|
|
Facilities And The Budget The management and maintenance of Readington school facilities accounts for a healthy chunk of our annual school budget. The proposal for the 2006-2007 budget, explained by facilities manager Don Thornton at the January 10 board meeting, earmarks a little over $2.2 million for this purpose. That includes salaries for maintenance and custodial staff. Is this kind of money really necessary? Actually, there is evidence that this kind of money is not nearly enough and that related capital expenditures are needed. Public schools, like many other public organizations, frequently trade long term obligations for short term desires. Flashy new systems are purchased but no budget dollars are put aside for training or maintenance on the back end. Maintenance is not typically a top-of-mind topic. As Bruce Buchanan noted in a 2003 American School Board Journal article called "What Schools Cost": “Being a school maintenance director is a lot like being a pro football referee: You only get noticed when you do something wrong. Maintenance work often goes unnoticed by school administrators and board members, who are more attuned to what's going on in the classroom. While teachers have many opportunities to receive praise, school maintenance workers often toil in anonymity.” Don Thornton was understated in his January 10 presentation, but in the case of Readington schools, there are a number of areas that now require swift attention if we are to avoid long term problems. While the attention of the public has been concentrated on the request for a new maintenance/transportation building to the tune of $350K, there are some other possibly bigger fish to fry. As we approach the budget vote this year we must be certain to consider the need to spend smart money on some of these fish. For example, in many district classrooms the duties of temperature control and air handling are managed by self-contained Airedale HVAC units. Virtually every person who has witnessed the operation of these units agrees that they are an abomination. Instead of ceiling or wall vents connected to a rooftop HVAC unit, the Airedale units put the machinery right plop in the middle of the classroom floor. As a result, not only must the teacher and students work above the considerable din of the unit, but precious floor space is lost to an imposing metal monster. This is not conducive to an effective learning environment. Parents who visit such classrooms as guest readers leave hoarse and amazed that anything gets done at all. To make matters worse, the Airedale units are well past their prime, requiring excessive maintenance and sucking up more than their fair share of power from the grid. Upgrading to modern rooftop units is costly and disruptive, but it is money well spent. It is time to accelerate the removal of the Airedale systems and our budget should be upgraded to support that effort. Another big fish is roof repair and replacement. Any owner of a building with a flat roof understands the headache of keeping water out of the building envelope. It is a constant war and water is a devious enemy. Common roof systems include “built-up” roofing where layers of hot tar and special roofing paper are laid over solid insulation and rubber or other membrane systems where seamed membranes are patched together like a giant quilt. Such systems have a shorter lifespan than the tabbed asphalt shingles found on pitched roof residential homes. A dark flat surface gets mighty hot in the sun, although sometimes a reflective aluminumized coating is spread to ameliorate the effect of the sun. Even so, bubbling and alligatoring on the surface of tar based systems eventually allows water to penetrate weakened areas. Rubber membrane roofs often have split seams where the weight of ice and snow pushes down until there is separation. That allows water to poor in. Plus, as new “curbs” are built to accommodate new rooftop HVAC units and as other inevitable penetrations in the roof occur, the integrity of the roof covering can be compromised. If maintenance staffs are too busy elsewhere to remove natural debris from the roof, clear roof drains, remove excessive snow weight, and refresh reflective coatings, the deterioration is even faster. Ten years can be the expected lifespan of a flat roof, as compared to twenty years and more for a pitched roof. One interesting development in flat roofing technology over the past couple of decades is sprayed-on expanding polyurethane roofing. Sold and installed by many different vendors, this technology allows for an integrated roof system that can actually be pitched in areas to allow for better drainage. It can also be repaired very easily and is sometimes installed right over existing roofing. More information is available from http://www.geroofingsystems.com/spf-roofing/index.htm and also http://www.ncfi.com/Roofing/roofing.htm. While the inherent problem with flat roofing is still there, sprayed on roofing does provide a means to replace a failed system with a lightweight, thermally efficient and minimally disruptive alternative. No heavy tar fumes means that work can go on during the school year. The Readington school buildings have roofs that are patched and newly compromised due to recent construction and old age. The kinds of concerns about indoor air quality shown last year can often be traced to small leaks in roofs that generate mold and mildew inside the building. It is time we make a major effort to replace and upgrade the flat roofs in our district. Money spent now is money saved later in this area. Also in need of attention are the aging boilers used to heat our district classrooms. While energy conservation efforts and electronic energy management systems are critical to keeping down the cost of heating, it is the boilers that are the heart of the system. New boilers are more efficient than our old units and they don’t require the maintenance and repair dollars that we currently spend. As Don Thornton pointed out in his presentation, there can be two costs associated with repair of these old units—dollars for the repair and potential lost educational time when schools are shut down due to lack of heat. We need to plan and implement boiler replacements now, before the latter cost skyrockets. Certainly there is no shortage of other big fish. A lack of a coordinated physical security system is a sore thumb in our contingency planning. A “smart card” access system would be a big step forward in this regard, and it would also allow staff members to come and go with more ease and freedom. Our tired septic plant for Holland Brook School and Readington Middle School must be replaced with a connection to public facilities as quickly as possible, or we all know what will literally hit the fan. Repair and upgrades to parking lots, new energy efficient windows, and lots of other ideas are also being discussed. Is $2.2 million enough? The short answer is: no. While it can be difficult to spend money outside the classroom, we must remember that the classroom does not exist in a vacuum. Now is the time to spend some smart money on facilities so that we can avoid bigger money in years to come. Not only should voters support this proposed facilities budget, but they should be asking our school board to increase capital spending in this area so that we may accelerate the process of renewing our school facilities. Trading long term obligation for short term gain is not a tactic we can afford to push any further. |
