LC Ad Hoc Facilities Sub-committee
Meeting: Wednesday, September 30, 2009, 8:15 AM, Lower Meeting Room in Town Hall South
Present: LC Members – Jan Brookes, Pat Llodra, Paul Lundquist
BoF Member – Jim Gaston
Invited Guest – Robert Merola
Two Members of the Public
Absent: Dan Amaral, LeReine Frampton
Pat Llodra shared the information from her follow-up interview with Fred Hurley who made the following points:
1. The document and tracking of all the work the PWD did at FFHs since 2004 is so time-consuming to complete that it would take time away from department work that currently needs to be done.
2. Some road maintenance work was deferred because of work at FFHs. However, capital projects were not sacrificed. Road resurfacing was contracted out. Some projects weren’t funded. Pot holes and sight lines are addressed regularly.
3. Mr. Hurley provided documentation of the PWD actual expenses and approved budget since the 2005/06 budget year.
Mrs. Llodra commented that because the technology wasn’t in place in 2004, Mr. Hurley doesn’t have the time or personnel to break out the expenses for FFHs. However, with the implementation of the new tracking software, his department will be able to do this going forward.
Mr. Lundquist said that another way to look at Mr. Hurley’s answer is that no road or capital projects were not done.
Mrs. Llodra gave committee members a copy of Gino Faiella’s answers to committee questions. Mr. Faiella made the following points:
1. All projects in the approved BoE budget for 2008-09 were completed.
2. Many projects were under budget because in-house personnel did all or part of the work. Cooperation among the BoE, P & R, and PWD also helped reduce costs.
3. Mr. Faiella provided documentation for the actual and approved budget expenses for the years 2005-06 through 2008-09.
Pat Llodra commented that Ron Bienkowski is presently not available, and Diane Raymo, his temporary replacement, is part-time.
Bob Merola said that in the past the BoE has not been forth-coming with data, and that
sometimes their information has not been complete. To go forward, we need an historical record of expenditures.
Pat Llodra recommended better use of technology to make information transparent and available.
Paul Lundquist observed that the Phoenix system, currently used by the BoE, and Munis, used by the town, are different systems. He noted that Gino Faiella met with Scott Sharlow to discuss piloting a work order system. He also said that Diane Raymo will meet with the Facilities Committee to discuss identifying the opportunities for collaboration between the BoE and town.
Mr. Lunquist asked the committee, “Do we have the information we need to make recommendations? Are there gaps in our knowledge?”
Mr. Lundquist continued by identifying four themes around which its recommendations could be centered.
1. The Culture of Collaboration
2. The Use of Technology
3. A Purchasing Agent
4. A Grant Writer
Mr. Merola suggested that there be three themes:
1. Purchasing
2. Maintenance
3. Information Technology
Pat Llodra reminded the committee that it its original charge was to answer the question of whether creating one maintenance department would result in greater cost savings and efficiencies.
Jim Gaston commented that the committee should consider what works and what doesn’t. He said that technology is the tether that ties everything together.
Paul Lundquist noted that the borough isn’t directly related to the four identified areas.
Mr. Gaston said that the borough doesn’t fit into this study. He commented that the borough is relevant when discussing the future use of the Edmond Town Hall, especially if the goal is to have that building self-sufficient. If there is spot-zoning to allow businesses in the ETH then all zoning regulations fall.
Mr. Lundquist stated that what is absent is a specific plan by the Board of Managers. Any plan for the ETH has to be developed in cooperation with the borough, the BoS, and the LC.
Bob Merola commented that the ETH hasn’t been part of the CIP, and because of that, will need support from the borough.
Paul Lundquist stated that the town needs to create an audit of all town buildings that includes information on each building such as the ages of its roof and boilers, the status of its technology, recommendations for its needs. Such an audit will allow officials to make more informed decisions. He noted that the last space needs assessment was done in 1991-92 by Castle-Boos.
Mr. Lundquist asked the committee what the final report should look like. How detailed should it be? He noted that the primary audience is the Legislative Council, and the secondary audience is the Board of Finance. The largest audience is the voters.
Bob Merola suggested that the report begin with an executive summary and list of recommendations. He also suggested a summary of details be included in attachments and/or appendixes.
Jim Gaston said that each point should be supported by several facts.
Pail Lundquist said that the report should contain three or four concepts; facts should be aligned with the concepts. Mr. Lundquist suggested that each page have a topic, recommendations, and a rational. He added that the language of the recommendations will be the most challenging. He recommended that the committee write the report as if it is an outside vendor. For example, the committee should use words such as consider rather than imperative.
The committee discussed whether to recommend combining all maintenance functions under one department. The consensus was that at this point, because of substantial evidence of the culture of collaboration and the committee’s support of that culture, we won’t recommend the creation of a single maintenance department now.
Mr. Gaston said, “We don’t have evidence to recommend it because we have nothing to compare it to.” However, with the new technology, the town will have a baseline of information for comparison.
Mr. Merola stated that he’s disappointed that we don’t know more about the culture of collaboration. “Newtown has grown from a budget of $84 million to $105 million in about five years and will be at $115 million within a few years. We need more data.” He recommended that the council look at this question in the next 12 to 24 months “after technology gives us more information.”
Mr. Lundquist stated that he believes that at this point it’s disruptive to create a unified maintenance system, but that “technology will help us shine a flashlight on what’s happening.”
Pat Llodra said that the recommendation for a grant writer should be researched by another committee, although members of the present Facilities committee ought to be represented on that committee. Specialists are needed to write grants. Inhibitors to writing grants are a lack of staff time which prohibits the aggressive pursuit of grants.
Bob Merola suggested that this committee could research the feasibility of hiring of a person who would search out potential grants for specific departments.
Pat Llodra said that some cities have grant writing departments.
Jim Gaston suggested that the grant writing issue might be an addendum to the main report.
For the committee’s next meeting at 8:15 AM on Wednesday, October 7th, members agreed to list bullet points under each of the four main topics, listed previously.
Mr. Lundquist suggested that the committee do all of the writing before making recommendations. The evidence should lead to the recommendations.
Jan Brookes for the Committee
| 
