Foster City school construction proceeds, with hurdles ahead

The approval pushes the project ahead in the development process, but officials still face formidable challenges in grappling with a project budget already $6 million beyond original expectations and growing fears that figure may further swell.

Pessimistic the project will get any more affordable over the months to come, board President Nancy Kohn Hsieh shared her unease regarding the district’s ability to complete the school needed to address overcrowding at Foster City campuses.

“We’re going to end up breaking ground and not being able to build a school,” said Kohn Hsieh, who announced last week her intention to resign from the board at the end of the month.

Skyrocketing construction costs are primarily to blame for the expenses growing beyond the $61 million initially budgeted to purchase the shopping center and build the campus at the corner Shell and Beach Park boulevards, officials have said.

Under an effort to cut costs, Kohn Hsieh queried the district’s architect regarding opportunities to shrink or amend the project plans. She was told the planning process is so far along, any substantive changes would likely make the project even more expensive through additional work fees and extended development timelines.

Other trustees expressed greater optimism regarding the district’s capacity to deliver the campus as promised through the Measure X bond campaign designed primarily to finance construction.

Vice President Audrey Ng noted the district set aside nearly $4 million in the project budget to offset anticipated costs increases which, along with other mitigations, are expected to close the existing $6 million deficit.

She also shared a reticence to tell school community members that officials would consider altering campus plans.

“I’m not about to change it and spring that on people,” said Ng, in the discussion regarding potential design amendments.

Trustee Shara Watkins was even more direct in her opposition to a redesign, calling the idea “a waste of time and money.”

Furthermore, Watkins suggested slowing progress to shrink or amend the project would likely mean officials “reduce the scope and get less of what we want and it costs the same.”

Watkins instead encouraged her colleagues to wait for a forthcoming updated project budget examination before engaging in discussions about campus overhauls.

District Chief Business Officer Carolyn Chow promised the board will receive an refreshed budget projection at its next meeting, granting officials a more comprehensive vision of the project’s finances.

“We will have a lot more information at the next meeting,” said Chow, referring to the meeting scheduled Thursday, Jan. 25.

Budget hurdles are not the only challenges plaguing the proposed campus, as school and Foster City officials have also been at odds over the potential traffic, parking and noise issues generated by the project.

Foster City officials authored a series of letters outlining concerns and while school officials are interested in working to mitigate the points of contention, trustees felt they could no longer postpone certifying the environmental documents.

With some concerns from Foster City Hall still lingering, school administrators said they intend to address the terms in a forthcoming memorandum of understanding.

“As good neighbors, we are working with the city,” said Ng.

While the deal is being crafted, school officials expressed optimism their vote in favor of the environmental report would allow them to get in line for state construction bond funding which could help pay down some of the looming financial issues.

In recognition that time is money as it relates to construction costs, Trustee Noelia Corzo said certifying the environmental report will be essential to the project’s progress.

“The more we delay this, the more we risk funding, and that is not a good idea,” she said.

In other business at the meeting, the board unanimously approved a new contract with district teachers. Details include salary increases that include 5 percent retroactive to July 1, 2016, and 3 percent retroactive to July 1, 2017, along with increases to both teacher stipends and to the hourly pay rate for supplemental work. The initial contract agreement, announced last month, followed months of contentious bargaining which built toward talks of a strike.

austin@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 105