How Procedural Missteps Postponed the SES Roof Project

 

To understand how the deterioration of the school roof went on for so long, I referred to Shutesbury.org to find the mission statements and interrelationships of the various committees involved with the Shutesbury Elementary School (SES) building (charts courtesy of Shutesbury.org).

The Town Buildings Committee (BC) “examine(s) and oversee(s) renovations, new construction, and maintenance of Town-owned properties.” It is an advisory committee to the Select Board.

The Capital Planning Committee “stud(ies) proposed projects and improvements involving major non-recurring tangible assets and projects which 1) are purchased or undertaken at intervals of not less than three years; or 2) have a useful life of at least three years; or 3) cost over $5,000.” All Town Boards and Committees are to submit their project plans for the next six years whereupon the Capital Planning Committee will consider their worthiness and fiscal impact on Town finances. The Committee then submits its recommended Capital Improvement budget to the FinCom and Select Board for approval.

The Finance Committee (FinCom) weighs the various budget requests of boards, committees, and departments against anticipated revenues in order to prepare a balanced budget.

The Select Board (SB) is the governing body of the town.

Using the above information, it seems the BC was fulfilling its mission, dealing with issues as soon as it was notified. 

As for Capital Planning, several small repair or renovation projects (flooring, sliding glass doors, sidewalks, landscape edging) at SES made their way into the Capital Planning Recommendation list between FY2013 and FY2021; extensive repair/replacement of the roof did not. Assumedly, it was never requested.

The FinCom also weighed in on the Capital Planning Recommendation list, indicating that the committee also did its due diligence.

The minutes indicate that issues such as misdiagnoses of infrastructure problems at SES and the postponement of needed repairs originated with the Town Administrator (TA) and Select Board and consisted mainly of a lack of communication and inattention to detail.

Procedural Lapses Lead to Inaction on Repairs

Minutes reveal several occasions described below in which the BC was ignored by the TA and SB when repair issues were discussed or investigated.

Roof

There is little doubt the SB was kept up-to-date concerning the issues at the school. The TA attended nearly all BC meetings as a guest, presumably to serve as liaison to the SB and assist the BC whenever possible. The TA was the primary driver behind the MSBA grant applications described in the first article of this series; the BC was not averse to applying but also agreed the roof work needed to be done whether or not grant funding was secured.

The February 15, 2013, TA Report states that the BC “is requesting funds (Capital Planning Committee section) for repair to the elementary school gym roof in conjunction with a grant.” There is no such request listed on the Capital Planning Recommendations list for that year, however. 

Despite the BC’s repeated advice that the roof project should move forward with or without state aid, the SES roof discussions at SB meetings over the next few years focused primarily on trying to secure MSBA grants for the project.

When the fourth attempt to secure MSBA funds was rejected in April 2020, the SB’s unwillingness to commit the money necessary to fund the SES roof project is reflected in the comment, “if no MSBA funding is available, there will be a need to look into other sources of funding and whether there are any exemptions from the State requirements.”

There was no more Select Board discussion of the SES roof project until mid-September 2020 when the TA announced, “An engineering proposal for the school roof project is being sought.” By October 15, she noted that the school roof had been leaking “for a number of years” and the scope of the roof project will require bids from contractors certified by the Massachusetts Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance (DCAMM). In order to do this, a Request for Quotation from the Franklin Regional Council of Governments (FRCOG) was necessary. She noted she would be working with Bruce Turner, the Union 28 Director of Finance and Operations. There was no mention of the BC’s involvement.

After the BC Chair procured an estimate from a local contractor for the entire SES roof project, the TA said she would seek a waiver of DCAMM requirements. He is still awaiting the outcome of the TA’s request on this matter.

In early 2021, the Town Administrator (TA) announced she was moving ahead with the SES roof project, consulting with a member of the Capital Planning Committee and a member of the Board of the Assessors. When the BC Chair asked why his committee had been disenfranchised, another BC member stated, “SES paid for engineering study and handed it to (the TA) who put together her team.”

Heating System

Similar lapses have plagued the HVAC problems at the school. In early 2016, the School Committee notified the town that the school boiler needed replacing, making funding requests in February 2016 of $70,000 from Capital Planning (the request was never added to the Recommendations list) and requesting $40,000 in February 2017. The FinCom voted to disallow the last request as the BC, learning of the issue, determined that the boiler was not the source of the SES’s heating system woes. Even so, the SB added a request for a new school boiler in their 2019 and 2020 MSBA applications.

An incident recounted in the SB minutes of 1/7/20 describes the convoluted procedure followed when replacing a water heater at SES. An entity other than the BC had ordered a new water heater, which was delivered damaged and therefore not used. The BC Chair said he had agreed to look at the old heater to assess the situation on behalf of the BC and FinCom. He and a FinCom member with knowledge of such systems found that a different heater was needed, one that would be less expensive. The BC Chair tried to advise the TA of this but was unable to get a callback. With the involvement of the BC, the correct heater was purchased and installed in February.

I asked a member of the Shutesbury School Committee why these two issues took so long to resolve. He said that when there are infrastructure problems at the school, officials notify the Town of Shutesbury directly. Generally, that contact is the TA, who then begins the process of getting the problem rectified. 

According to the BC minutes, the committee was not notified of these issues, which explains the confusion surrounding the heating system and water heater concerns. When the BC found out about these problems, they stepped in to assist–which led to a satisfactory resolution.

Despite the assistance of the BC in assessing the school’s heating system requirements and needs, the TA announced at the April 12, 2021 BC meeting that she was hiring a consulting engineer–with help from the same individuals she chose for the roof project–for the school’s HVAC project. 

When the BC Chair again asked why the BC was not being consulted when the issue had been referred to them, the TA replied that the Capital Planning Committee (of which the BC Chair is also a member) had requested her to do so–though I could find no suggestion of this in the minutes of the Capital Planning Committee. She went on to say that the BC and FinCom, the same committee members who helped correct the heating system misdiagnoses, had “no experience with commercial systems and (were) not qualified.”

According to the BC Chair, the Building Committee agreed that the town should hire a consulting engineer. Inquiries made with local contractors and architects resulted in a referral to Hesnor Engineering, which provided a proposal to engineer and support the installation of HVAC upgrades on May 12, 2021. After providing copies of this proposal to the Shutesbury School Committee, the TA, and BC members, the decision was delayed by the TA, who said the project must be subjected to bidding protocol. Hesnor was finally awarded the contract in late 2021.

Next: How we can move forward, and how much these projects will likely cost Shutesbury taxpayers.

Weekly Factoids:

 

The condition of U.S. public schools:

Data: U.S. School Buildings: Age, Condition, and Spending

2021 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure: Schools