Deal reached on up to $23 million Fremont school

Wayne County’s commissioners and school district have a formal agreement for funding the construction of a new elementary school (pending attorney approval) just about a year after discussions began about the project.

But at least two commissioners raised concerns about the cost range proposed for the construction of Fremont Elementary.

Superintendent Dr. David Lewis came before the commission during a special session Wednesday to address concerns that the estimate for the construction, which will be managed by local firm Daniels and Daniels, might be too low, and asked the commissioners to set the funding arrangement at $23 million, rather than the $20 million initially proposed.

Lewis and Board of Education Chairman Chris West met with commission chairman Wayne Aycock and commissioner Freeman Hardison as well as county manager Craig Honeycutt, in a private meeting last week to discuss where the boards were on the proposed funding plan.

Aycock told the commissioners Wednesday that the meeting was “productive” and that he had asked Lewis to come to the board’s special called meeting to present the proposed funding agreement changes to the full board.

The new school, which will be funded through a $15 million Needs-Based Public Schools Grant and a required $8 million local match, will be located at the intersection of I-795 and U.S. Highway 222, less than a half mile from the existing school.

A need to alleviate overcrowding at Northwest and Northeast elementary schools as well as the condition of the Fremont school, which was built in 1923 and has become a maintenance problem, are the reason the board identified replacing that school as a priority, Lewis said.

Lewis pointed out that the Fremont project will be an almost exact replica of the 4-year-old Meadow Lane Elementary School, which cost $18,145,029, but did not include nearly $844,785 in furniture expense, putting that project at nearly $20 million.

However, he added, costs have increased since that time, making $20 million a tight fit, especially when the furniture costs, which will be higher this time, too, are included.

The superintendent also shared construction costs of schools in Onslow County — the same design as the proposed Fremont project — which came in at more than $26 million each. In both cases, the schools had significantly higher site costs.

Lewis said the board is not looking for an open-ended spending agreement, just a more realistic view of what the project will cost.

“We are hopeful that we can come in under budget,” Lewis said.

He added that the district has been pleased with the working relationship with the county and wanted to continue operating a “working group” to make sure both boards are on the same page.

Honeycutt added that should the Fremont plan come in higher than the $20 million, there will be time to review potential costs before they are etched in stone.

“We will have a working group to vet the costs beforehand,” he said.

Lewis said that work on the Fremont project is not at a standstill waiting for the agreement.

He said the district is working with Daniels and Daniels on pre-construction issues — including material choice, etc.

Commission members asked a couple questions about the plans, including what will happen to the existing building (the district has not determined that yet, but is open to its use by a community organization or other entity) and if the Fremont sewer system would be able to handle the new school (yes, it will likely only require an additional line).

However, commissioner Joe Daughtery was concerned about setting a $23 million budget and making it public, adding a curt comment that he would not retain the school board “on negotiating anything.”

He said the original agreement between the two boards was $20 million, with the understanding that should the project go over that amount, those expenses would be reviewed before being accepted and funded.

“We did not want to send a message that we were going to pay $23 million or $25 million,” Daughtery said. “There has to be budget constraints here. That was what this board was trying to do.”

Daughtery pointed out that the county is required by state law to fund school construction “but we have no say in what is being built.”

He said the school district’s request for the $23 million change sends a message to contractors that $23 million is the budget target.

Commissioner Chris Gurley said that while the $23 million is available, the board hopes to keep the cost closer to $20 million.

“I hope we can encourage the contractor to stay within that $20 million,” he said.

Lewis said that he believes Daniels and Daniels will respect that request and added that there are some “safeguards” included in the plan that could make meeting that budget possible. The extra funding cushion was to make sure the estimate was realistic and the expenses, like the furniture, were covered.

Assistant superintendent for support services Dr. Tim Harrell, who also attended Wednesday’s meeting along with West and Lewis, said that Daniels and Daniels will provide an estimate of the project costs.

“Before construction even starts, we would have a guaranteed maximum price,” he said. “There is a built-in process to look at any costs.”

Commissioner Bevan Foster also balked at the $3 million increase, adding that the money could be used in other places.

“Fremont needs a new school, but do they need a school for $23 million?” Foster said. “What is going to happen when money is needed in my district or someone else’s district. The money won’t be there.”

Lewis said the district is conscious of the other construction needs in the county and added that the board and school officials have a vested interest in making sure those dollars are spent wisely.

“Every dollar we save on the Fremont school can be put into other schools,” he said.

Harrell added that the district will be looking at two to three months of civil engineering work as well as a month for Daniels and Daniels to come up with the maximum price.

Daughtery continued his questioning of the plan, accusing the school board of delaying the agreement for months and coming back with an altered agreement at the last minute.

An executive session was discussed to consult with the county attorney Borden Parker about Daughtery’s question, “Who has responsibility of how a school project is funded and if the county is required to get the approval of the school board for its decision on how to fund it?”

After a short discussion, board members rejected the call for an executive session, deciding instead to move forward with wrapping up the agreement and getting the Fremont project moving.

“Bottom line is we have got to build a school,” Gurley said, expressing frustration at how long the discussion has been going on about the project. “The perception in the community is that these two boards cannot work together. We need to move forward.”

Commissioner Barbara Aycock agreed.

“I am tired of rehashing this over and over again,” she said. “It has come time to make a decision.”

The board chairman added that any discussion of the final costs for the school are premature.

“The figure we have got to work with is the number we get back from Daniels and Daniels,” Wayne Aycock said.

Commissioner Antonio Williams made a motion to approve the agreement at $23 million pending approval from the county attorney.

Daughtery proposed an amendment setting the price at $20 million with the promise to address any overages should they occur.

That motion failed by a 5-2 vote, with Daughtery and Foster voting for the measure.

A vote taken on the $23 million agreement passed 5-2, with Daughtery and Foster voting against it.

Share on Facebook

Tweet

Follow us