and why was it not part of the original discussion?” she asked.
Project architect ARI’s Karl Larson explained that locating a fire hydrant on the south side of the campus was not considered in the original design.
“We didn’t fully grasp the value of having fire truck access though the courtyard and not being accessible from a fire hydrant standpoint,” Larson said. “The thought was that once the courtyard (the space between the Memorial and Washington buildings) was filled in, you can no longer get a fire hose or fire truck in. It wasn’t our understanding to begin with that it was part of the fire department’s protocol at the time.”
Fire codes require fire truck access within 150 feet of any part of a building, he added.
“We had considered the back of the building as part of that access, but it didn’t quite fulfill the fire department’s requirements for the hydrant need.”
Sjoberg pressed the issue.
“This is not whether about Ely or Morse or any fire department has truck accessibility. My concern is the hydrant and the code tied to the hydrant. I don’t want to make a mountain out a mole hill, but these things are important for an initial assessment from our engineers and architects on the project. Every penny matters and these are large expenses that we are now trying to secure funds for. The fire code is the fire code. I feel like this was missed.”
Larson admitted, “It was missed in design. But immediately after the building was submitted for plan review, it was caught and priced out in April of last year.”
He said that initially, with the water main replacement in the front of the building, pricing was added in to run a water line around the east side of the campus.
“It wasn’t known at the time that we would encounter rock, so we had to scrap the idea of running a line around the east side and start the concept of running a line in from the south,” he said.
“I don’t have a great answer for you as to why the initial pricing for the entire project prior to the development of plans didn’t have that hydrant in there, but we do follow and pay attention to fire codes and our intent was that a fire truck could get to the back side of the building,” Larson said. “Based on the assessment from the building official and fire department, we needed more.”
Ely Fire Chief David Marshall confirmed that the Ely building official identified the requirement for the hydrant.
“The need for the hydrant is based on the state fire code and not on local protocol,” he said.
Sjoberg responded, “I want you to know that it is a concern. I don’t know that I am really satisfied with the response, but I appreciate your honesty that (the additional fire hydrant) wasn’t in the initial bid and it should have been. I feel like this is one part of a process that keeps coming back to the district, and there are other pertinent pieces of the project that continually diminish and it is becoming really, really, disheartening.”
More construction bids approved
Kraus-Anderson’s project manager Todd Erickson presented an updated construction timeline and budget along with details of the fourth construction bid package that was recently tallied.
“Here at the end of March we are 69 percent complete with five months to go for the planned opening in September,” Erickson said. “The roof was finished about a week ago.” He showed photos of wall studs installed for the district and school offices in the north part of the new building. Doors, ramps and stairways linking the new building with the Washington and Memorial buildings were also recently completed.
Through mid-March, 42 percent or $8,658,000 of the project expenditures have been spent with 58 percent or $11,775,000 remaining. About 51 percent of the project contingency fund, originally budgeted at $975,000, is spent. Another 14 percent in contingency fund expenses are pending, leaving about 35 percent, or $337,542 remaining.
Late last year, construction managers were directed by the district’s facilities committee to “create a budget for Bid Package Four priorities from Bid Package Three scope reductions.”
Completion of window replacements for the Washington and Memorial buildings, along with corresponding carpentry, steel, drywall and paint work, was removed from the project, saving about $679,000. Plans are to eventually complete that work using funds from the district’s Long Term Facilities Maintenance Fund.
The reconfigured $898,000 Bid Package Four includes just the boys and girls locker rooms and Special Education room construction. Items eliminated along with the window replacement included science lab renovation, classroom remodeling and restroom upgrades in the Washington and Memorial buildings.
As presented by Erickson, the package includes $449,000 for the girls locker room, $361,000 for the boys locker room, and $87,000 for the Special Education suite. Megan Anderson, 6-12 principal, noted that the special education work includes just construction and not renovation of the area.
Board members unanimously approved Bid Package Four.
Project budget
The total project budget now stands at $21,429,442, according to Erickson. The initial ISD 696 general fund contribution has doubled from $500,000 to $1 million. The added cost to taxpayers is coined as a “reduction in the reserve funds” in the updated budget.
Board member Tom Omerza solicited comment from Interim Superintendent John Klarich on doubling the district’s reserve fund allocation.
“This is more of a back-up,” Klarich said. “If we don’t get this done now, if we don’t do this, we don’t open our doors this fall. We are currently working on other sources of revenue to back fill that (additional fund reserve use). I don’t think we will have to use that (extra) $500,000 in its entirety. Sometimes you have to use money to leverage money. Who is going to pick up the overrun? Well, it is our building, it is our project and we are ultimately responsible.”
Klarich continued, “I have the fullest confidence that we are only going to dip in to the (additional) $500,000 to access further additional dollars coming from other sources. We can also scale back the project as we go. There is quite a bit of work left to be done yet. It is a matter of balancing right now until we can get our answers from the legislature. We are also approaching other places for dollars. We are still looking everywhere we can.”
He noted that the district is pursuing other dollars, related to COVID-19 financial relief, as related to material price increases and labor shortages.
“We are looking locally to get that money back as related to granting institutions. I am confident we are going to get some of that back. We are working on a plan. How successful we are depends on the legislature and other things,” he said. “We can also bond without it costing the taxpayers through long term facilities maintenance. We still have some dollars available there if we stretch out to 20 years. We have to deliver on what we promised.”