Time to Cry Over Spilt Milk?

Though they'll never publicly admit it, top members of SPASD Administration my finally be seeing what we tried to prognosticate to them during our last construction phase.  To wit:  What are we really getting for the $7,300 per month we paid for a Construction Manager?

$7,300 dollars per month!

That could pay for several families' entire monthly bills.

And what did we get for it?   It's probably easier to answer what we DIDN'T get for it!

The high school fields need serious work to improve drainage...wait...shouldn't that have been part of construction?
Have you seen the backstop at Summit Field?  Even in the gust front we had two weeks ago, they aren't supposed to bend that way.   What about the whole outfield fence?  Who's going to pay to replace signs for those that donated?

Remember the bleachers fiasco?

What about the wrong diving board for the pool?

There are MANY more items on the list.

What do the rest of us do when we pay a lot of money to have something done and it fails?  Of COURSE we call that contractor back and say , "FIX IT".  Some (not all) of that may be happening behind the scenes now, but up until THIS school board, and folks like Joe Palooka, the district just used to open its checkbook and pay to have something done twice.  Your tax dollars at work.  Hell, not even the SPARClers would agree with that mentality (we think...hope).

Here's what we said back when....when Phil Frei and Tim Culver looked at us like we had six heads.   A couple or three chins maybe...bit only one head.

The money we spent on a Construction Manager may have been better spent paying down the 5+% interest on the State Trust loan!  Certainly we spent a lot of money on that position, and while they'll publicly say what a wonderful job was done, they know the truth.  Like most public personae though...they can't handle the truth.


http://sp-eye.blogspot.com/2010/05/cutting-cord.html

http://sp-eye.blogspot.com/2009/05/post-mortem-on-questionable-decision.html

http://sp-eye.blogspot.com/2007/10/construction-manager-position-snakes.html

Board Approves $6,900 to Ensure Uniform Table Tops

If there's ONE thing that none of us can stomach, it's school table tops that do not match. Right?

From the STAR, July 8, 2010

Following considerable discussion, board members voted 5-1-1 (Stackhouse opposed; Welke absent) to allow use of $100,000 as a contingency at Cardinal Heights Upper Middle School (CHUMS). The money has already had projects totaling roughly $65,000 taken from it, leaving about $34,000 for Findorff to use during the balance of the summer.

Seriously...shouldn't we have "no blank check" policy?

One of the projects is a wall which required additional load bearing support. A second project

requires the excavation of and replacement of subgrade in one of the three parking lots being

upgraded around CHUMS for parent and bus drop-offs.

Sure...some of these projects make sense and fall under what would be considered "contingency".

Huffman expressed frustration during the FTT meeting on July 1 at the board being unwilling to

allow the use of contingency money by the company without returning each time to the board for

approval.

Frustrated...maybe. Very well paid for those" frustrations"...definitely.

But board member Dave Stackhouse used one potential project as an example of why the fund

should not be put at Findorff’s and Huffman’s disposal: $6,900 for table tops so they can be

uniform in the new science rooms at CHUMS.

Kudos to David Stackhouse for voting against this. And don't we pay Huffman $7300 per MONTH to be OUR representative? Is this what WE think is a good use of $6,900 of referendum money? Making sure that table tops in a science lab match? Hell they'll be acid scarred in no time at all. We're betting John Welke was glad he missed this meeting due to a previously scheduled vacation. We wouldn't have wanted to be a part of this vote either!

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.

Post-mortem on a questionable decision

Two years ago, as construction for Creekside elementary was beginning and the high school picture was clarifying, discussions about the need for a "construction manager" were held at the school board's FT&T committee. The intent was to hire --actually initial discussions were heavily centered on contracting for services of--someone who could act as the school districts "agent" on the construction site(s) to ensure that we (the district) would get critical input that would ensure quality buildings without "fluff". The intent was that this individual would suggest modifications such as "hey we could use this flooring (or this ceiling tile) instead of what the builder planned and we get better durability at a lower cost" or "if we cut out some of the angles here we could save a great deal of construction cost". They would also monitor invoices to ensure that we get what we pay for. Sounds good so far...right? We agree. But as with everything, whether something is a good idea or not is relevant only when you consider the cost. At 25,000 per year (and if evidence of equivalent or better cost savings is shown): great idea. At $88,000 per year and with no tangible evidence of cost-savings: questionable idea at best.

When it came time to discuss cost is when discussions got hinky. At least one committee member and a construction-savvy board member felt strongly that this was NOT a full-time position, and should be dealt with as a "limited term employment" (LTE) that would not provide benefits, as a cost saving to the district. In fact, former board member and FTT committee chair Mary Ellen Havel-Lang was leading the charge for this to be a full-time position. It would also eliminate the need to pay unemployment when the construction was over and we had no further use for the position.

The discussion (which of course is never captured in meeting minutes and these meetings aren't recorded) was that the construction manager should bring forward regular formal (read: written) reports that basically justified the continuing value of the position. The idea was that the individual would report on the costs savings they had built into the project(s) on a monthly basis that would more than cover the cost of the position. Have we even seen a SINGLE such report?

The district took all this discussion and came to the school board with a recommendation that we hire a permanent (well...at least for the project duration) Construction Manager at a starting salary of $23.17 per hour. (NOTE: that person is almost twice as valuable as a "Youth Advocate based on salary, so how serious are we about safety?). So based on this proposal, we've gone from a part-time position (discussions generally agreed that on the whole this would be a HALF-TIME position at best) to one that bills the district $7,300 per month.

In this economic climate, are we REALLY getting $7300 per month worth of "quality management" from the district's construction manager? Or is this $88,000 we could cut from the district budget and handle with existing staff? If state government can do more with less, why shouldn't the school district?

We're in the midst of unprecedented times. The state is even cutting aid to schools by 2.5%! That decision was announced and we STILL haven't heard any indication of cuts from district administration or the school board. Where is the Sun Prairie school board cutting back? Nowhere. The initial budget report says "no new programs...except 4K". Nothing is being cut. When are we going to start attacking our school district budget with a red pen? What will we do if folks decide they can't afford to live here anymore and they bail? We already saw initial projects of 425 4K students drop to 350. What if ALL enrollments starts dropping?

Decisions such as the Construction Manager position, the $9300 per month we pay to Energy Education Inc. to remind us to turn off lights and lower then thermostat HAVE to be re-visited. We could shave $200,000 off the budget by those two moves alone! We are NOT saying we need to reduce critical things like teaching staff. But the fluff has to be eradicated. We need to hunker down, focus on educating the kids, and cut the sea bass out of our diet.

Peace. Out. On this Memorial Day, please remember those that gave their lives for our country, and the loved ones that lost them.