Education
Central High construction costs jump $500,000 to $1.5 million in just months
One La Crosse School Board member calls it “sticker shock.”
On Monday night, the school board accepted a low bid of about $1.5 million for renovations at Central High School, from among three submitted.
A few months ago, the cost of the project had been estimated at around just $1 million.
School District of La Crosse superintendent, Dr. Aaron Engel, however, said the costs of building schools or additions have been going up lately.
“Just since 2020 construction costs, the inflation has been 40 percent,” Engel told the school board, adding that the Central project is “substantially higher” than it would have been a few years ago.
“Tariffs, uncertainty, some of those things have impacted,” he continued. “They’re hedging their bets on construction material costs” on items such as steel.
Fowler and Hammer was awarded the contract at Central, bidding $1.49 million. The board voted 4-3. Two other bids on the renovation work from local companies came in above $1.6 million.
The renovations include new offices for the school district, which is under a deadline to move out of the Hogan Administration building, scheduled to be demolished later this year as part of the elementary school referendum that passed last fall
John
April 22, 2025 at 6:20 am
How about putting the project and referendum on hold to a later date? How is this budgeted with this increase?
Barbara
April 22, 2025 at 6:46 am
One would think the district would be downsizing. Less schools, less students,equals less district administration needed!
Do better Engel.
Bill
April 22, 2025 at 7:40 am
When you can’t efficiently run an organization, blame the tariffs, that haven’t even happened yet. Convenient whipping boy for liberals like Supt. Engel. With this new left-wing School Board, watch costs go up and enrollment go down, while the number on the payroll stay the same or even go up.
Tired of tariffs
April 22, 2025 at 8:14 am
Um.. the threat of tariffs are real. As a manufacturer, we cannot quote out 6 months, 12 months, or even next month. Imagine quoting out a price, then next week, trump tariffs steel at 125%? If we honored that quote, we would be paying for you to take the product. How long would we stay in business?
walden
April 22, 2025 at 12:50 pm
The threat of tariffs is real. That said, only an amateur would agree to increase the price $500k due to a “threat.” The flip side of that is that if the tariffs are extinguished the contractor gets a $500k windfall gain due to the decrease in his costs. There are obviously more dynamic ways of dealing with cost changes in a contract. Apparently, the District administration and its Board are novices when it comes to responsibly dealing with taxpayer money.
This seems a repeating theme given the (only) $300k given to Trane Company a few years ago as a non-refundable purchase option for their property only to have the funding referendum fail.
I suggest the Board demand the District come up with a comprehensive strategy for dealing with costs if they are significantly different than what the referendum specified. That will be a tall order because the Board has no track record of making demands on the Administration.
Bill
April 22, 2025 at 1:25 pm
It’s still all IF..If..If. If your supplier jacked prices in advance of something might happen..do what the rest of us do: Find another supplier.
Fed up with tariffs
April 22, 2025 at 8:10 am
Welcome to the trump administration. Tariff tariff tariff.. you know where that tariff money is going?? Ever ask that? Threaten your allies.. will they still be allies?
Libertarian guy
April 22, 2025 at 8:14 am
I watched the school board meeting on video. A very painful thing to watch indeed. Deb. Suchla Is the only board member with any financial sense and all she wanted to do was delay the decision by two weeks. Yes, Engel clearly wants things his way As revealed by his statements and nonverbal communication whenever Deb Suchla offered her mild resistance. Yes, there was some perfunctory hand ringing, but the writing Was on the wall so to speak. This spending plan was going to go forward, no matter what. Noticeably absent from the discussion last night was: If this relatively small spending plan jumped by more than 50% because of the Biden era inflation effect, just imagine how the $53 million spending plan is going to exceed the budget. And remember, all of this is borrowed money at Higher interest rates for the next 20 years. These people have no fiscal sense and experience no sense of responsibility to the taxpayers who are moving out of the city Because of runaway spending. And the next school board. Even more liberal than this one. Finally, none of the spending educates children. They have not addressed the operational budget that teaches students and pays teachers.
walden
April 22, 2025 at 10:51 am
Libertarian Guy, wasn’t Deb Suchla the one who hatched the “we have to spend $50 million before we can save money” plan behind the latest referendum?
Libertarian Guy
April 22, 2025 at 12:27 pm
I do not recall that Walden so I guess I do not know. What I do know from watching Board meetings prior to the $53 million referendum is Juan Jimenez and Engel insisted the Board speak with 1 voice. Translation: if individual members of the Board disagree, do not speak about it because we the collective (Board) have already decided what you think because we are one. Made me think of the Borg from Star Trek as resistance is futile. They also indirectly tied the building project to savings You know the drill Walden. We have to spend money to save money. (That may be what you were referring to above as members of the Board had to go along to get along and were muzzled by the Board President and policy.) As the vote on the referendum drew near, Engel and Jimenez began to suggest and state that lay offs would be needed if the referendum did not pass. Translation: You better vote yes teachers and staff or you risk getting fired. So it passed and once again our community voluntarily agreed to raise taxes yet again on community residents, stick their hand into their neighbors pockets. I expect the next Board to seek more money when the finally get busy on the operational budget saddling us residents with more debt for 20 years and then Engel will move on to other employment whenever he sees a better opportunity for himself.
walden
April 22, 2025 at 10:45 am
I smell a rat. There hasn’t been 50% increase in prices “from a few months ago.” How much of this increase is a change in scope of the project vs. change in materials cost? Was there any discussion of where the budget could be trimmed back?
Furthermore, materials are only a portion of the overall construction budget, the rest is labor, fringes, indirect project management costs, contingency etc…costs not subject to Engel’s “tariff,” the newest member of his Boogeyman family.
Why are they only getting quotes from local contractors? Taxpayers are subsidizing excess teacher headcount and now we are asked to potentially subsidize local contractors as well?
The level of business acumen is so lacking at the La Crosse School District it is simply sad to watch this play out.
Sam
April 22, 2025 at 12:04 pm
It would not surprise me if someone is on the dole. Our school district has had budget problems for the last 5 years or so.
Libertarian Guy
April 22, 2025 at 12:47 pm
There were perfunctory questions asked about delaying or cutting back slightly on the scope of the project, but these ideas were quickly dispensed with. There were absolutely no questions and no concerns expressed about whether building a new building in a district with too many buildings (and destroying a functional building in the process) might possibly be a bad plan to begin with; especially the increase cost of construction and not even with the clear evidence in front of them regarding the La Crosse Central project that cost overruns are inevitable with the new school building project. And Patty Sprang was there as usual pointing out the Capital Budget is different from the Operational Budget as if such money does not come out of the same taxpayer pockets.
Bill
April 22, 2025 at 1:48 pm
What the District now has is a blank check to spend, as fathered by the Superintendent
John Q Public
April 22, 2025 at 3:50 pm
I have to admire your commitment to stupidity and ignorance
Retired contractor
April 22, 2025 at 12:35 pm
A lot of you clearly have no clue how this process works.
First, the school district contracts an architect to design the project. Architect TRIES to put a budget forward. Their budgets are notoriously inaccurate, because hey – they don’t do the actual construction.
Next – city puts the architect plans out for PUBLIC bid. Anyone who is a responsible contractor can quote the project. Maybe three quotes for this project, another city project could have gotten 6. Depends on schedules, availability, etc. The city cannot force outside contractors to quote.
Next – contractors quote the project. Lowest responsible bidder wins. They are not being “subsidized” by our taxes. They are businesses taking on a high amount of risk for potential return on investment. They bid 1.5 and the project costs 1.6? They just lost 100k. Not to mention the local jobs and industry they support.
The tariffs 100% impact the cost. Uncertainty in the market place = higher contingencies. ie. The contractor needs to protect their business by applying additional costs. Many contractors would have received quotes stating something like “price is good for 10 days” because all subcontractors, suppliers, manufacturers, etc. are facing Uncertainty. If you add those additional contingencies again and again as a product moves through the marketplace for final installation, cost will be exponentially higher than before.
For example -do you know where electric components for projects come from? Majority Mexico. Add cost to those via tariffs, and it comes out of tax payer pockets many times over.
“Biden inflation” has nothing to do with the current uncertainty. In fact, the marketplace was beginning to level out. Product availability was not an issue, and lead times were beginning to come back to reality. But increases from tariff are very real.
walden
April 22, 2025 at 8:37 pm
-Bray and Assoc was hired to be project architect. It was a no-bid deal due to the Administration’s representation of Bray’s familiarity with the project. The Board accepted that explanation.
-Its my understanding only local contractors were invited by the District to bid on the project. Due to the small number of qualified area subcontractors the local prime contractors most likely relied on the same group of subcontractors to develop their bids; not an optimal situation.
-The contractor is ultimately being paid by the taxpayers. The project already has a $500k over-run vs. the budget presented to the taxpayers. Taxpayers may be subsidizing poor decision making.
-It is unknown if the tariffs will actually impact the actual construction cost because the tariffs are being negotiated and are subject to change. It sounds like the District has caved on this part of the contract provisions and accepted a $500k tariff upcharge. That could result in a huge windfall to the contractor.
Biden inflation since 2020 “impacted costs by 40%”…that’s according to the District. This is a smoke screen because the architect contract was only let last fall and those cost increases should have already been baked into the original estimates.
My summary: it was foolish to put this project out to bid in the current environment and Bray should have so advised the District.
Bill
April 23, 2025 at 6:15 am
I was in the wrong business. As a contractor, I would be guaranteed a healthy profit and lots of sympathy.
But I would be able to renege on my earlier promises if the ravages of the marketplace threatened me in the least. Ups and downs of the economy? They don’t affect me. I just go back and say “Could be tough times ahead. The job we agreed on? Gotta redo it.”
Libertarian guy
April 22, 2025 at 7:12 pm
This is of course is very interesting and I have to agree with you in regard to how this process works. But the gist of this discussion is not about the process to build a building or to remodel a building. It’s about the school district spending a large sum of money that does not need to be spent, failing to address the operational budget, which is what teaches children and pays teachers, and failing to understand and plan for potential cost overruns caused by Biden era inflation, inflation created by both major parties with excessive spending, borrowing and printing of money, AND Trump‘s tariffs. The school district does not need to build buildings in a district that has too many buildings. They claim the existing buildings are old. They fail to recognize that Aquinas high school is also old if not older along with the buildings of many colleges. But colleges and Aquinas high school still provide a good education and they don’t use age of the buildings to justify greater spending on bricks and mortar. And the district is notorious for deferring maintenance. School district board members and the superintendent should be focused Educating students and improving outcomes.
Come On Man
April 23, 2025 at 8:45 am
What did I miss? Can someone fill in the blanks for me?
It must have been one of the many ever-changing plans for the new school.
Last I heard was the school district was going to have a new office at the new school.
This was news to me as I attended one of the listening sessions and the board explained that the school district offices may move to Emerson because it would no longer be a La Crosse School.
I understand that construction could take up to 18 months or longer.
So the school district needs a place to work but why do we need to spend 1.5 million for a temporary place for them to work? While inconvenient, is there any space available for some desks for them to work at somewhere else?
Do they need a private lunch room, lounge and exercise area?
If the taxpayers are willing to put up with some pain (Higher Taxes) then why can’t the district put up with some temporary space or work from home 2 or 3 days a week until the new school is completed?
Is the new plan to have the school district offices at Central permanently?
Jackson
April 24, 2025 at 9:34 pm
Has Lincoln school been sold. If so, where did those funds go. Or are we providing a shelter for the winter months. ??
walden
April 25, 2025 at 1:57 pm
Jackson, my understanding is that a sale of the building has been pending for about 2 years but like all new construction in La Crosse it is contingent on the buyer finding adequate grants and tax incentives. To be determined.
Meanwhile, closure of Lincoln was supposed to save the District over $2 million annually mostly through payroll reducition. However, the District decided later to move the staff with the students to other buildings so no savings has resulted. Those savings would have accumulated $6 to $8 million by now. Lincoln was an integral part of its neighborhood and its loss was unfortunate and for naught.