Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Maintenance Opex topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Buildings & Grounds reports steady work-order completion, highlights in‑house savings in OPEX list
Summary
Buildings & Grounds staff told the committee that the district completed 117 work orders in January and 100 in February, outlined a new OPEX project list tied to the facilities condition assessment, and described cost-saving examples of work done in house.
Mr. Lord, representing the Buildings & Grounds department, presented the district’s recent closed work-order report and a new operational-expense (OPEX) project list aligned with the facilities condition assessment. “The January general overview is 117 completed work orders,” he said, adding that February had 100 completed work orders and that only one January order closed after 45 days. He said one overdue job took 58 days because it was extremely low priority and an in‑house task.
The report included examples of completed items at multiple schools: a replacement water heater serving Kennedy Middle School’s kitchen, an interactive TV installation at Kennedy, patch-and-paint work on the second floor of Germantown High School, pump rebuilds and quick repainting of worn doors, and two newly installed sinks and plumbing at County Line Elementary.
Mr. Lord also introduced a working OPEX project list intended to track smaller capital projects, contracted services and district maintenance identified as FCA priority level one. He said the list will be presented quarterly and that staff will separate newly completed projects from ongoing OPEX items for clarity. “This will support and ensure the tracking of progression of and completion of identified maintenance and repairs throughout the district,” he told the committee.
Committee members pressed for clearer cost labeling and tracking of in‑house savings. One member noted that a line item had been reduced “from about 107,000” to roughly $92,000 because the district performed the work internally, and suggested adding an “estimated” versus “actual” cost column to future reports. Mr. Lord agreed to present both FCA-estimated costs and actual costs when possible so the committee can measure savings and evaluate whether some service lines should be kept in house or outsourced.
On the record, Mr. Lo asked whether certain spray-foam items on the work-order list were related to the referendum work; Mr. Lord said documentation is incomplete but the locations suggest they were. The committee discussed whether the village building inspector—who performed inspections during the referendum—should have caught missing work and noted the potential for increased energy costs if the spray foam had not been installed as contracted.
The committee did not take a vote on financial actions during this presentation; staff will return with updated, clearer cost tables and quarterly OPEX reports.
