State lists numerous concerns with MES remediation

By NATHAN LAMB | Milton Independent Staff Writer
miltonreporter@yahoo.com

The promise of $1.05 million in emergency state aid was a key component of the $4,459.000 mold remediation project at Milton Elementary School last summer.

The aid has been earmarked by the state, but securing those funds has been complicated by the project’s non-compliance with state aid regulations, according to the Department of Education (DOE).

No indication has been given on how that could affect Milton getting the money, but several issues were outlined in a Sept. 24 letter from DOE commissioner Richard Cate to Superintendent of Schools Martin Waldron.

The absence of construction plans or written specifications, no qualified clerk-of-the-works to oversee construction, and no competitive bidding process were specific issues listed in the letter.

“State Board of Education’s Rules governing conditions for state aid eligibility were not followed and apparently cannot be met,” summarized Cate.
School officials attributed the non-compliance to the emergency nature of the project, where mold was discovered just before the 2006/2007 school year began and was more pervasive than initially thought, explained Waldron. Overall, he termed the project as unusual and complicated, but handled in an acceptable manner.

“I think it wasn’t a typical project, but it was something that was responded to appropriately,” he said.

While Cate acknowledged the mold problem was an unforeseen circumstance, he noted that the previous superintendent, Holden Waterman, was told in August of 2006 that “the full application process and all required components for state aid would need to be followed if the emergency project exceeded $100,000.”

The letter closed with Cate urging Waldron to get in touch so they could “discuss the status of the emergency aid application.”

Waldron, who became superintendent over the summer, defended how things were handled in an Oct. 15 response to Cate. He cited rapid expansion of the project as more mold was discovered and urgency to get the school back online as reasons why the project was not put out to bid. Even so, costs were managed somewhat by using multiple vendors and awarding contracts to those with the most “competitive” prices, he added.

On the lack of construction plans, Waldron wrote that documents outlining new drainage at the facility were provided, but he implied the same was not needed for other parts of the project, because it was “restoration” of rooms to pre-mold conditions.

Waldron also conceded the district did not have the required clerk of the works, but he claimed several people working together filled the role. The group included staff, a technical consultant, and an on-site professional from the company hired to removes asbestos as part of the project.

At this point the district is awaiting Cate’s response to that letter, said Waldron earlier in the week.

Cate’s letter came to light at the School Board’s Oct. 15 meeting, where chairman Doug Stout termed the missive somewhat puzzling, given what he termed a positive meeting between district officials and DOE on Sept 17.

At the time, Waldron said it could just be a matter of the commissioner getting certain concerns on the record, and the board moved on from there.
Afterwards, Waldron said he couldn’t speak to Cate’s motives but said, if he were in that situation, he would want a written explanation from the district on any questions.

In a follow-up interview, Stout repeated the optimistic reading of the DOE meeting, saying its representatives had two major concerns going into that meeting. The first was the unusual nature of the project, which was an emergency that did not follow standard planning processes for state-aid supported project.

However, once the project was discussed, DOE officials were impressed with how quickly the building was brought back online, said Stout, who added the building could still be in repair mode today if the standard processes were followed.

The other big DOE concern was ensuring that wholesale building improvements were not taking place as part of the project, said Stout. That was alleviated with assurances, documents, and arranging an audit, he said.

While several other issues were outlined in the Cate letter, Stout reiterated that its likely to get the district’s responses—which went over well at the DOE meeting—in writing.

“I may be reading between the lines too much, but I think the commissioner has got to have something to hang his hat on,” he said. “I think I understand where he’s coming from.”

However, Cate’s letter also suggested a disconnect between DOE and the district for much of the past year. After an initial consultation when the mold was discovered last August, DOE had difficulty securing necessary paperwork, even though its staff “regularly” sought it after January 2007, he wrote.
Conversely, Waldron wrote that an accurate scope and cost of the project was submitted with DOE in January of 07, when extent of the mold was known. However, Waldron also reported “frustration” from DOE in August of ’07 over not getting documents.

That disconnect was discussed at a School Board meeting in early September, after the issue had been raised by State Representative Don Turner. Having been in touch with DOE, Turner expressed concerns about the district not filing paperwork needed to receive the state funding. Though several board members and staff said they were previously waiting for completion of the project before filing the paperwork—and that was termed standard operating procedure--- it was noted DOE had advised district staff otherwise for this case.

In a follow-up interview, Turner said he’s been aware of communication issues between the district and DOE since at least March, and had voiced concern about it at several points since then.

Turner acknowledged the mold project was an emergency, but added the School Board and school administrators had clear obligations that should have been addressed long before this juncture.

“I’m concerned for the taxpayers,” he said. “We are paying a big bill for this remediation and the School Board and administrator’s…obligation is to make sure we get the money”

Turner added he has no idea what DOE will do, but he’s hopeful Milton will get the funds.

“I don’t think the taxpayers should be penalized by the board and administration’s lack of diligence on the project,” he said.

In a follow-up interview, Waldron acknowledged some disconnect from before he was onboard, but added steps were taken to improve communication once the issue was discovered.

In any event, Cate’s letter indicated numerous issues were discovered when DOE “finally” got the paperwork at the September 17 meeting. He added that DOE was “troubled” by reports of moisture and humidity issues at the elementary school, even after $4 million had been spent on the problem.
Waldron’s response stated there hasn’t been any recurrence of mold, but added the district is concerned about moisture and is seeking a contract with Salem Engineering to provide a comprehensive study of what should be done next.

In a related issue, leaks in one part of the MES roof were reported after the mold remediation project. The area is still under warranty and, though the district initially had trouble getting the contractor back on-site, Waldron said they’ve since had a couple return visits from the roofers, though he couldn’t definitively say if the problem was fixed or not.

Getting the roof squared away was one reason cited by the School Board in early September for the delay in submitting documents to DOE.

Having also taken part in the Sept. 17 meeting with DOE, school business manager Don Johnson was confident issues within the Cate letter have been addressed. DOE official Cathy Hilgendorf came into the meeting with the same concerns but was much more comfortable once the school’s position was explained, he said.

“The concerns raised within the letter are concerns we’ve already addressed,” he said. “We followed the guidelines the best we could, given the conditions we were in.”

Hilgendorf confirmed the meeting was constructive, but added it didn’t dispel some major concerns. She typically reviews emergency aid applications for DOE, but referred this one to Cate because of its irregularities.

`“We were surprised that this magnitude of work was not put out to bid,” she said, “It was one of my major concerns that there were no construction plans and are still not.”

The plans are needed to show things like wiring and insulation, for the benefit of those doing work on the building 10 or 15 years from now, explained Hilgendorf.

Told of those comments, Stout said the district offered to produce blueprints for the project, but was told that likely would not be necessary. Overall, he termed changes to the electrical work as minor and driven by updates in the building code.

Hildgendorf would not speculate about how this could affect the district’s application, but confirmed that, at the very least, it complicated things.

“If they had met all the requirements for state aid without needing any exceptions to be made, I wouldn’t have taken it to the commissioner, “she said.
“This isn’t to say they didn’t do a good job, but it’s above the level of my position to make that kind of exception,” she said at another point.

Asked if this would affect whether Milton will get the money, Waldron said he doesn’t know, and that he’s waiting to hear back from Cate. Since the money has already been borrowed and spent, Waldron confirmed the likely outcome of not getting the money would be the loan taking longer to pay back.

“Obviously if you get 30 percent of it {reimbursed}, that’s less than if you have to pay for the whole thing,” he said.

The DOE funneled all question to Cate’s office to communications director Jill Remick, who said it was too early to say.

“This is an ongoing discussion between Cate and the district and until it’s resolved, there’s not really anything else to comment on,” she said.