Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities Maintenance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board discusses playground drainage liability, pool scoreboard options and routine maintenance purchases
Summary
Board members reviewed playground drainage concerns that could shift liability to contractors or architects under the contract, debated getting a second engineering opinion, and staff described lower-cost options for pool scoreboard cabling and routine purchases including an annual Pittsburgh Stage inspection.
Board members and staff on Tuesday reviewed several building and maintenance items, including a contested playground drainage design, potential alternatives to expensive pool work, and routine maintenance purchases.
Staff described a playground project where recent engineering estimates included higher costs to bury cables and address drainage. A board member asked whether the district should obtain a second engineering opinion before work begins. “I feel we need something to put in there. Yeah. I do too,” one administrator said during the discussion; another staff member summarized legal advice, saying, “the way the contract has been drawn up that if it can't be completed within the parameters that have been, agreed to, then that liability is gonna go back on the contractor and or the architect.” That comment reflected the district’s solicitor and contracting-team review, which the administration said has been in communication with the architect and contractor.
Some members said they worried the contractor and architect could dispute liability later, and recommended obtaining written contractor recommendations now rather than waiting for a later dispute. Staff said that hiring a second engineer would reduce the risk of post-construction expense but would add upfront cost.
On the pool, staff said engineers previously provided an estimate “in the 200 and some thousand dollar” range to bury cables; staff are pursuing less expensive options that avoid burying cables and expect to show alternatives next month. Related routine maintenance items included a proposed purchase order of $5,000 for an annual inspection by Pittsburgh Stage. “We do that every year,” a board member said; staff confirmed it is a required inspection.
Other facilities notes addressed installation scheduling and small repairs: a new unit (referred to in discussion as a “loo”) has arrived for the elementary school and staff said they will coordinate power and mounting once installers confirm the precise location; auditorium ceiling speakers that were not working were reported and staff agreed to investigate. Staff also described transportation-related items on the agenda — three transfers, a new driver and a van replacement — which drew no substantive questions at the meeting.
No formal contract award or change order was approved during the meeting; staff said legal counsel (Knox Law) and the district attorney had reviewed permitting and contract language and that staff would bring any needed contract adjustments or insurance clarifications back to the board.
