Policies and procedures recommended by the Proposition P Review Committee for construction projects are being followed by the Mehlville School District, according to Superintendent Terry Noble.

During a Board of Education meeting last week, Noble noted that the Proposition P Review Committee’s recommendations had been accepted by the board last March.

“What I wanted to do was put those in a document to show you the status of those, and I’d like to preface this by saying that I feel like the district — what this Prop P Review Committee did was it validated that the process the district’s been using for construction projects has been a good one and it’s been well-managed. And what we wanted to do was to make sure we formalized these recommendations into our board policy manual,” Noble said Feb. 19.

The district contracts with the Missouri School Boards Association, which regularly reviews the district’s policies.

The association provides updated policies, procedures and forms to reflect changes in the Missouri School Improvement Program as well as state and federal law.

Regarding the committee’s recommendations, Noble said, “… We are currently following this policy and procedure as it’s written and it will be formally presented to you as soon as we receive our winter updates from MSBA …”

Voters in November 2000 approved Proposition P, a nearly $68.4 million bond issue funded by a 49-cent tax-rate increase. However, a final budget revision approved by the board in December 2005 raised the Proposition P budget to $89,137,440 — a roughly 30.3-percent increase — more than $20.7 million over the nearly $68.4 million building-improvement program originally envisioned.

The Board of Education voted unanimously in June 2006 to establish the Proposition P Review Committee. In September 2006, board members appointed committee members, including former school-board members Phil Barry and Kurt Witzel as co-chairs.

The committee began meeting in September 2006 and concluded its work in February 2007. Barry and Witzel presented the panel’s report to the school board March 22 at a meeting that also was attended by several committee members. The report answers roughly 100 questions about the Proposition P districtwide building-improvement program and includes five policy and 10 procedural recommendations for future building projects.

Noble discussed each of the policy recommendations at the Feb. 19 Board of Education meeting, noting that while some minor revisions have been suggested by the MSBA, the committee’s intent was not changed.

The committee’s first policy recommendation was: “All district contracts over a set amount require presentation and approval by the Board of Education; and if approved, must be signed by the chief financial officer/board treasurer or superintendent and by the president of the Board of Education.”

Of that policy proposal, Noble said, “… We did revise it — MSBA actually helped us with the wording — and we omitted the words ‘over a set amount,’ since we’re not permitted to establish a threshold amount for contracts …”

The wording of the committee’s second policy recommendation is unchanged: “All district construction contracts must be reviewed and signed off on by the district legal counsel. A confirmation letter, outlining suggested recommendations and revisions, must accompany the contract when presented for approval to the Board of Education.”

The committee’s report noted that the district’s contract with McCarthy Building Cos. Inc., which served as construction manager for Proposition P, was not reviewed by the district’s legal counsel.

The committee’s third recommendation related to change orders: “All contractual change orders over a set amount should be presented to the president of the Board of Education prior to their final approval. A monthly summary of all change orders and their financial implications should be provided to the Board of Education.”

Proposition P construction involved 1,371 change orders totaling $8,143,094.75 as of Oct. 6, 2004, according to the committee’s report, which also noted, “The Board of Education is not required to approve change orders, but the board did receive frequent copies of change order logs for their review.”

The more than $8.1 million in change orders, according to the report, were overseen and approved by the construction manager, architect and the district’s chief financial officer.

“… We added a dollar amount of $25,000,” Noble said. “And we also added some provision to make sure that we didn’t create any substantial delays — we’re talking about change orders now … The committee wanted us to set an amount. So we did. We set the amount $25,000 …”

The revised wording states, “All contractual change orders over $25,000 should be presented to the president of the Board of Education prior to their final approval. If such approval would substantially delay completion of the project, the Board of Education vice president or designee shall be authorized to approve the change with subsequent notification to the board. A monthly summary of all change orders and their financial implications should be provided to the Board of Education.”

The panel’s fourth policy recommendation involved district oversight committees: “All district oversight committees should be comprised of non-board member citizens of the community who are not employed by the Mehlville School District, nor have any immediate family that is em-ployed by the district. School-board members and administrators can be ex-officio, non-voting committee members on any district committee.”

Noble said the words “for construction projects” were inserted after district oversight committees “because that’s what this whole thing is about …”

The wording of the committee’s fifth policy recommendation is unchanged: “When dealing with expending public tax funds, it is important that all financial information should be open and easily accessible for public scrutiny.”

Of the committee’s 10 procedural recommendations, Noble said only minor wording changes were made at the MSBA’s suggestion with the exception of one: “Establish funding to provide for a detailed assessment of all existing buildings, existing technological infrastructure and all site improvements on a three-year basis. This assessment should include recommendations for maintenance, upgrades and future construction needs. Once the assessment is complete, it should be made available to the public.”

“We changed this one in substance,” Noble said. “This is the only substance change — from three years to five years in terms of doing detailed assessments of all existing buildings and existing technological infrastructure and all site improvements.

“We felt like five years was more reasonable in terms of time and also manageable and for costs reasons. I kind of equate that to a vehicle inspection. I think if you had to do a vehicle inspection every year, a lot of us, we know that that’s not really required. Even the state recognizes that now so they let us have two-year inspections.

“We’re saying that three years might be a little bit too often and hard to manage, but five years would definitely allow us to keep up with our needs on a five-year basis. So that is one change that we inserted and that was through the recommendation of folks that work in this department and also in consultation with the MSBA policy service …”