We believe the success of a project as large and complex as this hinges on project management capabilities. The Shaker School District is undertaking the largest public facilities project in the community's history.
Augmenting the District’s capacity can pay dividends in reduced project costs, improved community satisfaction, and better quality results for students and teachers.
We urge the District to retain appropriate expertise.
Recommendations
Project Management
A third-party project manager/owner's representative should be hired by the District for the remainder of the project.
This was a recommendation offered during the first FAC meeting and repeated numerous times since then. The current in-house supervision is led by an individual who has exposure to the construction industry, but no deep experience or formal training that we are aware of. The District would not fill significant leadership roles elsewhere based solely on a previous exposure to the educational environment - standards for certification for building principals and similar administrative positions are rigorous and rightly so. Qualifications for construction project management should be no different.
Recognize that design oversight is needed.
The design of building sites and exteriors require city approvals. Those public processes have significantly benefitted the outcomes for both Ludlow and Woodbury. Initial design efforts were substantially improved to create better results for both the District and the community, but only because the city approval hurdles needed to be crossed. Even so, it has been confirmed that the building design of Woodbury required the District to retain a third-party architect outside of GPD and RPMI in order to help refine the design to a level that the Planning Commission could accept. However, the only approval needed related to a facility’s interior configuration, detail, and specifications is minimum building code compliance. Yet there is no reason to believe that these other aspects of the project design would not also benefit from another set of eyes.
Commission a peer review of construction documents.
We suggest the District retain outside expertise to review drawings and specifications at the +/-90% completion stage and provide comments and recommendations. Such peer reviews are common in the industry on much smaller projects, as are reviews by specialty firms such as building envelope and accessibility consultants. Given the magnitude and complexity of Woodbury in particular, it is easy to imagine how avoiding even a few errors could pay back this small investment in multiples. Building defects can have ripple effects, creating additional operating costs and interrupting the operation of the building after it is occupied by students. A peer review is cheap insurance. Given the project schedule, this requires urgent action.
Demand measurable deliverables for sustainability goals.
The District made a prudent investment in commissioning Emerald Built Environments to provide a sustainability master plan. However, that assessment was a broad, high-level effort that requires detailed follow-up if benefits are to be achieved. A LEED checklist by itself does not guarantee improved outcomes. The District must focus on setting performance targets that are meaningful, then track their implementation and performance not only through construction but also after occupancy. Good sustainability practice is often thought of in terms of energy performance, which can indeed yield benefits to the bottom line in reduced operating costs. However, as the board is well aware, staff costs are the largest portion of the budget. Certain sustainability practices have been demonstrated to improve staff health, productivity, and retention, and can do so in ways that dwarf the potential of direct facility impacts. Most importantly, there are potential benefits to student performance - we should not miss these opportunities. Rather than focusing just on green rating points, we should ask what strategies yield the best benefits for students, teachers, and the long-term interests of the District.
Community Engagement
An outreach and communication plan for Woodbury should be put in place immediately.
Some decisions are set in stone at this point but there is still work to do. There has not been a single event for open, public two-way dialog on the design of Woodbury. While the major components of design are largely fixed at this point, getting feedback and input from the community is still important and could create a better building. The plan should have clear dates, audiences, subject material, and outcome/deliverables reported to the Board.
Ludlow should still be shared with the community.
The initial open house was scheduled during most people’s working hours, and the building was incomplete. This is a missed opportunity to build goodwill for the schools, and Ludlow could host a weekend event that would also be an opportunity to share Woodbury design progress and receive input.
A public outreach plan should be prepared for each building.
A plan for communications and involvement should be prepared by the administration for for each building and approved by the Board. These plans should contain actual events with set dates, agendas, deliverables/feedback sought and not just be a "commitment to more outreach". It also seems that clarity regarding the final sequence, scope, and timing of the elementary school projects is overdue. The outreach strategy should include efforts to connect with residents that may have been disenfranchised from engagement in the past. This is especially relevant for schools with areas of their attendance zones that extend far from the physical school building.
The Facilities Plan web pages should be made more comprehensive.
The existing Facilities Project page has always been woefully inadequate and consistently out of date. The District should make a commitment to full transparency. Project submittals should be posted in a timely manner ahead of the ABR and P&Z meetings to allow the community to review and process the information and provide thoughtful opinions and feedback to the relevant boards. These files should stay online and accessible throughout the entire Facilities project so the public can track iterations, and should also include project cost and schedule data. The city knows how - follow their example to provide a more user-friendly approach to access files, reports, and information. This site is an attempt to fill that gap, but the District is of course in a better position to provide greater information in a more comprehensive and timely fashion.
At the end of each project, provide opportunities for public engagement and discussion.
To maintain public confidence and an opportunity for improvements, share the final financial, scheduling, and programmatic outcomes achieved.
Thoughtful community questions deserve serious and timely answers.
At present, the District picks and chooses which questions it would like to respond to. Others are ignored. Not every suggestion from the community must be implemented, but an explanation of decision rationales should be provided and made accessible to the broader community. The District should commit to responding to questions within a week. Responding vaguely with “We’ll discuss it” or “We’re looking into this” then failing to follow up is unprofessional and unacceptable.
Community Advisory Structure
Reorganize the Facilities Advisory Committee to work under and advise the Board.
We understand other committees (Policy, Finance & Audit) are advisory to the Board rather than the Administration. We believe the board and the project would benefit from a similar structure. We suggest there is a benefit in separating technical guidance and community engagement aspects. Shaker has many individuals with substantial expertise in architecture, engineering, and the construction industry, and also many valuable viewpoints that should be heard regarding community needs. These are not always the same persons or process
Establish Board committees focusing on sustainability and equity.
These are shared values for the community at large. The District attempted to establish a Sustainability Committee but it had the same undefined goals and oversight as the FAC and has not produced tangible outcomes, though that committee and specific targets for its operation were part of the initial levy commitments. As we saw during the discussions of the recent levy, equity is an ongoing issue that needs to be addressed. Both of these committees should also inform the ongoing facilities project.