What is happening with the 2011 Bond? This column is dedicated to answering that question.
On April 18, 2011, the Midlothian ISD School Board hired VLK, an architectural firm, to design the building projects in the 2011 Bond. The five professional services that VLK provides the district are (1) schematic design, (2) design development, (3) construction documents, (4) bidding, and (5) construction.
Presently, the District and VLK are involved in the schematic design process for High School #2, Phase 1. In this phase of development, the architects will identify (1) the general location and orientation of buildings, (2) student, employee, and public access to the buildings and the site, (3) the number of stories for the high school and the general grouping of programs within the building, (4) site circulation for pedestrians and vehicles, and (5) athletic facility and field arrangements. The MISD School Board is scheduled to receive on November 14, 2011, for its consideration, a schematic design for High School #2, Phase 1.
Bonds have been sold to finance two of the three 2011 Bond projects. The two projects are High School #2, Phase 1, and the addition to Frank Seale Middle School (FSMS). Both projects are scheduled to begin the construction phase in the summer of 2012. The Board has not taken action on financing Elementary School #7. Land purchase (prior bond money) for the site is presently under consideration.
The interest rates on the bonds, according to Mr. Bill Gumbert (BOSC, Inc., MISD’s financial advisor), were less than forecast. Consequently, the cost to repay the bonds will be less than originally projected. That will save MISD taxpayers, over the life of the bonds, millions of dollars.
The Board, at its meeting on June 20, 2011, approved the Construction Manager at Risk (CMR) method for which to build the funded projects. Charter Builders was the firm the board chose at its meeting in September with which to negotiate a contract. A contract is scheduled to be presented to the Board at its meeting on October 17. If the terms, conditions, and price of the contract are not in the best interest of the district, the Board is under no obligation to accept it.