Trustees approve $12M design authorization for proposed southwest comprehensive high school after debate over cost and timing
October 31, 2025 | CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, School Districts, Nevada
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Trustees voted 4-3 on Oct. 30 to authorize capital improvement contract awards that include more than $12 million for architectural design work on a proposed comprehensive high school near Cactus and Buffalo in southwest Clark County.
Supporters said the work keeps the district on the capital improvement program (CIP) schedule and preserves the option to open a full comprehensive campus in the 2028–29 time frame. Critics on the board, led by Trustee Stevens, argued the district should pause or right‑size the design because newer enrollment data and the facility master plan show declining future enrollment in the area and because the district previously paid for a different set of plans.
The contract under consideration funds a 2,700‑seat comprehensive campus. Brandon McLaughlin, chief facilities officer, told the board that an $8.9 million contract executed Jan. 12, 2023, has $2.3 million remaining and that the district intends to apply that remaining amount toward the new authorization. McLaughlin said design contracts are billed as work is completed, so the district would be responsible only for work actually performed if the board later changed direction.
Rick Baldwin, director of planning, said Desert Oasis High School and Sierra Vista High School are currently overcrowded (district figures cited roughly 3,294 and 3,218 students, respectively) and that the proposed campus would relieve pressure in the near term. He also warned that birth‑rate declines and projected enrollment shifts mean a full 2,700‑seat school could become underutilized in the long term, and he urged flexibility in the design to allow phasing or future additions if needed.
Trustees pressed staff on alternatives. Deputy Superintendent Gonzales and McLaughlin said design work can be adapted during schematic and design phases and that the district previously used phased construction on other campuses (Foothill High School was cited as an example). McLaughlin said the recommendation was brought now to keep the project on the previously announced delivery schedule; shelving the item would push opening into the 2031–32 school year, he said.
After debate about costs, community expectations, and the timing of facility‑master‑plan work, the board voted to approve the contract awards as presented. Trustee Cavazos moved to approve item 3.1; Trustee Estraffagan seconded. The motion carried 4 to 3.
What the vote does and does not do
The contract authorization funds design work; it is not a construction contract. Staff told the board that any unspent or partially performed work would be billed only for completed deliverables. Trustees who opposed the authorization said they were primarily concerned about spending significant design dollars before the final facility master plan and community engagement were complete.
Timeline and next steps
Staff said the design authorization aligns with the districts goal to deliver a campus by the 2028–29 school year if the board maintains the current CIP schedule. The district also said plans can be modified during the design process to reduce scale or to phase construction if enrollment projections change, and that some previously paid design work (about $6.5 million encumbered, $8.9 million contract total with $2.3 million remaining) will be applied toward the new design authorization.
The decision keeps the project on the districts delivery timeline but leaves open options to scale or phase the facility if the facilities master plan or community input suggests a different approach.
Sources and evidence
Board discussion and staff explanations on Oct. 30, 2025, including remarks by Trustee Stevens, Brandon McLaughlin (chief facilities), Rick Baldwin (planning director) and Deputy Superintendent Gonzales.
Supporters said the work keeps the district on the capital improvement program (CIP) schedule and preserves the option to open a full comprehensive campus in the 2028–29 time frame. Critics on the board, led by Trustee Stevens, argued the district should pause or right‑size the design because newer enrollment data and the facility master plan show declining future enrollment in the area and because the district previously paid for a different set of plans.
The contract under consideration funds a 2,700‑seat comprehensive campus. Brandon McLaughlin, chief facilities officer, told the board that an $8.9 million contract executed Jan. 12, 2023, has $2.3 million remaining and that the district intends to apply that remaining amount toward the new authorization. McLaughlin said design contracts are billed as work is completed, so the district would be responsible only for work actually performed if the board later changed direction.
Rick Baldwin, director of planning, said Desert Oasis High School and Sierra Vista High School are currently overcrowded (district figures cited roughly 3,294 and 3,218 students, respectively) and that the proposed campus would relieve pressure in the near term. He also warned that birth‑rate declines and projected enrollment shifts mean a full 2,700‑seat school could become underutilized in the long term, and he urged flexibility in the design to allow phasing or future additions if needed.
Trustees pressed staff on alternatives. Deputy Superintendent Gonzales and McLaughlin said design work can be adapted during schematic and design phases and that the district previously used phased construction on other campuses (Foothill High School was cited as an example). McLaughlin said the recommendation was brought now to keep the project on the previously announced delivery schedule; shelving the item would push opening into the 2031–32 school year, he said.
After debate about costs, community expectations, and the timing of facility‑master‑plan work, the board voted to approve the contract awards as presented. Trustee Cavazos moved to approve item 3.1; Trustee Estraffagan seconded. The motion carried 4 to 3.
What the vote does and does not do
The contract authorization funds design work; it is not a construction contract. Staff told the board that any unspent or partially performed work would be billed only for completed deliverables. Trustees who opposed the authorization said they were primarily concerned about spending significant design dollars before the final facility master plan and community engagement were complete.
Timeline and next steps
Staff said the design authorization aligns with the districts goal to deliver a campus by the 2028–29 school year if the board maintains the current CIP schedule. The district also said plans can be modified during the design process to reduce scale or to phase construction if enrollment projections change, and that some previously paid design work (about $6.5 million encumbered, $8.9 million contract total with $2.3 million remaining) will be applied toward the new design authorization.
The decision keeps the project on the districts delivery timeline but leaves open options to scale or phase the facility if the facilities master plan or community input suggests a different approach.
Sources and evidence
Board discussion and staff explanations on Oct. 30, 2025, including remarks by Trustee Stevens, Brandon McLaughlin (chief facilities), Rick Baldwin (planning director) and Deputy Superintendent Gonzales.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting