The South Plains College (SPC) Board of Regents held a regular meeting Thursday with the group moving forward with the renovation project of the Natatorium (Aquatic Center).
Executive Director of Administration, Nick Castillo and representatives from Teinert Construction provided a presentation regarding the project as the company is the project’s CMAR (Construction Manager At Risk).
Castillo began the presentation by providing a timeline of events. He added that they were able to put together all of the subcontractor bids to come up with the grand maximum price for this project.
During the last meeting were the project was discussed, the college had a preliminary estimate based on what the plans were for the Natatorium at about 5.9 million.
“We came in quite a bit higher than that,” said Castillo. “Since we’ve developed that plan, we’ve had some additions that were needed once we consulted with Mike Harrison and our pool experts who knew what the community needs based on what they’ve been seeing.”
The mentioned additions included one addition to the front of the Natatorium. That section allows the college to expand the restroom capacity for the women’s side of that facility in order to have enough fixtures and changing stations that they will need to accommodate the community. It also allows the college to put a small addition on the front that changes the aesthetics of the building on the exterior.
Additional office space for the director of the facility was added to the plans. The previous plans had the original office space being unchanged, but it was determined there was a need to have a single occupancy nongendered restroom for that facility or family room.
With those changes, additional concrete work and subcontractor bids, the total reached $6,493,562. That is also coupled with the architect BGR as they will charge a 6.75% fee on that construction cost in order to continue to develop all the documents and oversee this project which brings the total of this project to $6,931,877.44.
Following Castillo’s presentation, Teinert representatives presented the regents with list of subcontractor categories and estimates for bids. Additionally, the group was given a list of vendors, their bids and recommendations.
A GMP (guaranteed maximum price) recap was provided to the regents regarding the project. It is broken down by line items for each part of the building process.
A price was provided for each category with the included bottom line. Also presented to the group was a binder containing all subcontractor bids received for the project.
“You will receive a tab sheet from us showing the scope of work for each contractor and where every contractor came in with their pricing,” stated the Teinert representative. “We can show you all this person was $10,000 higher than that person and it gets you the accurate information on that.”
South Plains College President, Dr. Robin Satterwhite asked if the project was received competitive bids for the project. The representatives felt that the project did receive competitive bids.
“Our goal is to get three bids per scope of work such as three plumbers, three electricians and three painters,” said the Teinert representative. “We had good participation on this project. Typically, we see around maybe 30 to 35 bidders. We had about 55 to 60 bidders on this project. There was a lot of interest in it which included very competitive pricing across the board.”
In terms of cost savings, it was explained that the GMP recap sets the most allowed for each line item but does not mean that is the necessary cost that will be used in the end.
“With the GMP, we send a monthly draw, and it will be audit ready,” explained the representative. “You will have a copy of every subcontractor bill and every bidder’s bill. Whatever is not spent at the end of the project 100% of that savings goes back to the college.”
The representative also added that a VE (value engineering) process allows for working with architects to change materials if needed if one item is expensive and there is another cost-effective alternative.
Chairman Mike Box asked why the price point of the project.
Castillo explained that the additions covered in the plans were not in the scope of work from the architect.
The second reason covered by Teinert was the amount of concrete that the architect is calling to be removed and replaced.
“We had a scope of work, or a schematic designed by architects and then subsequent meetings after that talking to Mike Harrison and some student activities people that determined we needed some additional stuff there,” said Castillo. “We added that after the fact and BGR put that into their scope of work as they were figuring their GMP.” Dr. Satterwhite as Castillo if the space for the women’s restroom was underestimated as the space will be larger than the men’s area as it is required and not preferential.
“Yes, we thought we would be able to kind of gut that restroom and come back with a design that would permit enough space, and it turns out we really can’t,” explained Castillo. “We’re going to have to add quite a bit of space.”
The plans do include a new classroom on the first floor. I reason for layout and adjustments was attributed to ADA compliance.
For those who have visited the Natatorium, the balcony area can only be accessed by stairs, and it has also been used as a classroom. To make that area ADA accessible an elevator would need to be installed which was not considered due to the feasibility.
“Hearing the cost change for the restroom and such, I’m surprised that we had professional architects look at this and ADA is not something that’s popped up that we didn’t know about before,” stated Regent Richard Ellis. “I’m confused why this wasn’t in the original expectation.”
Castillo explained that the facility previously met the minimum requirements for ADA. However, after further consensus the feeling was there would have not been enough space to accommodate the actual occupancy of that policy at any given time.
“Legally we would have met that requirement, but we have had the actual evidence that we have young women standing around waiting to use restroom facilities and changing facilities because they’re all being used even at the number that we had specified under BGR recommendation,” explained Castillo.
Ellis asked if there was a way to know what amount is being spent to repair the pool versus repairing the building. The Teinert representatives stated they could put together a breakdown of that.
In regard to timeline, the representatives suggested 12 months for the project from start to completion.
Vice President for Business Affairs, Teresa Green added that the current cash balance in the capital projects account has a fund balance is $6,948,293 and is separate from the budget. Green explained that some funds have already been paid to BGR, but the remaining balance for the project stands at $6,837,377.
Green added that the college is sitting where they were last year. With expenses increasing, revenues have been able to stay ahead.
Following the presentation, action was held until the later part of the meeting as Dr. Satterwhite wanted to provide his legislative report to add more context.
Dr. Satterwhite provided a reminder to the regents for what the new funding model for the college looks like.
Preliminary runs were conducted with funding estimates for 2026 and 2027. The president emphasized the word estimates.
The estimates were an increase in the fiscal year 2026 of $981,000 and an estimated increase in the fiscal year 2027 of $713,000.
The would be a 10.2% increase over the current biennium, it was a 62.4% increase over 2022-2023 biennium and the average over different colleges is at 4.9 while SPC is sitting at 10.2.
“This is because we’re doing the right things at South Plains College,” said Dr. Satterwhite. There are 20 different colleges that are expected to see a decline in their funding based on 20262027 biennium. I’m very proud of what South Plains College has done and I am proud of where we have invested our funds. I’m proud this has allowed us to take some additional funding and place it into a capital improvement account.”
With the state legislative session starting this past Monday, one of the first items circles around community colleges.
The Texas Association of Community Colleges is requesting an additional $50 million in funding. The current system the colleges operate under is reimbursement on success.
Dr. Satterwhite explained that the legislature appropriates money every two years. During the first year there was enough funding, however, in the second year the funding was short $50 million of the money that was promised but was not appropriated.
Talking to various legislators and board members in different groups, the association shared they felt confident that the item would be pushed through with no opposition.
Another topic brought to the regent’s attention was the freeze of tuition for the next two years by Governor Greg Abbott. Dr. Satterwhite explained the freeze extends to community college’s and is hopeful that this will not include course fees. An example provided was in regard to welding as the course fees allow for the purchase of welding rods, gas and metal which are paid for through students and course fees, but the cost of those items vary as prices increase. Dr. Satterwhite stated they are waiting for a response from the governor’s office regarding to hopefully wave course fees.
“I wanted you all to have that information, both good and bad news about the positive appropriations and about the tuition freeze before we talk about the Natatorium,” Dr. Satterwhite explained.
Revisiting the item, Ellis shared his concerns with the GMP model and the possibility of the maximum price of any particular item being used to the full amount without need.
“The surprise of the cost, there is no surprise that I’ve struggled with this particular capital expenditure since we started talking about it,” said Ellis. “We had two years essentially to talk about it and then a fairly long lead up time to plan it. Then within a two-to-three-month time period we have a 25% miss…then it shows up the day they were supposed to vote on it. It’s just it’s so hard for me to smile on that one.”
Ellis added that an option could be postponing the item to reevaluate the plans and additional items included into the layout.
As the regents considered cost savings in possibly removing certain aspects of the plans, the general response was that the plans did not have anything exceeding need and would not recover the price point disparity.
Regent Joe Tubb shared that the report from Green and the legislative update took some of the fear out of moving forward with the project.
Following the second round of talks regarding the item, Regent Joe Tubb made the motion to approve the bids for the Natatorium. Regent Chris Edens second the motion with Regents Jim Mara, Cathy Mitchell, Ronnie Alexander approving the item. Those opposed were Regent Richard Ellis.