One interesting item is the approval of some work done at Ingraham for asbestos floor removal, communications, mats for the entries and more security cameras. This contract went 47% over its estimate with change orders of $240k. Okay so $160K of this was the district asking to do complete removal of all asbestos flooring. That is great and fine. But (1) how come more cameras at Ingraham? and (2) what was the other $80K for? I really dislike when a partial explanation is given when you read these things and you are left with, "okay, what else?" Doesn't the Board read this and wonder about this? I question this extra spending because hello? we have a HUGE backlog of maintenance issues and yet we don't consider that when we have extra capital funds.
Other Action Items:
- the materials adoption for social studies for 4th and 8th grade (were these books available for review at your school?)
- Leases for Hughes, TT. Minor and Van Asselt. There is a list including these and two other schools (Columbia and Mann) and nearly all these tenants are private schools (with at least two religious). There is a lot of tricky wording in this one so if someone can read it with a careful eye, let me know if I missed something (bold mine).
responsibility will be for major maintenance of building systems such as the roof, walls and
water and sewer systems and mechanical systems. It is not yet known what the net operating return will be, as the maintenance costs are unknown and the leases are not fully negotiated, but the District expects to net over $450,000 per year from these five buildings.
What? Yes you do know the maintenance costs because we paid for a facilities condition report and while some of these buildings haven't been used in awhile, most have. This is a very odd thing to say.
At John Marshall, we will be actively managing the building and renting to a number of tenants. The building will not be fully rented at this time and we are seeking additional tenants. Initially, this building will have more expenses than revenue. Occupancy began on April 1, 2010 with tenants that have been moved out of the Sand Point building. Over time, we expect to locate additional tenants to reduce or eliminate the loss.
What?!? We are losing money on renting and we hope the loss can be reduced? If it's not eliminated, aren't we making a bad choice?
An additional benefit to the leasing program is in avoided expenditures. This program will avoid expenditures averaging approximately $50,000 per building per year at the five fully rented buildings, in addition to the net operating profit stated above. The total annual gain to the District from this effort for these 6 buildings is projected at over $650,000, including the avoided expenses.
Avoided expenditures? What is that - maintenance? I'm not sure they can say in one place they don't know the maintenance costs and yet they have a very specific number for how much they will save.
In addition, by having the buildings occupied, the District substantially reduces the potential for vandalism, and keeps building boilers, pipes and other systems operational on a daily basis.
- OSPI waiver to try to get a reduction in the number of days South Shore has to make up because of their one-week loss of days due to the sick building. Poor South Shore would, if the waiver is granted, have to make up the days on June 23, 24 and 25. Poor kids!
- Changing the name of Brighton Elementary to Martin Luther King, Jr. Elementary. Brighton is not named after a person so it's not a big loss there but what a blow to the original school. It's almost like it never existed.