Guest Editorial: Solid Engineering and Energy Use Built into School Bond’s Maintenance Plan

By Justin Paulsen
BPI Certified Building Performance Analyst
& Envelope Professional

Over the past several months there has been a healthy discussion in our community related to the issue of maintenance of our schools and how that issue pertains to the current proposed bond issue on the August ballot.  For months, I have also peppered the school board with similar questions.  After doing much research, here is some pertinent information:

When the Middle School Complex was built, what was the objective life cycle estimated for the buildings being constructed?

Based upon accounts of past board members, the decisions made concerning building materials and methods were focused on providing a 15-20 year life for the buildings.  Based on this projection, the buildings have out-performed their intended lifespan by a decade, regardless of maintenance related issues.

Is there any level of maintenance that would allow for the current buildings to meet ADA and/or current seismic codes?

The buildings don’t meet current, and in some cases, the code requirements at the time of construction.  Lack of shear paneling and lack of insulation in the building structure could not have been changed by better maintenance.  Based upon a 2005 engineering study by Coughlin, Porter, Lundeen Engineers, the buildings “…do not meet the requirements for a complete lateral force resisting system” causing them to fall short of the “Life-Safety Performance Goal”.

Does the District and Board acknowledge the shortfall in funding related to maintenance over the last several years?    What steps are being taken to reestablish maintenance as a priority?

The board is well aware that more staff and better funding are needed to properly maintain our schools.  The budget crisis faced under past administration placed the board in a position of making sizable cuts to programs and staffing.  In an effort to maintain high quality education, the administration levied major cuts to the maintenance program.  In addition, like most school districts in the state, the erosion of state funding for public education as a whole allowed for maintenance to become a second tier priority. The current administration is improving the management and maintenance process.

Is it the intent of the district to direct the architect to emphasize the use of low-maintenance building materials in their conceptual planning?

The Board and administration have been clear in their demands for buildings that will be durable, easy to maintain and will last a minimum of 50 years – preferably longer.  The architecture firm, Mahlum, is on-board with this intention as well as creating energy efficient buildings that will further reduce utility expenses allowing for additional savings to be redirected to ongoing maintenance.

The school district is on the right path to understanding the District’s facilities maintenance situation and future needs.  Planning to date has been thorough and backed by solid engineering and building science analysis.  I urge everyone to consider the facts related to the upcoming bond, confident that a thorough and complete analysis will bring you to the conclusion that a YES vote on the upcoming bond is the proper step for our schools.

Thank you to Keith Whitaker, the OISD Board, Mahlum Architecture and numerous others for their assistance in providing information for this editorial.