SSD work study reviews 10‑year facilities plan, prioritizes safety and predictable spending

The Special School District of St. Louis County Board of Education at an April work study heard a presentation on a proposed cascading 10‑year facilities plan focused on safety, Americans with Disabilities Act compliance, student‑facing spaces and predictable annual capital spending.

District staff said the plan, developed from functional and physical needs assessments plus school requests, aims to keep spending in an approximate 3¢ capital levy envelope and to roll forward one year each year so the board always views a 10‑year horizon.

The plan matters because SSD operates many buildings built in the 1960s and 1970s and a smaller set constructed after 2000; aging roofs, mechanical systems and electrical infrastructure at several sites — particularly the two career and technical centers — are driving near‑term repair needs and larger multi‑year costs.

Kevin Andrew, Chief of Career and Technical Education Operations, told the board “students must Maslow before they can bloom,” saying the district centered the plan on basic needs — warm, cool and dry spaces — followed by ADA access and student‑utilized spaces. Andrew said the team used three main inputs: a 96‑question functional assessment completed with principals and facilities staff; a building‑by‑building physical needs assessment by architects and engineers; and recurring requests from schools and facilities maintenance history.

Jeff Sherrill, Director of Facilities, described the physical assessment detail, saying some buildings generated extensive line‑item findings — “Ackerman had about 324 lines of findings” — and that consultants categorized each item by urgency (priority A: 0–1 years; B: 2–5 years; C: 6–10 years; D: 10+ years) and by type (site, architectural, mechanical/electrical/plumbing, and soft costs/contingency).

Board members and staff emphasized sequencing and minimizing disruption: projects such as roof sections, plumbing mains and HVAC units are being scheduled to avoid redoing work shortly after a related contractor needs to access the same footprint. The district said many projects are scheduled in summer to limit student disruption.

Findings summarized to the board included: functional‑assessment scores generally at or above “satisfactory,” but a large share of physical‑needs findings labeled urgent or necessary (0–5 years); career‑tech buildings have higher estimated costs because of electrical and mechanical upgrades tied to modern program needs; North County Tech was described as substantially larger (about 375,000 square feet) than South County Tech (about 265,000); and an estimate cited for certain North Tech needs was about $15.3 million.

Budget and funding: the draft plan is designed to fit within existing capital outlay from the current tax levy (the presentation noted a target range of roughly $5–6 million per year in 2025 dollars). For FY 2025–26 the plan listed roughly $5,687,000 in capital projects; the plan applies a 3% annual inflation factor for multi‑year costing. Staff said they will pursue grants and utility incentives where available and noted that a recent electrical trades remodel recovered about half its cost from a state reimbursement grant.

Two items remain to be determined and will be incorporated into the draft: the leased distribution center (warehouse/distribution center) and the South Bus Garage. The district said the distribution center is a leased facility with about two years left on the lease and that SSD currently bears responsibility for HVAC and other infrastructure in that building. Staff said they are exploring options to relocate or purchase space to reduce long‑term leasing costs; the transcript records a board member saying “there's not a buyout clause on that lease.”

The December‑to‑May board feedback loop: staff asked the board whether the eight stated priorities (safety/comfort; ADA compliance; student usage; proactive replacement to avoid emergency outages; predictable fiscal impact; future‑ready/flexible spaces; implementable with existing resources; and making the plan rolling) correctly reflected board priorities. Board members requested regular updates on priority A items and asked that the district provide a list of all priority A findings; staff agreed to provide recurring updates and to queue projects by year so the board can see progress.

Next steps identified by staff include refining cost estimates, incorporating the distribution center and South Bus Garage decisions, cleaning up plan formatting, and returning a final plan for board approval later this month or at the May meeting. The board concluded the session with a motion that was adopted by voice vote; the transcript records the motion carried but does not list a roll‑call tally or the mover/second by name.

For now, SSD is keeping the plan focused on renovating and upgrading its existing footprint rather than pursuing major new construction, while leaving flexibility to consider new builds later if funding and program needs warrant them.