• 2003 Annual Report - May 20,2004 (Printable version)
   

The above document is in .pdf format so that it may be viewed and printed by most computers.   If you have any problems opening or viewing the document you may need a newer version of Adobe Acrobat software. 
Click here to upload a free copy of Adobe Acrobat reader.

 BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT 

TO:                  Sacramento City Unified School District Board

FROM:            Bond Oversight Committee

SUBJECT:     Annual Report

DATE:            May 20, 2004 

SUMMARY 

The 12 member Bond Oversight Committee (BOC) is pleased to report that over the last year, we have met 7 times, visited 5 school campuses, and conducted extensive subcommittee work in the areas of audit evaluation, communications, deferred maintenance, and value assessment with the goal of ensuring that Measure E and Measure I funds were used efficiently on school and classroom construction and improvement and for no other purpose.

To date, the BOC committees have overseen the expenditure of $142.5 million dollars worth of Measure E and $7.1 million dollars worth of Measure I bond funds and $50.3 million worth of state matching funds. $158.3 million has been spent on renovation/modernization, $35.4 million on Rosemont High School and $6.2 million on new “small learning environment” high schools including New Technology, Genesis and America’s Choice. 

Under the renovation/modernization category, which includes alarms, fire systems, data cabling, electrical upgrades, air conditioning and heating systems, and Americans with Disabilities Act (A.D.A.) compliance, 28 schools have been completed, 9 schools are in the final phase, and 35 schools are in the design phase.  Modernization/renovation work at the remaining 35 schools will be completed using the statewide Prop 55 funds approved by voters on March 2, 2004.

We are also pleased to report that the Sacramento City Unified School District (SCUSD) staff have addressed the improvement recommendations highlighted in last year’s BOC report.   

1.      SCUSD has worked with PCM3 to create quarterly construction/modernization schedules for each school site.  These schedules have been shared with school principals and other interested stakeholders in a timely manner. 

2.      The BOC worked with SCUSD on the August 15, 2003 edition of “The Connection” to ensure that a site-specific funding and construction review was made available to the public.

RECOMMENDATIONS - 2003 ANNUAL REPORT 

The BOC has developed several recommendations over the last year.  Each will be described in more detail beginning on page 6 of the report.  

Audit Subcommittee

1.      The BOC should have a direct relationship with the auditor selected to perform the bond audit.  The bond audit work should be expanded to include maintenance costs.  The auditors should report directly to the Audit Committee chair for the BOC during the performance of the bond audit.

Deferred Maintenance Subcommittee

2.      Bond funds should be used for the deferred maintenance match funds of $1.5 million in order to obtain the federal/state matching funds for 2004.  The SCUSD Board is considering not investing the funds required to make the match.  The work covered by such funds is work included in the Measure E and Measure I bond funding and the funds needed for the match should come from those funds 

3.      SCUSD should review the potential liabilities associated with the retention basin and contain those possible risks by either discontinuing ownership of the retention basin or reducing them to the greatest extent possible. 

4.      SCUSD should obtain input from principals in the Deferred Maintenance Plan. 

Value Assessment Subcommittee

5.      SCUSD should review the Value Assessment Subcommittee report and provide responses to questions raised about the high cost of HVAC school construction projects compared to HVAC construction projects in the private sector and the potential for cost savings. 

6.      SCUSD should work with the construction managers on each site to develop a common set of efficiency standards for every category of work.  For example, a number of efficiency recommendations are listed in the Value Assessment Subcommittee report.  To what extent do construction managers already perform these cost saving, best practice, efficiency measures at their respective school sites and could they incorporate the observations and findings made by the subcommittee into their work. 

7.      SCUSD should consider using specialists for design build opportunities on specific projects. 

General

8.      When contacted by BOC members, SCUSD staff should make it a priority to respond to members’ requests in a timely manner.  

9.      SCUSD should update the BOC section of the SCUSD website.  A link to the BOC section should be added to the district’s home page titled, “Measure E & I Oversight” 

REVIEW OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM 2002 ANNUAL REPORT

1. RECOMMENDATION:

The District should establish a project plan and budget through 2008 by school site and develop criteria for selecting future facilities projects.

The District should prepare a documented Project Management Plan specific to the Measure “E” bond program.

CURRENT STATUS:

The detailed schedules have not been prepared for the remaining schools.  Each site administrator should know the approximate month and year for the start and finish of construction at their school.  Once those schedules have been established, accurate inflation figures can then be incorporated into the cost estimates.  The priorities have been established and the bond issue dates are known, therefore, enough information is known to establish detailed schedules for the remaining Phase III schools (funded by Prop. 47), priority cabling and air conditioning, and the balance of the Measure “E” schools. 

DISTRICT’S INITIAL RESPONSE

We have developed a draft schedule to carry the program through the summer of 2006. It has been reviewed with the Project Managers and Associate Superintendents. Charlie Jones is currently setting up one on one meetings with each school principal (over the next three weeks). Our goal is to expedite modernization work.  This means that some renovations will occur during the school year.  It is therefore imperative that principals are presented a clear picture of all that is involved in working under construction conditions.  This issue must be seriously addressed so that the principal, faculty, classified staff, students and parents, fully understand what the situation will entail prior to allowing construction activities during the instructional day.  We will be discussing these issues during our one on one.

Once a time slot is assigned, we will be able to add in the specific inflation factors.

2. RECOMMENDATION

The District and Bond Oversight Committee should develop a communication plan to inform the public about the modernization progress.  The District should prepare annual status reports, which detail actual expenditures versus actual planned expenditures and the balance of Measure “E” funds available to complete future work.

The district should create a document, in a public presentation format for the Board, members of the District, parents and others, which provides a clear concise and readable reporting format for bond funds received and/or available, the expenditure of bond funds and the accomplishments achieved through those expenditures.  It is anticipated that the final report would be published in The Connection and be available to the newspapers and other publications in the area.

CURRENT STATUS

Currently many inquiries are received by the BOC from parents and interested parties regarding status of school projects, amounts of money being spent and work items included.  By creating a simple communication tool (likely using the SCUSD website and The Connection together), interested parties from all stakeholder groups can have access to timely information regarding the progress of work.

DISTRICT’S INITIAL RESPONSE

At the October 28, 2002, BOC meeting, Jim Dobson distributed copies of draft “Bond Program Delivery Policy.”  This document is intended to function as the Project Management Plan.  BOC members will review this document for sufficiency and provide comments through the BOC Co-Chairs to the district.

The District did not receive any comments back from the BOC members. The District is applying for ISO - 9000 certification of all of its policies and procedures. The District will be converting the existing policies and procedures to the ISO format.  Certification is anticipated by the end of the summer 2004.

3. RECOMMENDATION

The selected auditor for the bond audit should report directly to the Audit Chair for the BOC and be responsive to the reasonable requests of the BOC for audit work on costs covered by Measure E and I.  The reports should be available no later than 120 days after the close of the fiscal year.

CURRENT STATUS

The audit report for F/E June 30, 2002 was delivered in April of 2003.  The audit report for F/E June 20, 2003 was delivered in April of 2004.  The information is 10 months old when received by the BOC.  In F/E June 30, 2004, the BOC has requested that the audit report be available no later than December 1, 2004. 

4.  RECOMMENDATION:

District staff should meet with the Audit Chair during the year to review various issues regarding the bond sales, the investment strategies used, and general accounting questions/concerns so that the BOC can be kept informed during the year rather than waiting until the audit report is complete.

CURRENT STATUS:

A proposed process has been provided to SCUSD staff to review and a meeting requested to implement with staff input and concerns included. 

5. RECOMMENDATION

With the passage of Measure ”I,” priorities must be established for the expenditure of the bond funds.  One of the highest priorities should be the preparation of design documents to qualify for state funds from Proposition 47 or the subsequent incarnation two years later (Prop 55).   The highest priority of all may be the funds identified for Health and Safety in Measure “I.”  Also, there may be overlapping scopes of work for schools resulting from both bond measures that if done independently would result in tear-out, inefficiencies, or unnecessary repeated interruption of the academic program.  In these instances, early identification may save overall funds from both measures by spending small amounts of Measure “I” funds simultaneously with Measure “E” projects. A technical cross walk should be initiated between the scopes of work for both bond measures as soon as possible to determine what efficiencies might be achieved and the cost and schedule for implementing them.  A process should be initiated as soon as possible to set priorities
Every opportunity should be taken and every effort should be made to expedite the Proposition 47 qualification process.   

CURRENT STATUS:

The District formed a Measure I Prioritization Committee on January 24, 2003.  The Committee met on January 29^th and February 5^th and made preliminary recommendations for the order of expenditures on all Measure “I” projects.  BOC members participated.

DISTRICT’S INITIAL RESPONSE

Because of the timing of the state bond dollar releases, the district has proceeded with the state modernization scope. Any delay could jeopardize state funding. In most cases supplemental renovations that were a scope in the Measure "I" bond have been added to the Modernization scope. Remaining Measure "I" scope is easily pulled out as stand alone projects that can be scheduled to coincide with Measure "I" fund releases.

RECOMMENDATIONS - 2003 ANNUAL REPORT 

Recommendations for this year’s annual report are organized by subcommittee.

AUDIT SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT

Chair: Linda Clifford
The audit committee presents the attached review report from Perry Smith for the year ending June 30, 2003 to the Board of Trustees, SCUSD.  The report is herewith attached as Exhibit 1.

With regards to the review report results, the Audit Committee representing the Bond Oversight Committee has the following comments and suggestions

1.  The report was performed as requested by the Audit Committee.  The report included twice as many item reviews as performed in the previous year.  The auditors were requested to review costs from each school in the District that had work of any kind performed on premises.  The auditor was requested to check all audited items for appropriateness as costs allowed under the requirements of Measure E.  All costs were appropriately charged and appropriately authorized under Measure E.

RECOMMENDATION:  The Audit Committee wishes to be involved in setting the criteria for the items selected by the auditors.  This exercise is important to the Bond Oversight Committee to verify that the costs included are as authorized under Measure E, especially since the amount of funds being spent is increasing.

2.  The review report was delivered in April of 2004, approximately 10 months after year-end for 2003.  The same time frame was experienced in the previous year.  The report was delivered in April of 2003 for the year-ending June 30, 2002. 

RECOMMENDATION:  The Audit Committee believes the report should be available for review on or before six months after the end of each fiscal year, at the latest.  Discussions with SCUSD staff and the current auditors have been positive as relates to this requested change in time for reporting.

3.  The auditor for SCUSD is the same auditor used for the review of the Measure E funds.  The Audit Committee on behalf of the Bond Oversight Committee believes that there should be more independence between the review report and the annual audit of SCUSD by the District’s outside auditors. 

RECOMMENDATION:  The Bond Oversight Committee believes that the Audit Committee should have direct control over the review report and should interact directly with the selected auditors for the bond report.   The auditors should report directly to the Audit Committee chair and coordinate their work with the chair directly as relates to the annual review report.

4.  2004 – 2005 PLAN OF ACTION:

ü                  During the year the audit committee worked with Marcus Dawson and others in SCUSD’s accounting offices to formulate a plan for more active involvement on the part of the Audit Committee as to the activities related to Measure E funds and the Audit Committee’s responsibility in representing the Bond Oversight Committee. 

ü                  This proposed involvement would include quarterly meetings between upper financial management at SCUSD and members of the Audit Committee.

ü                  The proposed involvement would also include information regarding the plan for bond sales and investing strategies to be shared with the Audit Committee in order to maximize Measure E and I funds.

ü                  It is anticipated that the proposed plan will be implemented immediately.

A copy of the proposed audit committee plan is herewith attached on page ____ of the report.

DEFERRED MAINTENANCE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT

Chair – Jan Hulla

Summary of the Preventative and Deferred Maintenance Subcommittee’s Activities

1.      A tour of the SCUSD Maintenance Shop

Finding - The conduct of operations within the SCUSD Maintenance Shop is very good. The individual shops are clean, organized and operating efficiently.

2.      An interview with Mr. West regarding maintenance scheduling and operations.

Finding- Mr. West’s computerized scheduling methodology is contemporary.

3.      A review of the maintenance 5-year plan.

Findings- There is a disconnection between the 5-year plan and on-going maintenance operations. The committee was informed that the 5-year Plan is a funding requirement. However, Mr. West, perhaps reasonably, changes the plan frequently.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends that the Trustees take action to replace what appears to be a meaningless 5-Year Maintenance Plan. However, the Subcommittee endorses a shorter term written plan as serving to provide appropriate accountability. The Committee recommends a Bond Oversight Committee-initiated independent audit of the Maintenance Operations expenditures.

4.      Survey of elementary school principals regarding 5-year plan maintenance

Findings- The written and oral remarks from randomly selected SCUSD elementary principals regarding the status of maintenance scheduled for FY02-03 appear as an attachment to this document. The remarks were compiled during the period 7/2003 to 11/2003. Most SCUSD principals do not participate in preparation of the maintenance plan. A few administrators did not know of the 5-year plan. Approximately 75% of the responding administrators expressed satisfaction with regard to maintenance needs. The satisfaction of the remaining 25% was qualified.

RECOMMENDATION

The Subcommittee recommends tracking by the Subcommittee of the school administrators’ levels of satisfaction. The Subcommittee recommends adoption of a quantitative measure for Maintenance Operations efficiency. The Subcommittee recommends that any maintenance plan incorporate recommendations from each school administrator.

5.      As the Bond Oversight Committee-of-the-Whole, we toured Rosemont, Pony Express, Bear Flag, New Technology, Hubert Bancroft, Sequoia, and Fern Bacon Schools.

Findings- School principals/representatives were generally pleased with progress such as HVAC updates and technology improvements. The tour of the then-under-construction Rosemont High raised concern however. The Bond Oversight Committee is concerned about the potential for future liability associated with the retention basin located on the campus. It is the committee’s understanding that the basin land was a gift from a local developer. It is the Committee’s understanding that SCUSD’s motivation for accepting the basin was to avoid a large county stormwater impact fee. While originally there might have been some SCUSD understanding that the county would eventually take possession of the basin, it now appears that SCUSD is the soul owner of the basin. The Committee is concerned that the basin will collect stormwater runoff and potential hazard liability not only from the campus but also, as part of the land transfer agreement, from the adjacent development properties.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends that the Trustees work with the county to release SCUSD’s ownership of the stormwater retention basin by September 2004.  This issue has been discussed by BOC members and committee staff for over a year and there has been little progress towards the transfer of this property to another entity.  In the meantime, the BOC recommends that the district monitor the retention basin for possible pollutants to limit potential liability.  As an alternative solution, the committee recommends working with environmental organizations to determine if the land could be handed over for habitat conservation and restoration purposes.

VALUE ASSESSMENT SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT

Chair: Mike Day 

The Bond Oversight Committee (BOC) has a general mandate to insure that bond funds are spent reasonably, and only on approved expenditures.  To fill this mandate, the BOC decided to review the amount of money being spent by the district on a specific work item and compare it to a comparable package of work performed in the private sector.  

Because of the work history and professional experience of two of the new BOC members, it was decided to focus on the area of HVAC replacement and/or retrofit for review.  A subcommittee was formed to review these costs.  The subcommittee chair, Michael Day, has over 15 years experience working in different areas within the HVAC industry.  The subcommittee vice chair is Jon Martin who is a licensed civil engineer with over 10 years experience in a structural engineering firm located in Sacramento. 

The average cost of HVAC systems is computed many different ways.  When estimating an entire project, general contractors in the private sector will seek estimates on the cost from design/build mechanical firms.  HVAC breakout costs are usually quoted in one of two methods: cost per square foot of conditioned space, or cost per ton of HVAC cooling capacity.  For this review we use the cost per ton of cooling capacity method.  The cost per ton for the type of equipment used in the district projects that we reviewed typically runs from $900 to $2,000 per ton based on information gathered from three industry sources, a review of five projects, and the RS Means estimating guide for Sacramento.  Of the district projects we reviewed, the costs ranged from $7,500 per ton and higher. 

We decided to examine the possible reasons why these costs were so high compared to equivalent equipment in the private sector.  We found that there is no one single reason why the cost of HVAC is so much higher in the education field than it is in the private sector.  The Value Assessment subcommittee found at least seven areas where the method of doing business is significantly different than in the private sector, leading to potential cost increases.

I Design fees

Under the Business and Professions code of California, licensed mechanical contractors are allowed to draw up plans for the work they will perform themselves.  In order to draw up those plans, they must perform load calculations and design duct systems so that the amount of cooling and heating capacity matches the demand of the space at peak load.  For simple projects in the private sector, these design costs are quite minimal, and are included in the price of the bid by the mechanical contractor performing the work.   

School rooms are almost always the single, large, un-partitioned rooms.  The number of people per room is known, and building characteristics (the amount of wall surface, size and number of windows, etc.) are also relatively easy to determine from the blueprints, as is the orientation of the building with respect to the sun.  Knowing these factors, designers are able to calculate the size and design of a system.

Current procurement policies dictate that a professional engineer design a set of drawings for each individual classroom.  Additionally, the costs associated with the mechanical engineer are compounded by the fact that these design fees are passed through an architect on district projects. These higher fees are in contrast to a service that is included for very little cost in the private sector in a design-build type project.  In many cases, the design fees alone would have covered a significant portion of the entire cost of a school done as a standard design-build type project. 

The alternative mentioned above is called design-build.  Under design-build, the performance characteristics that the district wants are listed, and individual teams of builders and mechanical contractors try to meet the standards.  If the district wants a system to maintain 78 degrees in the summer and 70 degrees in the winter, they set that as a specification, and the Designer/contractor teams are responsible to design a system that meets that standard.  If they fail to meet that standard, they're required to repair the system until it does meet the standard.  If they are still unable to meet the standard, a performance bond is activated, and a second firm is brought in to complete the work that the first team was unable to do.

Another factor that caught the attention of the Value Assessment Subcommittee was the potential for cost savings when plans are developed for schools with substantially similar floor plans.  Many schools in the Sacramento City Unified School District were built to a common set of plans.  For example, there were eight schools that were built to the exact same plan as Bear Flag Elementary School.  Our initial thought was that there would be reduced design fees for the duplicate schools assuming that no remodeling had been performed.  However, our research found that the cost of the design on Bear Flag was exactly the same as it was on the other seven identical schools.

 Another observation that stood out was the correlation between design fees and construction costs.   As construction costs increase, so do design fees.

RECOMMENDATION

The district should consider a flat fee based system which could save money and promote greater competition. Flat fee designs costs are inherent in design-build contracting.  Alternatively, the District could consider cost savings sharing fee structures where designers are paid bonuses for value engineering methods that save the school money on the overall construction.

II Equipment selection

The equipment that was selected for many of these projects is priced at the upper end of the equipment market.   

There are several factors which affect price.

 Manufacturer/Model

The district has a standard that requires use of Aaon rooftop package equipment.  Typical efficiency rooftop HVAC equipment runs on order of $400 to $500 per ton of capacity.  Aaon equipment typically runs $1200-$2200 per ton of capacity.  The following reasons were given to the BOC as to the selection of this equipment: 

First, this equipment qualifies for SMUD rebates.  Typical SMUD rebates are on the order of a few hundred dollars per ton of capacity for commercial equipment. 

Second, the standardization of this particular equipment made it easier to work on.
Additionally, we have been told there is energy savings over time from the use of the extremely high efficiency HVAC equipment. 

RECOMMENDATION

We recommend that the District assess the rebates against the costs and the possibility of recovering those costs in added efficiency.  The Value Assessment Subcommittee would like the district to demonstrate the advantage of selecting the higher priced Aaon units over comparable units that were less expensive taking the rebate value into consideration.  The Value Assessment Subcommittee would like to view the district’s accounting records for the SMUD rebates receive from the HVAC units. 

III Prevailing Wage

During our analysis the subcommittee noticed that prevailing wage could be another factor leading to higher overall construction prices.  The subcommittee estimates that HVAC labor on district projects is $31.05/hour, which is about 46% higher than the mean wage for similar work performed in the Sacramento area.

IV Controls
 

Broadly speaking, there are two types of building automation systems: open-source, and proprietary.  Open-source can be purchased and worked on by any mechanical contractor, or by the district’s own personnel.  Proprietary systems are restricted to a few mechanical contractors in any geographic region. 
While the up front cost of proprietary systems is often lower than that of open source systems, the lifetime costs are typically substantially higher.  Individual unit controllers, head ends, boards, and other system components can only be purchased from the proprietary controls company, and this monopoly is reflected in the component pricing.  Further, the restriction on potential repair vendors similarly restricts choice and increases cost.   

RECOMMENDATION

Based on much of the information reviewed by the BOC, the District should consider limiting all future bids to open-source controls.

V Time of year

Construction and modernization work at school sites is typically performed during summer break.  This compression, which is compounded by the limited number of contractors, leads to increased subcontractor and contractor costs, especially when the additional cost associated with regular overtime are factored in. 

RECOMMENDATION

The District should review whether all work must be completed in such a compressed time schedule.  There may be significant cost savings in making some modification of this requirement.

Conclusion

The Value Assessment Subcommittee found that the district’s HVAC equipment and installation expenditures cost up to seven times more than the average private sector rates.  The subcommittee examined a number of potential reasons behind the high costs.

RECOMMENDATION

While the subcommittee understands the legal constraints placed on the district by state and federal law, we recommend the district consider the recommendations that were made as possible ways to reduce the cost of HVAC installation and maintenance where feasible. 

We recommend that district staff utilize their construction managers at each construction site to look for additional efficiencies and value engineering methods that could stretch each bond dollar further.  We also request that the construction managers create a set of standards for each trade.  This way, the next time the Value Assessment Subcommittee conducts research on a construction trade, we will be able to ensure that the construction managers are implementing cost effective techniques and equipment selection. 

COMMUNICATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE

Chair: Nate Solov 

The following article appeared in the August 15, 2003 edition of SCUSD’s “The Connection”.  In addition to this summary, individual reports were provided for each school site containing the scope of work, state and local funding amounts, and upcoming work. 

The Connection, 8-15-03, Page 11

Citizens' Bond Oversight Committee

The Bond Oversight Committee (BOC) would like to thank the voters within the Sacramento City Unified School District for supporting the $195 million Measure E in 1999 and the $225 million Measure I in 2002. The funds generated by both of these measures have gone into school construction, modernization, portable classroom replacement, technology upgrades, and heating and air conditioning installation.

Formed in 1999 as a citizens oversight committee, the BOC is comprised of community members who care deeply about the school facilities in which our children learn and the district's fiscal responsibility to the voters. Committee members applied and were appointed by the Sacramento Metro Chamber of Commerce and Sacramento Area Congregations Together to serve two year staggered terms.

The BOC serves the taxpaying voters within the district to ensure that bond funds are being spent responsibly on school and classroom improvements and for no other purposes. To guarantee this, the committee works with an independent auditor and conducts research, surveys and site visits at the district and school site level. The BOC has formed subcommittees on Preventive and Deferred Maintenance, State Matching Funds, Communications, Site Visits, and Audits to gather information which is compiled into an annual report submitted to the Sacramento City Unified School District's Board of Education. The report contains summaries of achievements, planning priorities, subcommittee briefs, recommendations for improvement and success, and BOC member descriptions.

To date, the BOC has overseen and/or verified the expenditure of $142.5 million dollars worth of Measure E and $7.1 million dollars worth of Measure I bond funds in addition to $50.3 million worth of state matching funds. $158.3 million has been spent on renovation/modernization, $35.4 million on Rosemont High School and $6.2 million on new “small learning environment” high schools including New Technology, Genesis and America’s Choice. 

Under the renovation/modernization category, which includes alarms, fire systems, data cabling, electrical upgrades, air conditioning and heating systems, and Americans with Disabilities Act (A.D.A.) compliance, 28 schools have been completed, 9 schools are in the final phase, and 35 schools are in the design phase.  Modernization/renovation work at the remaining 35 schools is anticipated to be completed after passage of the next state facilities bond which will go to the voters in March of 2004.

To read the Bond Oversight Committee's most recent Annual Report please access SCUSD's website at www.scusd.edu and click on the Bond Oversight Committee link. You are welcome to contact the BOC Co-Chairs with any questions or comments:

Drew Learned: dlearned@pacbell.net

Nate Solov: nsolov@hotmail.com

Example of site-specific funding and modernization updates provided for each school in the August 15, 2003 edition of SCUSD’s “The Connection”.  

BEAR FLAG ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

6620 Gloria Drive
Year Built: 1965
Funding: State bond: $818,746.00
School Principal: Harriet Young     
Scope of Work: Summer 2003 Modernization
Site Improvements / Utilities & Wiring: new slurry coating at existing parking lot, exterior painting and exterior lighting upgrades.

Previous work included new electrical service and distribution to HVAC units, new asphalt, removal of diseased trees, and concrete repair/replacement.

Alarm/Fire System: installation of a new fully automatic fire alarm system throughout the campus, upgrading of the existing security alarm system and devices.

Air Conditioning & Heating Systems: Previous work included removing old boilers & furnaces, new HVAC units, and temperature control and energy management system.

Classroom Improvements: for all classrooms, multi-purpose, kitchen, restrooms and administration buildings new finishes throughout, new casework, new fixtures, create new data technology walls, new electrical upgrades- additional outlets and new lighting, ADA accessibility, and new door hardware.

Computer Wiring: new data drops throughout campus buildings and new technology walls in classrooms.

State Mandated Hazardous Materials: Previous work included asbestos & lead abatement where necessary for construction purposes.

State Mandated ADA Compliance: new wheelchair lift at the multi-purpose stage, new hardware, doors and frames, new classrooms accessible sinks, ramps and handrails, ADA parking provisions, restroom upgrades and accessible drinking fountains. 

Bond Oversight Committee Roster