Asbestos abatement costs at Bernard Elementary School have come in higher than expected, according to Mehlville School District Superintendent Tim Ricker, but the district has yet to disclose by how much.

Bernard Elementary School, which is on Forder Road, closed at the end of the 2002-2003 school year and a new middle school, Bernard Middle School, constructed on the former Bernard Elementary campus, opened with the 2003-2004 school year.

Bernard, the district’s fourth middle school, was the first Mehlville school to be built in 10 years and cost more than $13 million and was funded by Proposition P. The building served more than 800 pupils during the 2003-2004 school year.

During the past school year, the former Bernard Elementary was filled with Oakville Elementary School pupils as a new Oakville Elementary School is under construction.

Mehlville School District voters in November 2000 approved Proposition P, a nearly $68.4 million bond issue funded by a 49-cent tax-rate increase.

However, the Board of Education last September adopted a revised budget for the Proposition P districtwide building program totaling more than $86.7 million.

All work for Phase I of Bernard Middle is complete, according to a McCarthy Construction Co. memo dated May 19 and received by the Mehlville School District June 24, and Phase II — including asbestos abatement and demolition of the old Bernard Elementary building — has begun.

McCarthy Construction is the school district’s construction management firm for Proposition P.

Asbestos abatement was scheduled to begin June 14 and building demolition was scheduled for July 15, the memo states, but Ricker told Mehlville Board of Education members last week the razing of the building has been delayed.

“Bernard (Elementary) School asbestos was more expensive than we thought,” Superintendent Tim Ricker told board members July 22 during a district facilities update.

“We’re getting a finalized report for Bernard Elementary … Bernard Elementary had more asbestos than we knew. SCI is providing us with a report next week we’ll be able to release so that everybody knows the extent of that and the cost factors related to the asbestos removal.”

Unanticipated asbestos removal added an extra eight days onto the Phase II work schedule, Ricker said.

“A total addition of 10 days with air testing,” he said. “They did complete the asbestos work. Jim Ulkus (of McCarthy Construction) told me today that they’ll do air testing Friday and Monday and possibly start the demolition of the building either Tuesday at the latest, Wednesday of next week with the timeframe adjusting accordingly.”

Completion of a new road and entrance to Bernard Middle, according to the memo, was scheduled to begin Aug. 25 and a new running track located on the southeast side of the site near current bus parking was scheduled to begin Oct. 28. Phase II construction was scheduled to end Nov. 19.

An addition of 10 working days to the schedule listed on the memo would bring construction completion, excluding Thanksgiving, to Dec. 6.

McCarthy is scheduled to complete its involvement Oct. 31 — before construction is completed.

The contract between the district and McCarthy includes a provision that states McCarthy would charge the district $15,000 for every extra month for work extending beyond contract termination, according to the district’s chief financial officer and assistant superintendent of finance, Randy Charles.

Ricker offered no information July 22 regarding how much more the district would have to pay to raze Bernard Elementary because of the additional asbestos abatement to board members that night.

Two weeks ago, this newspaper contacted the school district, requesting that and other information on the razing of Bernard Elementary.

In a formal letter to Ricker dated July 15, this newspaper requested under the provisions of the Missouri Open Meetings and Records Law, also called the Sunshine Law, the following:

• Original cost projections regarding the razing of Bernard.

• Current itemized and detailed estimates of the cost to raze the structure.

• The original date scheduled to demolish Bernard.

• The current date and time scheduled to demolish Bernard and a written explanation detailing why razing of the site was delayed.

The district did not provide the requested information before the Call went to press Monday.

In a letter dated July 21, South Area Superintendent Keith Klusmeyer stated that the district would need more time to obtain the information because Charles was on vacation. The requested information is kept in Charles’ office, Klusmeyer stated.

“He (Charles) will not be able to begin searching for the records until he returns on July 26, 2004,” the letter stated, adding that the records would not be available until 4:30 p.m. July 28.

This is not the first Proposition P project to encounter asbestos problems.

During the demolition of the old Oakville Elementary School last summer, Ricker told the Call workers discovered more asbestos than the district anticipated.

During the design phase of the Oakville Middle School project, asbestos-containing ceiling tile and floor tile was discovered that had not been identified in previous asbestos reports.

During the abatement work last summer, the building’s old fire-alarm system was disconnected and board members approved the expenditure of an unanticipated $159,569 for a new fire alarm system, ceilings and branch power lightning panel boards.

At the next board meeting, scheduled for Aug. 25, administrators will present a full update on all construction projects and plans related to the opening of school to board members, Ricker said July 22.

Board member Rita Diekemper noted a lot of residents who live near Oakville Elementary on Milburn Road — which currently is under construction and scheduled for use this fall — want to know when they can enter the building.

In the Call’s July 15 letter, this newspaper raised a similar question, of which the district has not answered.

The Call requested information regarding the anticipated completion date of Oakville Elementary School. The Call also requested information that details the projected final cost for the school — itemizing how much will be spent from the district capital and the certificate of participation funds within the Proposition P budget for the school.

Ricker did not tell Diekemper a construction completion date, but noted tours of the building most likely would not occur until the end of August.

Furniture currently is being moved into the new school, the superintendent reported, but the building still is not ready for use.