Saturday, December 4, 2010
Can you spell UPMC?
According to Celli-Flynn Brennan drawing sheet #A1.L1J Lower Level 1 Floor Plan - Area J (solid letter)P, there is an area in the new athletic building that is 4,200 square feet. This area, located next to the fitness center/training room and the free weights room in the lower level, might potentially be used by UPMC. The November 9, 2009 Master Design Team minutes (item # 4) indicate the possibility of a partnership with UPMC for a community clinic at the high school. Master Design Team minutes of Nov-09-09. Also, in April of this year, the School Board approved a five year, $154,000 agreement with UPMC Sports Medicine. MTL School Board Meeting Minutes of April 19, 2010 We will be paying UPMC for athletic training services and physician services. It appears that we could possibly be building this area for UPMC's use with our tax dollars.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
I can't tell by the comments themselves, but do you guys have a problem with this? Presumably - if it happens - UPMC would be paying rent. Isn't that a good thing?
Mr. Franklin, rent would be a good thing if the present value of the future income stream were greater than the present value of the immediate construction costs.
Does anyone know the use of this space?
Is this a business in an R-1 Zone?
Is a business a permitted use in an R-1 Zone?
The issue,as I see it and my problem with it, is that this development and its cost has been intentionally hidden, behind the scenes, from the public, in addition to it circumventing the Municipality with respect to zoning review and conformance as well as the State for the PlanCon process, however flawed that is.
Brought to the attention of one of the CAC architects who had noticed the space with no identified usage indicated at the time, the comment was that it was very expensive space to include because of the added high site preparation costs. When later confronted with public knowledge of this space, the Superintendent claimed the space was required for ventilation purposes under the main gym and that the space would not be finished as part of the HS project. I and others who heard the ventilation explanation viewed it as a statement that did not pass the *smell test*; and , we understood the second part of the Superintendents explanation as plausible because they did not want it to be counted as part of the project for zoning and PlanCon reasons....it would be built-out after the official HS project was closed out.
This was never revealed by the District in any public project reviews, and I seriously doubt that the Master Design Team had any forethought that their meeting minutes would end up in the hands of the public...RTK can work...they were apparently so sure that they did not even share the meeting minutes with 7 members of the SB until a member of the public obtained them in a RTK request seeking other documentation, and blew the whistle in a public meeting. Recalling the Nixon tape debacle, there is also a 13-month gap in what were to be the monthly MDT meeting minutes...April 2008 through May 2009...with the District claiming they simply do not exist...hard to believe !
Likewise, they probably did not imagine the possibility of the public actually reviewing the CFB architectural drawings in the Municipal offices where they are treated as public documents...and a public who can actually read, understand and do take-offs from the drawings.
UPMC paying rent ? Sure...had (1)the District process conformed to "complete transparency" promised in all aspects of the HS project, and further (2) that any lease agreement rates would be based on full recovery of the cost of building the space, as well as it being a triple net lease and that the UPMC, or any tenant, pay for the total build-out costs of space and agree that ownership of all such fixed improvements revert to the District if and when UPMC, or any tenant, vacated the property.
Bill Lewis
And I'm sure someone, somewhere will send you a copy of a lawsuit filed by someone in the district against UPMC and that will certainly be an indication of something sneaky and dirty . . .
David Franklin, I'm not so sure I'd go as far as sneaky and dirty, but I would say that this project has been manipulated from the very beginning.
Did you attend the early DeJong sessions on the high school project?
This is a completely different message on high school design from the one I remenber being presented in our session.
Renovate or Build New?
By William DeJong
(06/09/2010)
Renovate or build new? This age-old question goes far beyond renovation vs. new construction because it involves multiple issues and community stakeholders. However, the answer is very straightforward: provide the best place for students to learn.
While many people think renovating existing facilities is more expensive and time-consuming than building new ones, that’s not always the case. In fact, renovation can often be accomplished for less than the cost of a new building. It just requires careful planning and conscientious effort.
Was there one photograph presented in our sessions of a successful renovation?
Dean Spahr
Dean, I'm not sure what your comment has to do with the UPMC issue, and to the extent you or others feel manipulated by the SB I suppose I can't change that.
Am I thrilled with the decisions of this SB? Not in the least. Would I want their job? Hell no. And neither would most who sit behind their computer screens and throw jabs. If they did, perhaps we would have a more competent board, right? After all, bloggers seem to know it all.
Personally, I don't have the time or the inclination to want to know everything that the government does or doesn't do. The biggest checks I write each year go to the federal government and I don't have nearly the level of oversight there that you all expect to get here in Mt. Lebanon . . . and rest assured more of my hard earned money is being wasted in Washington then it is here in Lebo.
I have the time and the inclination to know what our local government is doing. That is one benefit to being unemployed. I guess another benefit is that none of my money goes to the federal government since my income is below poverty level. Hmmm. A benefit?? Unfortunately, all my money is going to state and local taxes. This blogger is trying to find out all she can. And yes, there are thousands of us who feel manipulated by the SB.
David Franklin, you're right, my comment has nothing to do with the UPMC topic. I only posted it as a reply to your comment that insinuated people were suggesting something sneaky or dirty was going on.
Personally I don't think so, but I do believe there has been a campaign to sell a more expensive project.
Just take a look at Dr. Steinhauer's comments in the spring on the roofing. Then pay attention to Celli's recent update that the current roofs are good for another 10 years!
You say you're not thrilled with board decisions, many of us aren't.
I don't know how you can criticize people that have gotten out from behind their computers, volunteered their services and put professional reputations on the line just because they question board actions.
Look how they tried to censor Fraasch, minimilized Dirk Taylor's experience, bashed Hart and ignored the CAC suggestions.
Yes, I appreciate the board's hardwork, dedication and volunteerism. Thats to be applauded, but it doesn't mean they're immune to flawed choices!
Dean Spahr
For the record, I don't believe that I have "criticized people that have gotten out from behind their computers, volunteered their services and put professional reputations on the line just because they question board actions." Fraasch, Taylor and others have had and continue to have my respect and suuport and I have noted that publicly throughout this process. I do, however, take issue with those few who (excuse my language) bitch for the sole purpose of bitching. We all know who they are, and they are rarely the ones to stand up and be counted when something productive needs to be done.
Dave,
You write,"I do, however, take issue with those few who (excuse my language) bitch for the sole purpose of bitching. We all know who they are, and they are rarely the ones to stand up and be counted when something productive needs to be done."
The high school renovation has been quite a journey for me. I have met many wonderful residents of Mt. Lebanon along the way. I have yet to meet anyone at a meeting who "bitches for the sole purpose of bitching." They are hard working individuals who give up their time and fight for what they believe. Without naming names, I can bet on who you mean and you are wrong.
I have never met you, but would like to some day. If you see me at a meeting, introduce yourself. I am usually sitting in the front row with a recorder.
Elaine Gillen
David Franklin, I'll bite since obviously you're not one of those people that "bitch for the sole purpose of bitchin."
On 12/5 in a comment in this blog you wrote: "I'm opposed to spending $113 million on the school... ."
You've mentioned that sentiment many times on the blogs and I'd love to hear your reasons for opposing the spending?
And then, your suggestions as to what if anything we residents/taxpayers can or should do to control that spending?
I'm open to any and all civil suggestions... as on the excessive amount we do agree.
Dean Spahr
I'm not sure us residents/taxpayers can do anything to control the amount of the total spend. Ultimately, the 9 residents/taxpayers that the majority of the voters elected have that task and they have all promised (rather publicly I might add) to do so.
Personally, I'd prefer that the SBs time and energy be spent advancing a project that comes in as low as possible, and less on issues that take away from that task.
Nearly everyone in Lebo would like to see the project completed for something less than $113 million. Isn't it easier to do that without calling people out on issues that don't add anything to the debate? Please don't take this comment as defending the SB or some of the mistakes they've made along the way. Instead, I'm trying to focus on how to get this whole thing done and over with as quickly and as efficiently as possible.
How we do that is up to the folks in charge, not me. If they fail miserably, we all have our own recourse come May/November. I'm personally just sick of red herrings, conspiracy theories, and name calling from ALL sides.
David Franklin:
You write: "Nearly everyone in Lebo would like to see the project completed for something less than $113 million. Isn't it easier to do that without calling people out on issues that don't add anything to the debate? Instead, I'm trying to focus on how to get this whole thing done and over with as quickly and as efficiently as possible."
I'd like to submit an exchange between James and Jan Klien that took place in an Audit & Finance meeting.
James: "So Jan, if we use all of our allowance under Act 1 to increase taxes to pay for the second set of bonds [for the HS project], won't that put undue pressure on all of our other expenses?
Jan: Yes, that is correct
James: Won't that put all of our programs under pressure as well?
Jan: Yes
I agree with you, nearly everyone in Lebo would like to see this project complete. But as the old saying goes "haste makes waste!"
Matthews,Ewing,Lewis etc. warned about issuing bonds too early. The board did it anyway, costing us thousands in unneccessary interest.
As I wrote earlier, Steinhauer claims in April, roofs are having a negative impact on our kids education. Now, Celli claims they could be good for another 10 years!
The contradictions just come one after another.
So yes we can grow impatient, rush to GET 'ER DONE. THEN WHAT... "won't that put undue pressure on all of our other expenses?
Jan [Klien]: Yes, that is correct."
Dean Spahr
So what's your answer Dean? Fight, argue, deabte and then fight some more? Does that save us on interest payments? Does it get the work done? Does it attract people to the community? Does it advance education?
Are checks and balances appropriate, sure? But let me ask you this: does posting a lawsuit about the Super's personal residence help us save money or build the school more effciently? Does suggesting that the SB has some back room deal with UPMC advance the ball? Does intimidating meeting attendees fix the roof or cut the interest payments?
I have every reason to think that the folks on the SB are decent people who would like their taxes to be as low as possible. I'd also like to believe that they plan to live in this community for the forseeable future and would prefer to do so peacefully. So personally, I have a tough time accepting the notion that these people are out to screw themselves, their friends and their neighbors.
Again, have they been sloppy at times? Sure. Have mistakes been made? Seems like it. But I'll leave you with this, anyone who wants to or thinks they can do better, please be reminded that the Primary for a few seats on the Board is just around the corner.
Dave, it will be too late to do anything after the bids are accepted and contracts are signed.
The School Board majority is not listening. We have school board directors making decisions who are not qualified in these areas. In addition, we have one project cochairperson saying that he would like to bring the project in under $95 million, while the other cochairperson is saying she wants to spend every dime up to the borrowing limit.
It is all about sports. We will look at those cracked pipes, taped windows, etc., for quite a while. The construction will start at the sports facility which includes undesignated space. And don't forget more Master Design Team minutes (now November 9, 2009) indicating that boosters may be coming up with money or a partnership with UPMC for physical training could occur. We already discussed the September 2009 MDT minutes indicating that boosters may be coming up with money, but we all know the end of that story.
We come up with facts, recordings, and documents to support our statements, but unfortunately, no one making these decisions seems to listen. Dave, you're a bright guy. You have heard all this before. You know what we are dealing with. We have a runaway train.
David, I love the way you position your replies to anyone with a question on the high school project. Apparently you believe everything has to end in a fight? And every query an insult on the ethics or morals of our board members and administration? But hey, I'll play along in your game if you promise to answer one question!
Answer to your 3 questions in second paragraph.
"does posting a lawsuit about the Super's personal residence help us save money or build the school more effciently? [NO] Does suggesting that the SB has some back room deal with UPMC advance the ball? [MAYBE, CURIOUS UNDEFINED SPACE] Does intimidating meeting attendees fix the roof or cut the interest payments? [NO]
Do I believe there are major problems that need addressed in the high school... sure do, and the sooner they are addressed the better.
But that does not negate Ms. Klein's response to James in the Audit & Finance meeting. For me, her answer was an alarm that this project may undo all the things we love about Mt. Lebanon. Can we rush the project through on blind faith, hoping that the board is doing the right thing. I'm not so sure.
Jan has warned that our programs will be affected. DId you not hear the alert?
Once we put shovels in the ground there will be no turning back. I'm not as confident that the higher taxes necessary to continue the educational excellence will attract new families and keep our property values high.
Furthermore, this whole affair has not been one sided. Mr. Fraasch, released an opinion on the district finances, a board "volunteer" that thought he had something to offer. What did he get... calls for censure or expulsion.
Mr. Hart, another that stepped up recommended restraint on the scope of the project early on. Even though he's no longer on the board he still gets attacked.
Mr. Taylor, with far more training and knowledge of structures and construction than present board members, offered his expert opinions for free, for the good of the community and got ridiculed.
How about the CAC, again all volunteers, all chosen by the board. The response to their observations... "we have no intention of revisiting (saving) building C."
Do my comments above mean a hill of beans, certainly not. Nor do I claim to be smarter than current board members.
So David, here's my question to you. You wrote: "have they [the board] been sloppy at times? Sure. Have mistakes been made? Seems like it."
Would you be so kind as to define at what point does the sloppiness and the mistakes become unacceptable to you, is the board above reproach?
I hope you're right in your faith that this board will deliver on the price and promises of upholding our district's reputation. Many families are depending on it.
Dean Spahr
Dean, you are arguing many of the same points that I did months ago. Mr. Frasch can certain provide many details regarding my support for his efforts, both publicly and privately. At no time have I suggested that this Board is beyond reproach and to the contrary I have taken my share of shots at them - even to the point of straining my relationship with a few.
However, once the votes were cast, I resigned myself to the inevitable. We elect people to make decisions, and this Board has done that. I may not agree with them, but that's the way the system operates.
I don't have a tipping point or threshold for the Board's management of this and other matters, and even if I did I'm not sure what that would mean. You and I can't unring the bell and we can't kick them out early. That said, I have reached my threshold with some of them individually. I won't support their re-election (and in some cases I didn't support their election). There are others whose term is not yet up but with whom I have lost my faith and confidence. I won't be quick to believe what they tell me in the future. As an individual in this system, that's about all I can do. Others are inclined to do more, and that's their perogative. However, there comes a time when we either have to accept the decisions that have been made or continue to wage war against each other and accomplish nothing.
I don't have any great support for this next conclusion (other than personal observation), but I'm inclined to think that the majority of our community has tuned out on the school project all together. Most residents couldn't tell you where the project stands or what's next. Ask someone on your street where things stand and you'll probably get a roll of the eyes or a shrug of the shoulders but not much else.
I guess I'm prepared to move on
"It ain't over till it's over.
-Yogi Berra
I just put up the agenda for Tuesday's Planning Board meeting. I'll be in the front row.
Elaine Gillen
David Franklin:
I agree with just about everything you said in your last post.
Even though members of the board are our friends, neighbors etc. I too won't be so quick come next election to believe the campaign promises.
And as you say a large segment of the community has tuned out on the HS project, some never tuned in, in the first place.
I suppose I'm naive in believing that until the last brick is in place, common sense can still prevail.
See we can arrive at common ground without bickering, can we have an impact with board members... perhaps, perhaps not.
Dean Spahr
Post a Comment