Partly cloudy and windy. High 63F. Winds WNW at 20 to 30 mph. Higher wind gusts possible..
Tonight
Partly cloudy and windy this evening. Cloudy with diminishing winds late. Low 51F. WNW winds at 20 to 30 mph, decreasing to 5 to 10 mph. Higher wind gusts possible.
Design amendments required by significant budget overruns are not dissuading San Mateo-Foster City Elementary School District officials from pushing ahead toward construction of a new Foster City elementary campus.
Officials presented a timetable for construction of the new school at Charter Square Shopping Center during a recent community meeting which suggested demolition should begin around the end of August.
Such a schedule would put the school on track for construction at the beginning of 2019, according to the report from the meeting Tuesday, July 24, assuming all permits are issued on time, and delays are not forced by budget issues or poor weather.
But those ambitions must be tempered by the challenges posed amidst a difficult building environment across the Bay Area, as construction cost increases force tough decisions for school officials, Superintendent Joan Rosas said in a prepared statement.
“All new projects, regardless of whether they are publicly or privately owned and financed, have experienced cost increases,” she said. “The district’s four projects are no exception and the district’s Board of Trustees has had several discussions over the last year about cost increases and how to reduce the costs of the projects while providing the needed facilities and keeping the district’s commitment to the voters.”
For the Foster City school, most notable among the challenges is the deferred construction of a five-classroom wing on the east side of campus facing Beach Park Boulevard.
The deferral is a cost-cutting initiative adopted as part of the effort to address cost escalations, as trustees approved spending $73 million on the school, said district spokeswoman Amber Farinha in an email, up from the $61 million initially set aside for the project.
Changes to finishing materials on the campus multipurpose room and administrative building as well as removal or use of temporary shade structures are among the value engineering efforts sought by officials as well.
Financing for the project is provided through the $148 million Measure X bond, approved by voters in 2015 to building the new Foster City school, gyms across district middle schools and a new San Mateo elementary school, among other initiatives. Officials claimed the new Foster City school is necessary to offset enrollment hikes across the district, and the campus is expected to accommodate up to 460 students.
Recommended for you
But now, construction cost increases driven by competition for similar projects across the Bay Area as well as demand spikes for labor and materials are forcing district officials to identify possible savings wherever possible.
As a result, “significant time was spent at various stages in the design process by architects, district staff and Board of Trustees to reduce costs wherever possible and determine other sources of revenue,” according to a district presentation.
An additional project challenge is the need to put in a new stoplight at the corner of Shell and Beach Park boulevards at the northeast corner of the campus.
The project is part of the effort by educators to assuage concerns from Foster City officials and residents regarding the traffic and parking congestion invited by construction of the new school. A memorandum of understanding between the district and city has been signed to lay groundwork for construction, but the plan permits are still being reviewed by a state agency.
Looking ahead, school officials remain hopeful the school will be ready at the launch of the 2020-21 school year. In the time between the start of construction and the first bell, enrollment boundaries will need to be determined.
Identifying which neighborhoods will be included in the enrollment area will involve outreach to prospective parents and the rest of the school community. A name for the new campus will be needed as well.
For her part, Farinha expressed her optimism for the project to continue moving ahead.
“We are excited to move into the next stages of this project,” she said.
It seems incompetence reigns with public projects like this.
Who's running the project?......Anyone with construction experience?....or are all the so-called "experts" just feeding at the change order trough?
Construction cost increases...are they only just discovering that now?..... Typically, that very basic contingency is built into the process from the start of the project..... Why is it now only being being brought up and being addressed with 'design amendments' and 'deferred' construction?....in other words, basically watered down quality....parts of which may or may not be built.
Costs have gone up nearly 20% and the project probably won't even start for another two years...And then you wonder why taxpayers are skeptical of how public projects are run and their 'vague' funding conditions...something like the bullet/now snail train to nowhere...
there just is no accountability in public work projects and it will be anyone's guess how far out of budget this project goes. Soon, the delays and cost overages will be blamed on our president. Somehow I just know that those responsible for construction and financing this school will start saying "It's all Trumps fault" I guess the good news is that it is only money...…...Other People's money.
It is interesting in a recent Foster City Council meeting one Council Member criticized another Council Member for questioning park improvement and went so far as to attempt imply the criticized Council Member was responsible for cost overruns for having questions. If the shoe fits, then the criticizing council member is at least partially responsible for the cost over run for the school cost overrun since questions and other actions cause delay for the building of the school. So perhaps they should advocate stepping in and help pay for the building that is not being built.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(4) comments
It seems incompetence reigns with public projects like this.
Who's running the project?......Anyone with construction experience?....or are all the so-called "experts" just feeding at the change order trough?
Construction cost increases...are they only just discovering that now?..... Typically, that very basic contingency is built into the process from the start of the project..... Why is it now only being being brought up and being addressed with 'design amendments' and 'deferred' construction?....in other words, basically watered down quality....parts of which may or may not be built.
Costs have gone up nearly 20% and the project probably won't even start for another two years...And then you wonder why taxpayers are skeptical of how public projects are run and their 'vague' funding conditions...something like the bullet/now snail train to nowhere...
there just is no accountability in public work projects and it will be anyone's guess how far out of budget this project goes. Soon, the delays and cost overages will be blamed on our president. Somehow I just know that those responsible for construction and financing this school will start saying "It's all Trumps fault"
I guess the good news is that it is only money...…...Other People's money.
Any chance we can call this Donald J Trump Elementary School. We can be the first ones.
It is interesting in a recent Foster City Council meeting one Council Member criticized another Council Member for questioning park improvement and went so far as to attempt imply the criticized Council Member was responsible for cost overruns for having questions. If the shoe fits, then the criticizing council member is at least partially responsible for the cost over run for the school cost overrun since questions and other actions cause delay for the building of the school. So perhaps they should advocate stepping in and help pay for the building that is not being built.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.