Megan Navarro
DRIPPING SPRINGS — Dripping Springs ISD is having to move in a new direction with the construction of the new 18+ program facility, according to a presentation given to the board of trustees at its Monday, March 30, meeting.
The special education and adult transition services 18+ program is offered by way of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which ensures that all children with disabilities have a free appropriate public education that is designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment and independent living, according to previous reporting by the News-Dispatch. DSISD’s 18+ program had been housed in various locations over the years, leading the district to construct a new facility to further serve those students’ needs.
Presentations
DSISD broke ground on the new facility — funded through the 2023 bond program — near Sycamore Springs elementary and middle schools, in November 2025. Then, in December 2025, the board approved the construction documents, in which a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP 1) was submitted that exceeded the established budget of $2.75 million.
“The team verified that the GMP [was] correct and so, then went to work on value engineering,” said chief operations officer Scott Berry during the board’s March 30 meeting. “During that time, the district instructed the design and construction team that the building must function as it is intended.” DSISD was assured that the design and construction team knew that “nothing is more important” than having the facility’s functionality because it is meant to prepare those students for a transition into adulthood, Berry said.
It must also be within the original budget, match the existing area and the timeline be expedited, he continued.
Moving into his presentation, Darrell Pearson of PBK Architects said that based on the schedule that was originally established, the project would already be under construction with an anticipated opening for the 2026-27 school year — however, that has changed.
He explained the timeline that the team has been on for the last few months and noted that, in January, they received numbers back from Swinerton, the construction manager at risk (CMAR), that the project was “significantly over budget, to the point where we said, ‘Hold on, it’s not even close. We’ve got to stop.'” During that timeframe, Pearson said they got an independent cost estimator that showed them the budget would be a little high, but “nothing out of the realm that we couldn’t value engineer down with a few modifications, but the number was so significant that we pressed pause.”
He echoed Berry’s earlier points that PBK sat down with Swinerton to go over the non-negotiables of: maintaining the educational spaces as intended; keeping the functionality of the building; the building must resemble what was approved and within the context of the adjacent campus; and the budget cannot change.
In doing so, Pearson shared that they have also worked on identifying cost-saving measures: “Let’s not change anything that is going on inside that building, but how can we make some modifications to reduce the cost,” he said.
To meet the established budget, Pearson said they implemented the following site and building strategies:
• Reduce parking and drives
• Reconfigure parking and drives to avoid retaining walls and cut/ fill of hillside
• Relocate building to avoid cut/ fill
• Remove items that can be added at a later date
• Remove and simplify some underground utility lines
• Remove outdoor yard
• Use wood framed construction
• Simplify building foundation
• Reduce extents of canopy
• Reduce height of building
• Utilize all one roofing system
• Change to split-system heating, ventilation and air conditioning system
• Utilize efficient finishes “We looked at every component of the project and then, we decided that we are going to meet that established budget. We are going to make some modifications to the building. It will still have effectively the same appearance that we already presented, but doing the building differently to reduce cost,” he stated.
Moving forward, the new construction documents for the revised building were set to be complete by April 3 and Swinerton is committed to have a number for GMP 1 — site work, building pad and utilities — April 15 and then, for board approval at its next meeting.
The rest of the new project schedule, as presented by Pearson, is as follows:
• Swinerton to mobilize and be on the site in early May
• Construction documents will be issued for the remainder of the project — GMP #2 — for Swinerton to present to DSISD in June
• Construction to be completed before Christmas of this year.
Board discussion
Opening up discussion and comments from the board was trustee Tricia Quintero, who shared that she is “very disappointed in this project” because she knows there are a lot of community members who have been waiting for this to come to fruition.
“We went to the groundbreaking, we did all of the things that we do and then, it’s taken a really long time for this project to get going and I am super sad about that for our community members that are a part of this program,” she said.
She then simply asked, 'What went wrong?'
Pearson said that they were taken aback and shocked by the current market costs, but immediately responded to dissect every piece of the project, which has taken some time.
Quintero asked for clarification on the outdoor garden that would have been a part of the project, if it were to align with the budget: “In my brain, as a taxpayer, I’m like, ‘Let’s build it right the first time. What exactly would that mean?'” Pearson responded that during the process, it was said that it would be nice to have a greenhouse and garden space in the back, if possible. Though it wasn’t originally, it became a part of the scope of the project and they made some decisions about what could or could not be reduced as it evolved.
Superintendent Dr. Holly Morris-Kuentz said that the greenhouse and garden space can be added on at a later date.
Trustee Rob McClelland acknowledged that this is the first time that funding has been insufficient to current costs, but it is sad because the district has already broken ground.
He continued that they have brought on a new CMAR to DSISD and asked: “Are we confident, as we move forward in this process, that we have the trade base within that group to facilitate this project, based on the revised design that you are putting together?”
James Conkle, director of construction and planning for DSISD, responded that Swinerton “has been a little bit slow kind of getting to the game on this” with little CMAR experience with school districts as a big commercial firm, but the building might be a wood construction — where they do have significant experience in — that can help the district.
McClelland said that he doesn’t want to compromise this project because they don’t have the trade base to get it where they need to get it, where he is open to the possibility of an alternative delivery method for a better price.
For him to say “yes” at the next voting meeting, McClelland said that he wants to see revised renderings and construction documents, along with a bi-division hard cost estimate.
That could be a challenge, Conkle said, because he is worried about giving the board a hard cost before bidding the project to their subcontractors next month.
“I am concerned because we can’t approve GMP 1 if we don’t know and we haven’t bid the building,” McClelland said. “The worst-case scenario is we spend money on this project and now we have a cost overrun, a substantial one, which is what we would have phased if we approved GMP 1 to begin with. That I will not vote for under any circumstances.”
He asked that the requested items be provided to the board to whatever extent is feasible, adding that he appreciates that the problem was acknowledged and then, the project was paused before getting too far down the road.
Trustee Dr. Mary Jane Hetrick said that she just hopes that the project is not rushed to be done by December.
“I want these kids to have what they need. I don’t want us to shorten anything because of the budget or, I mean, if we have to take an extra month to get these kids what they need. They deserve this facility and I just don’t want things cut out of this project that these kids deserve,” added trustee Kim Cousins.
The DSISD Board of Trustees meets next for agenda review at 2 p.m. April 20 and then for its regular meeting at 6 p.m. April 27.
To listen to the full presentation and board discussion, visit www.dsisdtx.us/page/board-meeting-livestream.
