Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultants outline facility-condition review and grant support for Crestwood schools
Summary
Consultants from ICS and Total Grant Services briefed the Crestwood School Board on a proposed facilities condition assessment, a 5–10 year capital plan, and grant-writing/lobbying services to help pay for projects; board members asked about scope, cost, and how the firms minimize change orders.
John Young of ICS CMTA told the Crestwood School Board the firm can deliver a district facility assessment and multi-year capital plan, and that the work is designed to help the district prioritize projects and fit them to realistic budgets. "I'm John Young uh from ICS CMTA," he said, introducing the presentation on condition assessments and planning.
Doug Taylor of ICS described a data-driven inspection process that includes questionnaires for custodial and administrative staff, site visits to evaluate roofs, envelopes, MEP systems and other components, and a ranked deficiency list that assigns costs and life expectancy. "Our process is a data-driven process," Taylor said, explaining how the firm classifies components in a red/yellow/green matrix and bundles related projects to save money.
Mike Spataphor, also with ICS, outlined a phased schedule for work the firm calls an opportunity assessment and, at greater depth, a feasibility study. He told the board, "we could put a plan together within a 12week period," while noting that a full feasibility report requires significantly more staff time and a formal proposal.
Board members pressed the presenters on scale and deliverables. ICS said it has experience with districts both larger and smaller than Crestwood and that it partners with grant-writing teams to support applications for state programs such as the Pennsylvania School Facilities Improvement Grant. On the question of upfront fees, the presenters distinguished an at‑risk "opportunity assessment" — a lighter, limited-scope review — from a full feasibility and capital planning product that would require a paid proposal.
Presenters also described how they reduce the likelihood of change orders during construction: targeted pre-construction investigations (for example opening small sections of wall) and competitive bidding with unit pricing for foreseeable extras. They emphasized prioritizing "warm, safe, dry" elements before lower-priority items such as window replacement.
Nathan Bareric of Total Grant Services followed with an overview of grant-writing and advocacy for districts seeking state, federal and philanthropic funds. Bareric said his firm supplements technical proposals with lobbying support at Harrisburg to get applications noticed; during Q&A he confirmed a typical retainer fee he offers for districts is $2,000 per month and cited examples of awards secured for other districts.
What happens next: ICS said it will provide a written proposal and a more detailed scope and cost estimate if the district requests a full feasibility study; board members asked administration for proposals and to evaluate funding strategies ahead of any procurement.
Sources: presentation and Q&A by John Young, Doug Taylor and Mike Spataphor (ICS); presentation by Nathan Bareric (Total Grant Services).
