Cutting the Cord

Hopefully we all know by now that the keys to the new high school were handed to us back in late February. The pool is up and running. The PAC has even been used for a number of meetings & events.

What you likely didn't know....is that the district is still paying the Construction Manager a hefty sum of $7300 PER MONTH. That's means we' ve already spent over $20,000 for management of construction that is virtually complete, save for some things going on the "CHUMS" this summer.

Are you kidding us?

This issue came up at the Finance Committee meeting several meetings back, and on Monday will be discussed at the FTT meeting (what a great way to keep paying these charges...just shuffle the issue between committees!).
FTT agenda item 5-24-10 regarding Construction Manager
A motion was made at the Finance Committee to "cut the cord", but the motion failed (fancy that!). A successful motion was subsequently made to have the FTT committee review the issue.
It seems that the contract between the district and the Construction Manager does not guarantee a sunset date; it just vaguely discusses severing the relationship at the conclusion of the construction project. The Construction Manager feels that the intent was to contract with them through at least September 2010, as the original plan was for us to not take ownership of the new high school until sometime in August.

The “engagement period” was defined as November 15, 2007 through completion of the projects and October 1, 2010 was noted as the anticipated contract termination date.
---Construction Manager

So...people...with money as tight as it is, should the cord be "cut" to free up these funds for other projects (or savings to the taxpayers!)?

The Case for cutting the Cord
1. $7,300 per month for the next 4 months is a lot of money that could be returned to the taxpayers or put towards those additional projects that have been discussed.

1. The large part of the construction ($84M for the high school/pool and much of the $16M for the CHUMS renovation is complete. What's left could easily be monitored by the Buildings/Grounds Manager (as has been done in projects past).

2. We have never received a single report pointing out specific costs savings resulting from interjection by the Construction Manager. That was a key part of discussions at the FTT meetings when the decision was made to hire the Construction Manager. The intent of the FTT committee was to obtain reports which clearly indicated that the Construction Manager position clearly funded itself in terms of cost savings suggested by said Construction Manager. Yes, the high school project came in under budget, but there is NO documentation that that is in any way a result of actions by the Construction Manager. Perhaps Findorf was very conscientious in its own right.

3. The historical FTT meeting record should show that committee discussions of hiring a construction manager were geared towards hiring a PART TIME limited term (LTE) employee (not employeeS or contractorS). Do the math, people...$7300 per month, assuming 160 hrs per week comes out to about $45/hour!!! That may not be up in the Culverosphere, but it's certainly well within the Adminosphere.

4. We're nickel and diming (or is it dickel and niming) the teachers for "personal appliance fees" to extort (high estimate) $6,000 to offset the budget crisis, yet we can afford to pay a consultant $7,300 per MONTH for a $100M project which is virtually 98% complete?

5. The plan is to maintain the 5% budget cut per school for teacher supplies in 2010-11, "due to the budget crisis", yet....oh...you get the point.

6. Are the remaining modifications to the CHUMS worth nearly $30K in oversight costs?

The Case for continuing payments
1. The construction is not 100.0% complete. Some modifications are still occurring st the CHUMS.

2. The Construction Manager indicates that the project was bid assuming work through September 2010. We don't think that's a strong enough reason...but we'll put it out there anyway.

3. The contractor believes that the project would have been bid differently if it was known that the contract would be terminated before October 2010.
Read the Construction Manager's position statement from the 4-26-10 Finance Committee Meeting.

SP-EYE says: The district should thank the Construction Manager for the services provided during the High School construction and CHUMS renovation project, but terminate the contract effective May 31, 2010. And don't say, "there isn't enough time". We've seen how quickly you've revised public notices. The board has several meetings scheduled for the week of May 24. Certainly the agenda for one of those could be tweaked to take a vote.