Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SLPS presents facility condition assessment; dashboard shows roughly $1.7 billion in capital needs
Summary
District staff and consultants presented a facility condition assessment dashboard that catalogs deferred maintenance, condition indices and replacement values across schools and forecasts capital needs over a multi‑year horizon.
District operations staff and consultant partners from Kortig and Clark provided a high-level overview of the Saint Louis Public Schools facility condition assessment and master-planning dashboard during the board meeting.
The presentation described more than 10,600 observations across the district’s buildings covering site infrastructure, exterior envelopes (roofs, windows, doors), interiors (flooring, lighting, finishes) and systems (mechanical, plumbing, electrical). A facility condition index (FCI) was used to normalize condition scores across buildings of different sizes; district staff said the dashboard can report immediate needs, five-year forecasts and longer-term replacement costs.
Presenters cited a districtwide reserve cost estimate in the presentation of roughly $1.7 billion in capital needs. Replacement-value figures were explained as a square-footage-based estimate for the cost to replace a building’s envelope and core systems; presenters clarified reserve-cost numbers are year‑specific forecasts and are not cumulative across years. Board members pressed on methodology questions, including how replacement figures are derived, what assumptions are used for square‑foot cost estimates and whether replacement values reflect programmatic needs vs. purely envelope replacement.
Operations staff said the district will host six public sessions—two each for north, central and south regions—to provide information and collect community input as the master plan proceeds. The asset-management dashboard is primarily for internal facilities use but staff indicated portions of the data or outputs could be made public for community sessions.
No formal board action was taken; the presentation concluded with a timeline for public meetings and further data-sharing.
