On Wednesday, Montclair Board of Education reported that its ongoing projects to upgrade and repair the district’s schools are progressing under budget.
Legacy Construction Management in charge of the $187.7 million bond referendum, a six year project, gave an update on key initiatives underway.
Previously, residents complained that the updates lacked substantial information and were hard to understand. They mentioned brief information posted to the website, with a few lines of text, and no numbers, budgets or schedules.
Business Administrator and Board Secretary, Christina Hunt, stated Wednesday that the district has saved $3.7 million under the projected budget across 20 awarded projects.
Despite these savings, one project—the playground replacements—has exceeded the budget by 10%. The district expects to substantially complete 16 of the total projects by August 30, 2024.
The football field’s turf replacement is complete, and the exterior stairwell construction for the Pre-K has reached substantial completion.
The baseball field /track construction at the Aubrey Lewis Sports Complex is underway.
Construction projects scheduled for July will commence with roof replacements at Bradford, Hillside, Glenfield, and Northeast schools. Additionally, new playgrounds will begin construction at Bradford, Bullock, Edgemont, Hillside, Nishuane, and Northeast. Workers will also start site drainage improvements at Buzz, Hillside, Northeast, and Glenfield. During this period, renovations to Glenfield Library and its storefront replacement will begin.
In November and December, significant projects set to begin include upgrades to Montclair High School’s boiler, HVAC, and electrical systems. Additionally, construction will start on the Woodman bleachers and press box during this period.
The bond projects focus on enhancing educational facilities with new technology and equipment. This includes Interactive Smartboard displays and Maker Spaces. STEM Labs will feature 3D printers and laser cutters. Upgrades to science classrooms and Practical Arts facilities will support a modern educational experience.
Superintendent Ponds expressed gratitude towards the community. “This meticulous process of completing projects and managing funds ensures that all aspects of every project are completed to enhance our learning environments,” he said.
The district is also ensuring inclusivity and equity in its contracting process. Small, minority- and women-owned businesses are awarded 20% of the projects.
The construction team will schedule work to keep schools open during upgrades. When feasible, they are prioritizing construction activities during school holidays and after regular school hours to minimize disruption to the educational environment.
The hope the Board will explain how these overages and underages affect our net savings.
I would think any overages are the 100% the taxpayers responsibility and the State’s 40% reimbursement for EACH project is capped at the original submitted cost estimates. Conversely, since the State reimburses against the actual costs up to the original estimate, every dollar saved is really only about 60 cents on the dollar.
Second, how can the BoE spend that 60 cents on the dollar saved – say $2.2MM presently? I would hope it would be applied to the next projects listed in the bond referendum and deducted from the scheduled 2nd tranche bond issuance.
The two alternatives I see are, 1) new projects at the discretion of the Board or, 2) put it into a 5-year note for the interest income.
I’m curious, did any inquisitive minds ask at the BoE mtg?
Sorry folks. If I am not mistaken, the budget amount is less than the amount listed on the bond referendum. So the 20 bids to date are under budget which is under what we vote for.
Lol. Come in! No one sees this as strange? Millions under budget for this? Someone’s math was way off then. Still glad I voted no. No way I’d trust anyone in that administration with those huge decisions.
You have to give credit where credit is due. The BoE bonds the whole $70MM up front for 3 years worth of projects. Say the projects budget totals $65MM, and bids come in at $60MM (and the bids include contingency allowances). Not only do the district benefit from the interest income accrued before work starts, but they get ongoing interest income on the unused project dollars.
Did the candidates ask their buddies at the BoE for a pro forma on the projected interest income over the course of this first tranche of projects?
Maybe the inquisitive one. It doesn’t scare me that most of these candidates don’t understand basic finance. What scares me is they won’t ask for help. This is not a good omen. These representatives now split their precious part-time work week between municipal and school finances – without understanding either.
No one finds this suspect? If this is true, then we borrowed too much money, and now are paying too much interest.
If true? Of course I could have the amounts of what was budgeted and the rolling forecast of actual bid awards. What I don’t have wrong is we borrowed $70MM up front.
I heard the low interest rate justification. The fact remains the district is collecting interest on the unspent amount. A whole lot of interest on our tax dollars.
Everyone knew we borrowed the $70MM up front because the BoE bragged about locking in a 2.6% interest rate. That the citizens holding the elected BoE accountable didn’t think to ask what that interest revenue is and will be, but still demanded $10-20MM of this incoming Council amuses me to no end.
I only have a Bachelor’s degree cobbled together from a second tier institutions. Maybe those with advanced degrees and training can objectively look at the numbers and weigh in here.
montyxxx,
I reviewed my notes. We bonded $187.7MM which includes bond costs. Projected Project Costs totaled $182.5MM. The Preliminary Eligible Cost (PEC) letters of eligible & ineligible costs total $169.7MM. It we are $3.7MM under the first 20 projects – about $24MM budgeted for them. Of course, this doesn’t reflect the downsizing of the Woodman Home grandstand capacity (by about 25-30%) to bring project within the bid target costs for an award. I noticed because the first bids were over target bid cost (by around $300K)- but, not over as much compared to the PEC amount.
I would implore all not to take my word for it. I’m a meanie. Ask the BoE’s Finance Committee to start publishing a running reconciliation of ALL these figures.