Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities Maintenance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Operations presents comprehensive maintenance plan; state inspection metric still 'adequate' for CCPS schools
Summary
Operations staff presented the district’s 51‑page Comprehensive Maintenance Plan at the Sept. 9 board meeting, described staffing levels, preventive-maintenance work order volumes and state inspection outcomes; most inspected schools received the state’s “adequate” rating.
Charles County Public Schools presented its annual Comprehensive Maintenance Plan (CMP) to the Board of Education on Sept. 9, describing preventive maintenance workloads, staffing levels and recent state inspection outcomes.
Chief of Operations Mike Heim said the CMP documents the district’s reactive and preventive-maintenance processes, links to the capital-improvement plan and outlines long-term facility needs. Heim said the full CMP is posted on BoardDocs and summarized the district’s maintenance workforce and workload: “We have a total of 60 maintenance staff that address all the 4,000,000 square footage of facilities that we own and operate in Charles County,” he said.
Why it matters: Maintenance practices and deferred capital needs affect building safety, program delivery and district capital requests. State inspection outcomes are an accountability metric the district must track and respond to.
State inspection results and context
Heim and maintenance supervisor Tom Gregan discussed recent Interagency Commission (IAC) inspections. Heim said five of the district’s schools were inspected last year and that all five fell into the IAC’s “adequate” category (a range the state uses as a baseline condition). Heim noted the state’s inspection protocol changed and that districts now learn inspection targets only about two weeks ahead of the site visit, increasing the challenge of pre-clearing items.
Heim and Gregan said the IAC provides an initial report and a 30‑day response window; fixing the minor items cited often raises a school’s percentage by one to two points between initial and final reports. Heim and Gregan emphasized that while some school systems earn higher “good” or “silver hammer” scores under older metrics, the current statewide distribution is heavily clustered in the “adequate” range. Gregan said increased preventive maintenance (PM) entries into the computerized maintenance management system are one lever the IAC uses in scoring, but that PM counts must be balanced with the district’s capacity to complete those orders.
Staffing and capital context
Heim said the system’s custodial assignments average roughly 17,000 square feet per building-service worker; industrial-scale facilities require different staffing mixes. He added that modern monitoring systems (energy-management and remote metering) have been installed in many newer schools but not all older facilities; upgrading older schools is an ongoing budget priority.
Board discussion
Board members asked for statewide distributions of inspection results for comparison and for clarification of the funding level that would be required to move district-wide scores from “adequate” to “good.” Heim said an approximate $20 million investment across facilities could move scores system-wide in the aggregate, but cautioned that the state’s scoring methodology and limited per‑school budget increases do not guarantee a score change for every facility.
Ending
Heim and Gregan acknowledged staff members who respond to emergencies and maintenance calls at any hour. The CMP will be used to guide capital planning and preventive‑maintenance priorities; the maintenance team committed to provide additional statewide distribution data for comparison with CCPS results.
