Capital Budget '10/11: schools discussion
The Council met with the schools tonight to discuss their proposed capital budget. There was little discussion about the townwide infrastructure and energy RFP, as well as the turf.* But I think the discussion on code compliance issues is worth mentioning.
Council Chair Slocum suggested that the state's "required voluntary corrective action plan" may need a "revolt." I mean... $440,000 for an elevator to the football field press box?! These state & federal mandates are out of control and need to be revisited in a thoughtful manner by reasonable people... not by the current crop of regulators / legislators who are clearly living in some alternate universe. Kinda makes me wish I was running for office this year. And FWIW, at least on the "voluntarily required" elevator there was bipartisan and staff sympathy for Tim's suggestion... which clearly demonstrates how ridiculous some of these mandates are.
Tim White
* The turf is to be discussed by the Council and BOE next week after the Turf Investigation Committee concludes it's work. It was explained that the Turf Committee and the Turf Investigation Committee are two different bodies. And come to think of it, I did make one comment / request on the turf. I stated that I view the turf replacement costs as a long-term liability and that I'm not particularly favorable to any additional long-term liabilities right now. So I requested that the TIC bring forward its plan to avoid any future property tax dollar expenditures for replacing the turf.
15 comments:
Q. how can a voluntary corrective action plan be "required"?
A. Maybe those being audited forgot to JUST SAY NO to the auditors. If it was voluntary quite possibly there is no state or federal law requiring any action other than some "voluntary" sort of response. Volunteering for the max corrective action would seem a bit out of place relative to things like the press box. What is the cost of just demolishing the press box or is a press box a real need in educating those in k-12?
Why didn't we say someday, in the future, when we build a new school we'd add a press elevator to the football field press box if it was deemed a requirement?
Alternatively, how come everything built and in place didn't already meet with the approval of those doing this voluntary audit?
Did the agency actually conducting this audit actually have a face-to-face meeting with representatives of the town to go over and discuss the audit findings before they issued their final report?
I believe this elevator issue is a ADA requirement and possibly a EOE requirement. $440,000 sounds like a very high price for an elevator but at the same time, what would we pay if a reporter in a wheelchair was excluded from the same opprotunities of, (for lack of a better term), a healthier collegue? Would the town be open to ADA/EOE violation lawsuits? What would be found if all town buildings and property were reviewed? How would negative press affect us?
I agree that $440,000 is too much, but we need to look at our options. Should we look at lower cost alternatives? Should we consider closing and removing the press box? ADA/EOE are not laws that we want to mess with.
1PM
There is an alternative...put the press box at ground level or at the top of a hill. I'm not in opposition to code compliance but regulators are getting a little too crazy with some of this stuff.
The education dept had to respond to the "voluntary" compliance review with a study (we paid for) hense the laundry list of things to be done. Half of the issues pertain to the athletic field area at CHS and the rest to CHS building. The capital budget planning is for year 4 & 5, which gives BOE time to do more comprehensive planning for the areas associated with the fields, locker room problems, etc.
Tim Slocum
Tim Squared, last night when it was mentioned that perhaps a town-wide audit of all town-owned buildings should be considered and one master building maintenance punch list & budget (i.e. plan) be created...there appeared to be strong reaction against it. It seemed like a logical idea to me or did I hear it incorrectly?
Tim W: I thought your point about not bonding maintenance projects less than 10 years old but rather using the CNR for that purpose...made sense...can we accomplish this?
Tony Perugini
" And FWIW, at least on the "voluntarily required" elevator there was bipartisan and staff sympathy for Tim's suggestion... which clearly demonstrates how ridiculous some of these mandates are."
Tim, I admire your restraint, LOL. Yes, I saw and heard sympathy in the sense that we want folks with disabilities to be able to access the press box, at least in a reasonable manner, and I agree with it.
However, the other "sympathy" you're not mentioning, but I will, is that 3 people at the table last night agreed with Mick Ecke's comments that "Wallingford and Hamden have installed elevators so it can be done"...In other words, they did it and so can we. I don't feel the need to jump off of a cliff just because other towns have done it.
The elevator option was the only option presented by CRA and no other options from us were considered by the State Dept of Ed which sponsors/enforces this audit.
Perhaps, if a turf field is installed, we can use the dirt removed from the grass field and pile it up behind one of the end zones. We can then install an accessible path to the press box on top of the mound. No elevator needed.
Some folks asked me a legitimate question: Rather than spend $437K on an elevator for a press box how about we eliminate the press box? Do we need a press box or a press area on the ground?
Tony P
Where's our Congressman on this? Oh, he's probably as useful on this issue as he was getting his alleged "home town" a suitable post office. Guess hobnobbing with liberal fundraisers in Las Vegas is more important than constituent service
Tony,
That type of "paid consultant planning" sounds great however you end up with an expensive punch list not unlike the mile long, multi million dollar consultant priced "voluntary compliance" list we saw last night and where do we go from there?...we still have to prioritize, put off stuff, reschedule other stuff. We shouldn't wait until something breaks before we fix it and planning is important...thats why we have these capital budgets every year and some how we always hear about what has to be fixed and we allocate.
TS
Tim,
I never stated using paid consultants. I should've clarified by typing "internal audit". So my question is, we have two maintenance departments both of which seem to have a lengthy list of town-owned building projects ahead of them. Why not combine these departments into one maintenance dept, assess the state our town-owned buildings and build a master punch list executed from one central office?
The reason I raise this is because there seemed to be a lot of disconnect at the meeting last night regarding renovations. It seemed that half of the room believed the last CHS renovation project should've taken care of some of the CRA issues. There also appeared to be some confusion on what the last CHS renovation actually entailed/covered vs. what was originally requested and funded some time ago. I don't know the history but Dr. Florio and David Schrumm were discussing it.
My thinking is that combining the maintenance departments would reduce the duplication of effort, centralize the planning and execution of these projects and (selfishly) let the educators focus on...education...not roof replacements. It may also save costs.
Maybe my perception is off. Anyway, it seems you're content with the process and that it's working.
Let me know when you want to head up to Hartford to boycott the CRA action plan. I'll make the signs. :-)
- TP
"And come to think of it, I did make one comment / request on the turf. I stated that I view the turf replacement costs as a long-term liability and that I'm not particularly favorable to any additional long-term liabilities right now"
I agree with you regarding the above. Since last November, I've repeatedly requested that the Turf Proposal be put forth in front the BOE as a whole and that the proposal must include options/recommendations for long-term replacement costs. Despite my attempts that hasn't happened.
For the record, the BOE as a whole has yet to review the design engineers work and project costs. In fact, the BOE Planning Committee has yet to discuss these findings. The BOE has to approve the next phase of this project before it can move forward. Since that meeting hasn't happened, yet, I don't see how the turf committee can come before the TC next week and present the design engineer's findings.
I think it's best that we review this project's full life-cycle costs before putting the cart before the horse. I don't want to encumber the town with a turf field that requirements replacement every 8-10 years at ~$500k per instance. Sound familiar?
Tony P
Council leadership has directed the town manager to look into areas where town and Ed services that overlap could potentially be combined. The way to do this is with an independent group, two to three people from outside town operations that could study this. There's lots of sound professional business minds in this town that could help.
To date this has not moved beyond the initial discussion we had during the budget cycle. I will follow-up and advise. I would like to see this group underway by September.
TS
For less than the expense of a one story elevator why not put several high resolution, remote controlled cameras on poles above the playing field. Find a location inside the high school which is presently accessible for monitors and other necessary press box gadgets.
Better yet feed the camera outputs to a town web site and add WiFi to the playing field. That way the press can access ground level with the public and get wet and be uncomfortable with the rest of us.
Only down side to this idea is some crazy bureaucrat might decide that pole mounted cameras also need to be handicap accessible too.
"Council leadership has directed the town manager to look into areas where town and Ed services that overlap could potentially be combined."
This is an idea whose time has come. We have Park and Rec, Public Works, and BOE all doing the same work. BOE and P&R both mow lawns. BOE and PW both maintain buildings. All 3 do snow removal. Why not combine all 3 into 1 office/department. All 3 departments can work together year round to provide manpower for tasks that currently may not be available. Why is it that BOE has to hire a contractor with a backhoe when the town PW owns 2-3 of them? Why does P&R have to hire people to install fencing when PW has the machinery and manpower? Why does BOE have a grounds crew mow one side of a road while P&R or PW mows the other? I think we can be a more efficient town by combining these services into 1 department with shared manpower, equipment, and tasks. With attrition, we could whittle down 3-5 jobs and still be ahead of where we are now.
I should have also included the Treatment Plant in the above post as well.
"To date this has not moved beyond the initial discussion we had during the budget cycle. I will follow-up and advise. I would like to see this group underway by September."
Thanks Tim! I'll followup with the BOE and see if we can get this moving as well.
- TP
What does this have to do with education? We are lucky to have a football field period. Tell the State to pound sand because it will take years in the court system. During that time maybe the economy will improve and we can build a new stadium with luxury boxes etc.
Post a Comment