Here is the 90% Construction Document Estimate.
"Still $113,000,000 after all the changes to reduce cost, after all the savings on asbestos, after everything.
According to Act 34 we can have a maximum NEW building construction cost of $45 million.
According to the 90% Construction Document Estimate, we are at $41,466,000.
If we exceed $45 million, then we need to have another Act 34 hearing.
Look at the high site costs. I don't believe they are included in the "new" construction even though much of those site costs ARE REQUIRED to do the new construction. Site costs are currently at $13,972,000.
The FF&E is included, but only the SOFT COSTS for FFE. No new desks, no new furniture, no new nothing. I guess they are just going to recycle everything that is already outdated. New school, same desks? New school, same chalkboards?
In the August 9, 2010 presentation, FFE was $2,000,000. http://www.mtlsd.org/highschoolrenovation/stuff/presentationarchitectaug2010.pdf The new update had it at $398,000.
Also, there is only a 1% design contingency right now. 1%!
People talk about how our project can't be compared to others for sitework costs because we have asbestos. Well, asbestos is only $3 million. Demolition is only $1.5 million. That leaves another $10 million in site work with HALF of that being to prepare the site for new construction.
According to the 90% Construction Document Estimate, we are at $41,466,000.
If we exceed $45 million, then we need to have another Act 34 hearing.
Look at the high site costs. I don't believe they are included in the "new" construction even though much of those site costs ARE REQUIRED to do the new construction. Site costs are currently at $13,972,000.
The FF&E is included, but only the SOFT COSTS for FFE. No new desks, no new furniture, no new nothing. I guess they are just going to recycle everything that is already outdated. New school, same desks? New school, same chalkboards?
In the August 9, 2010 presentation, FFE was $2,000,000. http://www.mtlsd.org/highschoolrenovation/stuff/presentationarchitectaug2010.pdf The new update had it at $398,000.
Also, there is only a 1% design contingency right now. 1%!
People talk about how our project can't be compared to others for sitework costs because we have asbestos. Well, asbestos is only $3 million. Demolition is only $1.5 million. That leaves another $10 million in site work with HALF of that being to prepare the site for new construction.
I am afraid that they are stuffing the Site Work expense column with costs that should be associated with New Construction. A $3 million swing between the two puts us at a new Act 34 hearing. Are the architect and CM jumbling the numbers to make it work?
Let’s compare the December 2009 95% design development estimate at $115 million. http://www.mtlsd.org/highschoolrenovation/stuff/BE2008-123-Mt-Lebanon-D-D-95-Plan-Con-120809.pdf
1. Demolition was over $4 million and now it is $1.5. Was asbestos abatement included in the demolition costs in that one?
2. The contingency was $4 million and now it is $856,000. Did they reduce the contingency to bring down the cost? Or did they reduce the contingency because they used it? The fact remains that it is gone. There will be nothing left for contingencies. That is a $2 million reduction in cost from Dec 2009 to Dec 2010.
3. The square footage has gone up by about 6000 sq. feet."
Very interesting. Will we ever get straight answers from the School Board? Are we playing the Lebo Shell Game again?
More findings:
ReplyDeleteAll those changes all those cost savings and the huge reduction in contingency and we are still at $113 million.
Dan Remely and Elaine Cappucci said they weren't going to "spend the savings." We saved about $5 million in asbestos and material changes, but it looks like we spent the savings and then some.
Re: "after all the savings on asbestos" -- I asked the District several months ago to quantify this " after all the savings on asbestos" and they have no response. Are they just making it up? When they say things such as the asbestos spray-on fireproofing in Building F being "non-hazardous" it looks like they *are* just making things up. Dangerous. (For those who don't know, in reality, the asbestos-containing spray-on fireproofing in Building F is the same as in "voodoo child" Building C.)
ReplyDeletePam,
ReplyDeleteAfter your November 8, 2010 Letter to the Editor on Blog-Lebo, after letters to the School Board, after your Right To Knows, after mentioning it at your interview, you STILL haven't heard anything?
This is absolutely ridiculous!
Elaine Gillen