Kelley Wilson of Construction Services Group (WHS Project Manager), and Francis Naglich of Environmental Land Services ( project wetland biologist) will provide an overview of Phase 1 of the WHS project and the status of the Wetland permitting process.
Below is a memo from Kelley Wilson Regarding Phase 1. Attached are two documents. 1) the detailed grading plan for phase 1; and, 2) a submittal to the Army Corps showing possible site utilization, should there be no wetlands permit approval. (This was a study document only)
Woodland School Board Update
TO: Michael Green, Superintendent
FROM: Kelley Wilson, Project Manager, Construction Services Group
DATE: March 18, 2013
RE: Phase 1 Construction – Building Pad Preparation New Woodland High School
1) Scope of Work
2) Schedule
3) Anticipated Cost
4) Anticipated Risks
Phase 2 of the project (construction of the building and all site features) is contingent upon receiving approval from the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) regarding the filling and mitigation of the on-site wetlands. There is no filling of wetlands in Phase 1. In order to meet the overall schedule deadlines (OSPI funding cycle and occupancy of the building by fall of 2015) Phase 1 needs to be initiated before the ACOE has issued approval of the wetlands permit (anticipated approval is mid to late summer of 2013). Commencing with Phase 1 puts this work in jeopardy if the wetland permit is not approved and issued. There are risks associated with this denial:
Phase 1 work could still be taken advantage of, if the district chooses to continue to develop this site. If so, the site plan and design of the school would change substantially. See attached site plan. There would not be enough space for the athletic fields and no room for expansion.
If the district chooses to no longer develop this site, then the Phase 1 work will be lost. The school would need to find a new site. Also, under this scenario, OSPI funding process would need to be moved to next funding cycle and the district would have the low risk of losing funding.
With either of these scenarios, there would be substantial risk to the schedule, and occupancy of the school would be delayed beyond fall of 2015, which carries a construction cost inflation/escalation factor. This could be 2 to 3 percent per year of the total construction cost.
The alternative to not initiating Phase 1 until the ACOE has issued the permit, which again would be in late summer of 2013, would be schedule delay of approximately 6 to 9 11-12 months. The project would forgo this year’s OSPI funding cycle and rely on next year’s funding decisions and the school opening would be delayed. The construction cost escalation could be perhaps 1 to 1.5 2 to 3 percent of the total construction cost.