Erik Kass, Assistant Superintendent for Business Services 6.5mb pdf:
This project began when the Board of Education approved the contract with Durrant Engineering in April of2009. Durrant was hired to provide a full condition assessment of all school district buildings to identify long and short-term repair needs.
The vision of this project was to deliver to the school district a living database that would aid in the budgeting and planning process into the future.
The study focused primarily on all engineering systems and equipment, but also included an in-depth study of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) issues our school district faces. The study didn’t include roofing projects, as that work has already been completed and is continually updated on an annual basis. For the assessment, trained professional engineers visited every site within the school district, evaluating systems and conditions, while also taking actual photographs to integrate into the report. This work transitioned into a grading system that has become part of the database delivered to the school district for future planning.
All of the information gathered and organized into the database format provides a lot of functionality for the school district moving forward.
Each item has actual digital photos attached for reference, cost ranges are summarized for each item, and the ability to sort the information in various ways are examples o f the functionality of the database.
Four individuals from Durrant Engineering will be present to provide a more in-depth review of the work that was completed. This presentation will also include a demonstration ofthe database that was created to show the functionality provided to the district with this tool.
D. Describe the action requested of the BOE – Administration is looking for the Board of Education to accept the maintenance project study with the database which is the planning tool to be used for future maintenance projects.
……
Next Steps – It is the intent of Administration to work toward creating a multi-year project plan, along with projected funds necessary to implement this plan each year. This work will begin upon approval by the Board ofthe information and data within the database, and will become important work of the new Director for the division of Building Services. Our goal is to return to the Board in May/June 2011 to present this multi-year plan with projected sources of funding.
Bold added.
The District has apparently been unable to account for $23,000,000 spent via the 2005 “maintenance referendum”. Additional commentary here. Notes and links on the 2005 maintenance referendum (two out of three MMSD questions failed).
The last lead up to a maintenance referendum had the same “multi-year” project plan with priorities that would be regularly reviewed. This is necessary but not sufficient. From what the community has learned of the implementation and oversight of the last (current??) multi-year maintenance plan, a cleaner and clearer tracking process may be warranted.
While the next generation “multi-year” maintenance project plan is developed, I would like to see the School Board continue to review the strengths and problems with the current tracking system and direct staff to make changes, as necessary. For credibility with the community, perhaps some sort of audit would be helpful to the School Board and the community as a part of the Board’s review and oversight.
From my perspective, there were other words that were of more concern than the multi-year plan. This is what got my attention in the cover memo: “This work will begin upon approval by the Board of the information and data within the database.”
To approve that information and data would mean, I believe, agreeing that external doors need to be replaced every 5 years due to wear and tear, that it really could cost up to $2000 to fix a leaky faucet, or other information and data that was puzzling at best. I can’t speak for others, but I can speak for myself in saying that I would be embarrassed to say publicly that I agree with and approve all of the information and data points in that assessment.
Once that document is approved, anyone questioning proposed planning and budgeting for the indicated improvements will be treated like a demented meddler. After all, how can one question the need to plan to replace toilets at $2,000 a pop when the Board approved the assessment asserting exactly that need.
What was it that Bette Davis said? “Fasten your seatbelts. It’s going to be a bumpy night.”
Seem to remember hearing similar themes in past budget and other Board discussions and decisions. On one hand, it does not seem a good use of board time to have to get into “all the details,” but on the other hand it’s hard not to when “things come up” after board approval. When board members question something they are told – you approved that.
It’s important for the Board, and the community, to have confidence in the range of the basic information used in the analysis. Sounds like there’s a way to go yet.