The Columbia School Board held a special meeting last Tuesday night, the majority of which it spent discussing a proposed project later this summer. 

The board took no action on that item after nearly two hours of discussion because board members Tammy Hines, Greg Meyer and Lisa Schumacher expressed various concerns related to the work. 

Interim Superintendent Victor Buehler said that work, which encompasses repairing or replacing the roofs at Columbia High School and Columbia Middle School and installing new heating, ventilation and air condition systems at CHS, is projected to cost about $4.5 million. 

Buehler said he anticipates the district will get about $250,000 in grants for the project and pay for the rest with its working cash fund and a $3.5 million bond. 

Buehler also noted that under that plan residents’ taxes should increase by only a cent at the most. 

But Hines, Meyer and Schumacher had concerns, one of which was that the original proposal submitted by Trane U.S. Inc., the energy services company the district proposed selecting to do the work using a performance contract, changed. 

Hines said it originally came in at $3.7 million but now sits at that $4.5 million figure. 

Buehler said the price tag increased because the district requested Trane edit its proposal to make it more comparable with competing ones so the district could better weigh its options. 

Hines said her concern is that Trane is the company both deciding what work needs to be done and doing the work and the school district is not using its recently hired architect to get an opinion. 

“These people are all salespeople,” Hines argued. “(FGM Architects) works for us and protects us. They’re our trusted advisor, and we haven’t even had them go look at this stuff.” 

Buehler countered that the architect is on the committee reviewing the performance contract proposals. Other members of that committee are Buheler, the district engineer and two maintenance personnel including Director of Maintenance Kurt Steve. 

“I would have to believe the architect wouldn’t endorse a project moving forward, with the Columbia School District being their client, without some high-level of confidence that this is an appropriate approach,” board member John Long said. 

Meyer said the architect is doing that because the district said it planned to use performance contracting. Schumacher said if the architect is in favor of performance contracting, she wants to hear that from him 

Additionally, Buehler noted that roof consultants for all the companies that submitted proposals for this project examined the roof work, which was among the chief concerns of Hines, Meyer and Schumacher. 

Meyer also said the district is acting before it has the appropriate information, as the agenda item was to approve a resolution that would allow it to progress to good-faith negotiations with Trane for the work. 

Meyer’s issue was that the district did not have a detailed proposal from Trane outlining how much each part of the project would cost. 

“We’re being asked to make decisions when we don’t have the numbers,” Meyer said. “We’re trying to ramrod $4.5 million. Remember, guys, we don’t have  any money.  We only have taxpayers’ money.” 

For example, Meyer said it was his understanding the current warranty on the section of the roof at CHS that is being repaired could be extended for $7,000 as opposed to having Trane fix it for $150,000. 

Meyer also said other companies who submitted proposals promised cheaper work for some parts of the project, though Trane was the best for the HVAC. 

Finally, he said the district architect said performance contracting would cost 20-30 percent more than going the traditional route of having the architect design the project and competitively bid it. 

All those savings, Meyer argued, could help pay for other work. 

Board member Greg O’Connor pointed out, however, that the particular savings Meyer was arguing for are not guaranteed. 

“Everybody’s throwing around a million dollar number,” O’Connor said. “That’s speculation. For the purpose of this board and our governance, there is nothing before us that shows a million dollars.”

Buehler also said the board would get a more detailed proposal if it approved the resolution and entered into negotiations with Trane. 

“There’s a process in this,” he said. “You’re not that far down the line.”

Scott Hardwick, a Trane representative, also added that in performance contracting it is up to the district to make an overall best choice.

“The board, with their professional advisors, are supposed to evaluate the best value,” he said.   

Schumacher seconded Meyer’s opinion, arguing the district is moving too fast on this project. 

“I feel, as a new school board member, that we’re heading down the same road,” she said, referring to the district’s contentious decision last March to use performance contracting for a project involving putting a new roof on Parkview Elementary School. “We’re asking to spend a lot of taxpayer money without having all the correct information.” 

Schumacher made a motion that the board table the resolution, form a committee that included two board members and request a proposal that would competitively bid the project. 

Hines seconded that, but both women later rescinded their votes in favor of taking no action. 

Ideally, Hines, Meyer and Schumacher said they wanted the district to do only the important work now and educate itself more to make a decision at a later time. 

Buehler said the district might not save money with that approach. 

“I think you’re going to be wasting more money by not doing it because you’re going to be spending more money on repairs,” he said.

Similarly, he said the district is losing money on energy savings that would be realized by this project, though Hines said that loss is minimal compared to the overall cost of the project.  

Board member Karen Anderson also noted the district would have to delay much of the work until next summer so it can be done when children are not in school. 

“We have our most precious commodity in our buildings: our children,” Anderson said. “We’ve got to make sure we’re not just doing fix and repair and not taking care of what needs to be done to take care of our kids.” 

Schumacher responded that these issues have been present in the district for some time and any safety matters could be addressed with repairs. 

The three dissenting board members said it is difficult to determine the danger to children and future products because the district does not have an updated 10-year health/life safety survey. 

That survey identifies Health/Life Safety Code violations and how to remedy them. 

Hines, Meyer and Schumacher argued if the district had that survey, which is planned for this summer, it could better prioritize projects. 

Anderson countered that survey is not a silver bullet. 

“There is going to be more that needs to be done than health/life safety,” she said. “Really what we need is an update to (our) facilities review.” 

Schumacher concurred.

The board decided it will discuss the project with its district architect at its next meeting before moving forward, electing to not vote on the resolution that would have made it negotiate with Trane.

“We’re not obligating ourselves to anything at this point,” school board president Scott Middelkamp summarized.