Interim Report of Grand Jury on Broward County School Board Construction

[Guest guest]

http://www.sao17.state.fl.us/grandjury2002.html

INTERIM REPORT OF THE 2002 FALL TERM GRAND JURY ON SCHOOL BOARD CONSTRUCTION

The Grand Jury met seventeen (17) times and received testimony from seventy eight (78) witnesses in its review of the 1997 Interim Report on School Construction. These witnesses included parents, teachers, architects, engineers, contractors, and school administrators, along with building inspectors, auditors, custodians, project managers, present and former School Board administrators, and five School Board Members. These witnesses testified in detail about construction issues in over forty (40) schools.

In this report we will address the School Board's attempts to fix schools built from 1987 to 1996. As noted in the 1997 report, these schools marked a significant change in School Board philosophy: aesthetically pleasing schools would be built instead of the "shoe boxes" built in earlier years. One such school was Riverside Elementary, a prototype for four other schools. In addition, the School Board used three other prototypes to build thirty (30) more elementary schools during these ten years. Unfortunately, these new schools and school additions have become construction and maintenance nightmares. Nearly every school built during this time period has had water intrusion and nearly all of them now need substantial roof repairs and air conditioning redesign and/or replacement. In our subtropical climate where sixty (60) inches of rain fall every year, leaks from roofs, walls, and windows have caused tremendous amounts of excess moisture to enter our schools. This moisture has not only rotted the interiors of our schools, it has also allowed, and actually fostered, the growth of mold and mildew.

Exposure to mold and mildew is a health risk for students, teachers, and other building occupants. Mold in fact is now a considerable problem at many of our schools. How the School Board is addressing this problem will be the focus of this report, as the health and safety of our students, teachers, and school employees depend on the School Board's resolve to fix the mold and mildew problems which pervade our school system.

We will also address the current School Board construction program and consider how well the schools that have opened since 1996 have functioned. In addition, we will discuss two recurring problems from 1997: the occupation of unfinished schools and the School Board's failure to correct construction defects in recently opened schools. This report will also discuss two new problems which have emerged since the 1997 report: the effect of lobbyists on the School Board's selection process of construction professionals and the School Board's decision to allow construction of many schools without final approved plans.

We will also discuss how the School Board Maintenance Division interacts with the Facilities and Construction Management Division and whether there should be changes in the maintenance procedures for our schools.

After a brief introduction, this report will discuss the following topics:

1. The problem of mold and mildew in our schools

a. Health problems of students and teachers

b. Governmental studies of mold and mildew

c. Current mold and mildew remediation practices

d. Remediation and repair of prototype schools

e. Costs of remediation of schools with mold and mildew problems

f. Litigation arising out of mold and mildew claims

2. Schools constructed since 1996-1997

a. Schools opening just before the issuance of the 1997 Grand Jury report

b. Overview of recent construction

c. The inspection process for new construction

3. Occupation of unfinished schools

4. The "real cost" of school construction

5. Lobbyists' effect on the selection process of construction professionals

<snip>

According to every document we have seen and according to every expert who has testified, elimination of excess moisture is the key to controlling mold in our schools. The greatest source of excess moisture, according to a witness who has dealt with our school system's mold and mildew problem for many years, is roof leaks. Roof leaks in this county, where sixty (60) inches of rain fall every year, have been part of daily life for far too many of our schools. While it might appear to be a rather elementary observation, it is essential that our schools do not leak. It is also vital for the School Board to speed up and complete the repairs of schools where the roofs are leaking.

This rather apparent fact has seemed to escape the attention of the School Board and its administration, at least until very recently. Nearly every school built between 1987 and 1996 has had leaking roofs. One school, Riverside Elementary, had forty-one (41) roof leaks the day it opened in 1988, according to school personnel there. The design of the roofing details on many of our schools has been given short shrift by architects, according to a construction expert who examined these schools. Even where the roofs have been properly designed, contractors have not always built them according to specifications. An architect and an engineer both cited problems with the design and construction of the parapet (the decorative portion of the wall rising above the roof's surface) as being the source of leaks in many of our schools. Either these parapets were designed poorly, or were poorly constructed, or both, according to an expert who testified to the Grand Jury. Correcting this area of the roof has been a major undertaking in dozens of our schools.

Another roofing problem cited by these experts has resulted from the plastering over of downspouts. This has occurred in several schools, particularly those built from the Central Park prototype. At another school, the roof drain system could not handle the heavy rainfall during the summer months and excess water leaked into the building. In order to fix this school's roof leaks, the roof needed complete redesign, according to a Facilities Division project manager.

<snip>

MOLD AND MILDEW- GOVERNMENTAL RESPONSES

An increasing number of governmental agencies throughout this country have taken action to address mold and mildew problems in public buildings. These agencies have realized that prolonged exposure to indoor mold and mildew spores might cause serious health problems to their building's occupants, particularly school children. This realization, however, is fairly recent. An expert in environmental sciences has testified that one of the first publications by any agency on the subject of mold and mildew was issued in 1993 by the City of New York when it published "Guidelines on Assessment and Remediation of Fungi in Indoor Environments". In 2001, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, hereinafter EPA, published "Mold Remediation in Schools and Commercial Buildings". Several State agencies have also issued guidelines on this topic, particularly mold problems in schools. In 2001, the California Department of Health Sciences issued a publication entitled, "Mold in My School; What do I do?" Likewise, in 2001, the Minnesota Department of Health issued "Recommended Best Practices for Mold Investigations in Minnesota Schools".

It appears that no Florida agency or political subdivision has yet addressed the subject of mold and mildew remediation in any official capacity despite the fact that Florida has one of the wettest, warmest climates in America where mold flourishes year round indoors and out.

(read the report)