Education Committee: Mammoth Unified School District Facilities Master Plan Bond Investigation

The funds spent by MUSD on construction of Sien-a High SchoollDistrict Office appear to fall within the scope of items listed on ~ ballot measure submitted to vo~rs April 14, 1998. Although the measure does not specIfically state that MUSD was planning to build a District Office, the classrooms provided at Sien-a High School were clearly J:mrt of the description listed in the text of the measure. The actions of the district and the logic of locating the superintendent, who acts as principal of Sien-a High School, in the same structure are reasonable.

The documents reviewed show that the decision to combine SielTa High School and the District Office was based on sound reasoning. It appears, however, that this change in srope of the project C3USed a major imi:BCt on the budget a. Construction on Sien-a High School/District Office began even though costs for the project had climbed significantly from.the original budget It appears that either little effort was mOOe to bring the costs back into line, or the effort was ineffective. b. Splitting up the earthwork and building construction did not reduce overall costs. There was no fonnal value engineering review of the project during design process dJat would have identified the areas where costs could have been reduced. c. The project was an award-winning design. Even taking into account a difficult site, the ~t for building construction appears very high. d. The final ~t of tile project on a dollar-per-square-foot basis is higher than it needed to be for the intended use.

The community was justified in its unhappiness concerning d1e timelin~ of the middle school construction. A review of the records revealed that MUSD gave high priority to Sierra High School/District Office. The architect then gave it high priority, and the design was finished ahead of the middle school. a. Part of the reason for d1e shift of priority was the overcrowded conditions of Sierra High School, which had been moved into a portable office on the MHS campus. b. It should be noted that d1e middle school is a larger project and involved more staff review and comment time than Sierra High School/District Office. If MUSD had set the middle school as the highest priority, given the fact that it impacts significantly more students, there would not have been community discontent Community-wide support for the new middle school is the reason the bond issue passed with such a wide margin. c. The district did not communicate adequately to the public the decisions and reasons for putting Sierra High School/District Office first place in line. Football Field Relocation

The ardritect was working on multiple projects fa- MUSD. In OOdition to Sierra High School/District Office, NrD was working on m<xlernization details for MHS, portable classrooms for the elementaJy school.. relocation of the footOOll field, d.esign of ~ middle school and a master plan for ~ enbre campus. NrD was also ardritect fa b MalO County OOice of Education and preparing plans fa that f~ty on ~ South Gateway site. It is possible that handling aU these projects at once beaune a oontributing factor in the schedule slippage of the middle school project. s. Consb"Uction of ~ new footOOlI field proceeded under pressure to clear tIx: site for the antici~ted start of oonsb"UCtion for the middle school. a. The school boord members did not have a clear idea of the overall project ~ts fa this facility. b. There was pressure from parents and staff to continue d1e footmll program unintemlpted, which neressitated moving forward quickly with oonstruction. c. Interviews with the board of trustees reveal that there was little discussion about alternatives to ~ field relocation, and a total project ~ estimate fcr field relcx.-ation was never ~nted to ~ board. FlNDINGS

In the case of the MUSD Facilities Master Plan, a fonnal master plan document was never published after the series of meetings of the steering rommittee.

The infonnation developed during the steering ammittee meetings remains in dle form of meeting notes and exhibits prepared by NTD Architects.

Public agencies should I:8Y close attention to project budgets in approval of capital projects. There does not appear to be a depth of understanding among the members of dle MUSD booId concerning the growth and upward movement of estimated project ~ during the design development stage and later the bid-and-award stage of its projects. RECOMMENDA nONS