Members of the School Board: It is now clear that after years of bobbing and weaving, the efforts of the Mt. Lebanon School Board to avoid a vote of the people on the appropriate scope and purpose of renovations to the High School have come to naught. There is no reason for us to be at this juncture, but here we are, so, "quo vadis"?
One response could be to continue to plot and plan to avoid engaging the entire community in the decision process in a meaningful way. That approach has so far produced nothing more than unreasonably deferred maintenance (including roofs allowed to go to leaking causing interior damage, neglect of desirable upgrades such as new seats for the auditorium or wiring upgrades, or the relatively modest alterations required to come into full compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act). You could choose to avoid facing the fact that your methods have sometimes reflected more enthusiasm for your own views than respect for facts---such as when you allowed and then remained silent after representations were made by our superintendent to the town commission that the proposed swimming pool would not be open to the public (when that came into issue because of parking requirements) even though your official and published policy is that the pool is to be open to the public; or, when 4,000 voters petitioned you to reconsider the economics of what you are doing, and you ignored this historic public outcry; or, when you gamed the open hearing process by never evaluating, responding to, or even tabulating the Act 34 submissions that were supposed to be your guide as to public sentiment on the project; etc., etc. It is for you to choose if you will continue a most undesirable polarizing policy that has created a public rift that threatens the social fabric of our community for years to come.
Another response would be to take responsibility for not heeding other voices or considering seriously enough whether your aspirations might exceed the fiscal reach of this community. A small, "maybe we could have been more careful and listened a little harder" would go a long way to restoring your credibility and effectiveness as a public, purportedly "representative", body. This is an opportunity to circle back and bring the community together, rather than to feed on the division which has largely been occasioned by the stone wall tactics you have employed in recent years. You sit in the chairs of privilege, it is up to you to initiate reconciliation or to choose another policy. Everyone wants the best education for the children of Mt. Lebanon, most support our outstanding athletic and creative and performing arts programs. Nonetheless, creating a false crisis by negligently allowing our assets to waste for want of maintenance and routine upgrading shows disrespect for those very educational and enrichment programs that have been entrusted to your stewardship -- it does not bootstrap you into overblown expenditures no one can afford (not raising taxes just before the election does not fool anyone into thinking that the coming increases are not as "unacceptable" as the bids you have just received on your project).
Therefore, as a citizen and taxpayer, and father of students in the high school, I call upon you to live within our means, to do your public duty by addressing the legitimate maintenance, wiring, ADA and related issues, and use the already borrowed funds to care for our common school property. Stop wasting time and money chasing dreams that are unlikely to lead to success for anyone. Mistakes have been made, please do not compound them by papering them over or denying that change is urgently needed in the management of our school affairs. I urge you to usher in a new age of cooperation and communication with your constituents, starting with an admission of past shortcomings and a rededication to our common goal of superior education in this community. It is time for you to take another look at the path you have followed toward your goal and, with the benefit of hindsight, make a mid-course correction that will reflect thoughtful policy making and dedicated stewardship of the public trust. It is Easter-time: a small mea culpa is in order. The bids you have received create the perfect opportunity to engage in a cy pres exercise of realism and open mindedness. I hope you will take the high road forward--should you choose to do so, many of us in opposition may, to your surprise, join you on that path.
Respectfully,
Steve Diaz
Thank you Mr. Diaz for so eloquently stating what so many of us are thinking!
ReplyDeleteI'm going to offer a suggestion. Dan Rithchild, Dirk Taylor and the other volunteer members of the CAC offered a design that didn't require tearing down bldg C. I imagine that knocks off a couple of million at a minimum in destruction and disposal cost. Probably also saves $1 million in new steel and erection of the new building.
ReplyDeleteTheir plan also didn't require removal and recreation of tennis courts that already exist.
Nor did it include a $1 million bridge over Horsman.
So, rough guess their plan knocks off $5-6 million right off the bat.
Then we dump LEED certification. Efficient windows, furnaces and lighting don't need to be purchased thru LEED. Another $500,000+ saved.
Their plan doesn't eliminate gyms, tear down sound buildings or rip up tennis courts.
To me their sketches look pretty innovative, would they be worth a closer look.
- Giffen Good
PS: I think they also said their plan could be done in steps as Mr. Fraasch recommended and when market conditions were favorable.
Hows that for working with the board rather than against it, Mr. Franklin? Always willing to hear your ideas!
Mr. Good, (I sure wish I knew who you were because you have to admit this is a little creepy, but I will dance nonetheless.)
ReplyDeleteMr. Rothschild is the reason why I became involved in this issue. He is a talented architect who has contributed extensively to our community on several fronts. I also consulted with Mr. Taylor before setting the petition request amount at $75 Million. Dirk is also a loyal knowledgeable resident. The $75 Million was a ballpark figure with some, and not a huge amount of, wiggle room. So, you are on the right track, but your deductions could be healthier. It just so happened that the $75 Million also represented the amount of debt already incurred for the project.
- Charlotte Stephenson
Charlotte:
ReplyDeleteNot being in the construction industry my estimates are by no means accurate, I'm taking wild stabs at what I think would be realistic. Example, the bridge over Horsman was estimate at $895,000 or so. With the higher bid I'm imagining its closer to a million. The board has said they were paying around $875,000 for LEED certification and I'm thinking the may have spent some already, so $500,000. And so on and so forth.
Dan Rothchild even commented in the CAC presentation their design could come in close to $100 million. Like Dan Remely he thought it would be much less. The only way we'll know is if the board tries it!
Experience on a homeowner level one should know its far cheaper to remodel an existing home rather than tearing it down and building new.
- Giffen Good
Giffen,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your logic. I believe there are differences in cost according to the RS Means guidelines depending on whether the project is new construction or renovation. I don’t recall the exact differential for this type of construction project, but I do recall that our cost per square foot far exceeded either of the RS Means guidelines. Don’t feel badly, obviously you are not the only one taking wild stabs at estimates!
-Charlotte Stephenson