Mt.
I have reprinted letters to the editor, comments from Real Lebo, a link to the April 19, 2010 School Board meeting podcast, and the now MIA FAQ from Ed Kubit. Where are these proponents to the high school renovation now?
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
High School Renovation Information--Full Text
The full text of School Board President Ed Kubit's recent FAQ (a Frequently Asked Questions letter) regarding the high school renovation project is reprinted below. In his letter, Mr. Kubit clears up misinformation recently circulating over emails and in the local media about this vital project. I urge you to read the letter, inform yourself and contact the School Board with further questions or concerns.
Please feel free to forward this link to other community members, or simply copy and paste the full text of Mr. Kubit's letter in a correspondence of your own. Help move this conversation forward in a positive direction. Thanks! --Elaine Labalme and Kristen Linfante
January 26, 2010
Dear Mt. Lebanon Residents,
Over the past week, I’ve heard from many community members who have raised questions about the cost of the High School project and the impact this will have on taxes this year and in subsequent years. Many of these questions have come in the wake of the January 18 School Board vote to approve the Act 34 document that sets a maximum total High School project cost of $113,274,765. In an effort to provide clarification, I’d like to address some of the most frequently asked questions that have been raised by residents.
Are taxes really going up 50% in the next few years?
NO
Taxes could go up because of three factors:
Please feel free to forward this link to other community members, or simply copy and paste the full text of Mr. Kubit's letter in a correspondence of your own. Help move this conversation forward in a positive direction. Thanks! --Elaine Labalme and Kristen Linfante
January 26, 2010
Dear Mt. Lebanon Residents,
Over the past week, I’ve heard from many community members who have raised questions about the cost of the High School project and the impact this will have on taxes this year and in subsequent years. Many of these questions have come in the wake of the January 18 School Board vote to approve the Act 34 document that sets a maximum total High School project cost of $113,274,765. In an effort to provide clarification, I’d like to address some of the most frequently asked questions that have been raised by residents.
Are taxes really going up 50% in the next few years?
NO
Taxes could go up because of three factors:
1. Debt on the High School Project: The increase in debt due to the High School project, minus lower operating costs from the new building, is estimated to increase taxes between 8% and 13% over the next five years. This is based on our current millage rate of 24.11 mills. Actual increases will depend on the final project cost, which cannot exceed $113,274,765. The millage rate for debt for this project could cost between 2.25 mills to 3.4 mills. Savings on operations, including lower utilities and fewer staff, could reduce millage by .35 mills. While the largest increase in millage for this project will be in the 2010-2011 budget, some smaller increases may follow in subsequent years. The School Board and administration will continue to identity potential cost savings throughout the coming years to lessen the impact on tax increases.
2. Pennsylvania State Employee Retirement System (PSERS-State mandated retirement program for District staff): ALL school districts in Pennsylvania
3. Cost of our education program: Being fiscally frugal, the Board has limited tax increases to 1% in each of the past two years and 0% the year before while maintaining the high quality of our educational programs.
When you combine all three of these factors the assumption that our taxes will increase 50% in the next few years is not accurate.
Is the High School Project going to cost eachMt. Lebanon
NO
The calculation of this number used the maximum cost of the project divided by about 10,000 single family dwelling units. There are approximately 14,000 single dwelling residences inMt. Lebanon
No one property owner will receive one single bill for the cost of this project. Taxes for the High School project will be billed annually to all residential and commercial property owners for any bonds the District issues for this project over the next 25-30 years. The new taxes for a homeowner who has a home assessed at $100,000 will be between $225 and $340 a year depending on the size of the project when the bids are completed and the amount of bonds the District must issue.
What is the cost of the project?
The cost of the project is still fluid. The maximum it could cost would be $113, 274,765. However, this includes contingencies of about $8 million for unknowns and does not take into account that bids on recent school construction projects came in at 17% to 25% below their original estimates. Additionally, we are working with our architects and construction managers to find ways to further reduce the cost through value engineering. The School Board is committed to find ways to reduce the cost of the project so the final cost will be less than $113,274,765.
What is the cost of a “renovation only” of the High School compared to the current design estimated at $113,274,765?
According to the estimates provided by our construction manager, PJ Dick, the cost of a renovation only of the existing buildings would be $103 million. That would translate into approximately 3.18 mills or $318 per year, per home assessed at $100,000, compared to $340 a year for $113 million project. This is a reduction of $22 per year. A renovation only option would mean maintaining the existing 545,255 square feet; the replacement of the mechanical, electrical, plumbing and fire protection systems (MEP/FP); asbestos abatement; code required improvements; roofing replacement; interior finishes due to the work just mentioned. There would be minimal site repairs, minimal sustainability, and minimal energy savings. There would be no change in layout of the High School to support 21st Century teaching and learning; no change for fine and performing arts spaces; no change for physical education and athletic spaces and no change for classroom size. This would require us to continue to adapt existing spaces to fit our required program. Such an option would require multiple construction phases during a 3-5 year project and includes student displacement, impacting the High School learning environment. Click here for more information about the current High School design.
Will we need to borrow more money for the project?
The Board approved borrowing $69 million in bonds in October of 2009. Due to the favorable bond market for premium bonds, the District netted approximately $75 million for the project. The first bond payments for that issue will be due in the 2010-2011budget. Additionally, funds have been set aside to pay directly for the cost of some asbestos removal in the building without the need to borrow money. If we are able to achieve lower bids from contractors, it is possible we might not need to issue many more bonds. Act 34 requires that we present to the community the cost in millage as if ALL of the maximum cost of the project is borrowed through issuance of bonds. That makes the millage estimates we are now using the highest they are likely to be.
Are taxes going up 14% in 2010-2011?
NO
Current State
How do our costs for the High School project compare with school construction projects in neighboring school districts?
Construction managers, PJ Dick compiled a cost comparison between our project and the high school project in Baldwin and the middle school project inUpper St. Clair . There are two areas in particular that set our project apart from other area school construction projects. They are: 1) site and 2) asbestos abatement. These two areas represent significant cost differences between our project and those of other schools. It is also very difficult to compare projects because of programmatic differences between schools. Click here for a cost comparison provided by PJ Dick.
Are the District enrollment numbers going down?
Enrollment numbers have decreased at a very slow rate in recent years. Our total enrollment four years ago was 5,454 students. This year our enrollment is 5,302 students. This is a reduction of about 12 students per grade level over four years. For the next four years we are projecting enrollment to decrease less than 66 students, or 5 students per grade level, over those four years. The new High School design takes into account enrollment projections over the next 20 years.
Are taxes higher inMt. Lebanon
Mt. Lebanon School District taxes are ranked 12th in Allegheny County Mt. Lebanon
Why do we need this project?
In July 2001 a Facility Assessment of the High School was conducted by the architectural firm of Valentour English, Bodnar and Howell. To quote the report, “This assessment has found that even with good maintenance, many of the systems have, or are approaching the end of their useful life. Impending lack of availability of parts in some cases dictates their replacement in the near future.” Infrastructure and MEP/FP equipment have exceeded their life expectancy, are costly to repair, and negatively impact the educational process. The building is asbestos-laden and the exterior veneer is failing. Roof structures need extensive replacement.
Since the last renovation in 1972, there have been many programmatic changes to the way education is delivered, including the extensive use, availability, and integration of technology in the classroom and the need for flexible space for student and faculty collaboration. The physical space of the High School is not designed to accommodate 21st century teaching and learning requirements:
Is the High School Project going to cost each
NO
The calculation of this number used the maximum cost of the project divided by about 10,000 single family dwelling units. There are approximately 14,000 single dwelling residences in
No one property owner will receive one single bill for the cost of this project. Taxes for the High School project will be billed annually to all residential and commercial property owners for any bonds the District issues for this project over the next 25-30 years. The new taxes for a homeowner who has a home assessed at $100,000 will be between $225 and $340 a year depending on the size of the project when the bids are completed and the amount of bonds the District must issue.
What is the cost of the project?
The cost of the project is still fluid. The maximum it could cost would be $113, 274,765. However, this includes contingencies of about $8 million for unknowns and does not take into account that bids on recent school construction projects came in at 17% to 25% below their original estimates. Additionally, we are working with our architects and construction managers to find ways to further reduce the cost through value engineering. The School Board is committed to find ways to reduce the cost of the project so the final cost will be less than $113,274,765.
What is the cost of a “renovation only” of the High School compared to the current design estimated at $113,274,765?
According to the estimates provided by our construction manager, PJ Dick, the cost of a renovation only of the existing buildings would be $103 million. That would translate into approximately 3.18 mills or $318 per year, per home assessed at $100,000, compared to $340 a year for $113 million project. This is a reduction of $22 per year. A renovation only option would mean maintaining the existing 545,255 square feet; the replacement of the mechanical, electrical, plumbing and fire protection systems (MEP/FP); asbestos abatement; code required improvements; roofing replacement; interior finishes due to the work just mentioned. There would be minimal site repairs, minimal sustainability, and minimal energy savings. There would be no change in layout of the High School to support 21st Century teaching and learning; no change for fine and performing arts spaces; no change for physical education and athletic spaces and no change for classroom size. This would require us to continue to adapt existing spaces to fit our required program. Such an option would require multiple construction phases during a 3-5 year project and includes student displacement, impacting the High School learning environment. Click here for more information about the current High School design.
Will we need to borrow more money for the project?
The Board approved borrowing $69 million in bonds in October of 2009. Due to the favorable bond market for premium bonds, the District netted approximately $75 million for the project. The first bond payments for that issue will be due in the 2010-2011budget. Additionally, funds have been set aside to pay directly for the cost of some asbestos removal in the building without the need to borrow money. If we are able to achieve lower bids from contractors, it is possible we might not need to issue many more bonds. Act 34 requires that we present to the community the cost in millage as if ALL of the maximum cost of the project is borrowed through issuance of bonds. That makes the millage estimates we are now using the highest they are likely to be.
Are taxes going up 14% in 2010-2011?
NO
How do our costs for the High School project compare with school construction projects in neighboring school districts?
Construction managers, PJ Dick compiled a cost comparison between our project and the high school project in Baldwin and the middle school project in
Are the District enrollment numbers going down?
Enrollment numbers have decreased at a very slow rate in recent years. Our total enrollment four years ago was 5,454 students. This year our enrollment is 5,302 students. This is a reduction of about 12 students per grade level over four years. For the next four years we are projecting enrollment to decrease less than 66 students, or 5 students per grade level, over those four years. The new High School design takes into account enrollment projections over the next 20 years.
Are taxes higher in
Why do we need this project?
In July 2001 a Facility Assessment of the High School was conducted by the architectural firm of Valentour English, Bodnar and Howell. To quote the report, “This assessment has found that even with good maintenance, many of the systems have, or are approaching the end of their useful life. Impending lack of availability of parts in some cases dictates their replacement in the near future.” Infrastructure and MEP/FP equipment have exceeded their life expectancy, are costly to repair, and negatively impact the educational process. The building is asbestos-laden and the exterior veneer is failing. Roof structures need extensive replacement.
Since the last renovation in 1972, there have been many programmatic changes to the way education is delivered, including the extensive use, availability, and integration of technology in the classroom and the need for flexible space for student and faculty collaboration. The physical space of the High School is not designed to accommodate 21st century teaching and learning requirements:
• Classroom size is too small to be used for learning activities beyond direct instruction.
• Resource areas such as the library do not serve today’s needs.
• Common areas are needed to provide for learning activities outside of the classroom.
• The building layout is complex and inefficient; it has evolved based on additions in the 1930’s, 1950’s and 1970’s, with each addition being a reaction to the problems of the time and without a comprehensive plan.
• There is a lack ofADA
• The infrastructure, including building systems such as heat, electricity, HVAC, boilers, and windows, while supported and well maintained beyond life expectancy, is seriously aging, constantly failing, and in need of total replacement
• Science classrooms and labs are inadequate for our program.
• Classrooms and common areas do not possess needed technology infrastructure to support collaborative learning and complex problem-solving skills development.
• Fine Arts spaces are inadequate for our program.
• The pool and athletic areas do not meet the school and community needs.
• Resource areas such as the library do not serve today’s needs.
• Common areas are needed to provide for learning activities outside of the classroom.
• The building layout is complex and inefficient; it has evolved based on additions in the 1930’s, 1950’s and 1970’s, with each addition being a reaction to the problems of the time and without a comprehensive plan.
• There is a lack of
• The infrastructure, including building systems such as heat, electricity, HVAC, boilers, and windows, while supported and well maintained beyond life expectancy, is seriously aging, constantly failing, and in need of total replacement
• Science classrooms and labs are inadequate for our program.
• Classrooms and common areas do not possess needed technology infrastructure to support collaborative learning and complex problem-solving skills development.
• Fine Arts spaces are inadequate for our program.
• The pool and athletic areas do not meet the school and community needs.
Why do we need to begin this project now? Can’t we wait?
Local school districts that have recently approved construction projects were able to take advantage of seriously reduced construction rates leading to building costs between 17% and 25% below their estimates. We are trying to take advantage of this excellent bidding environment for our project. A reduction in our construction costs by 20% could reduce our need to borrow money by $18 million. We do not know how long this favorable bidding environment will continue, so by bringing this project to bid we can save money for the residents of our community.
Additionally, further delays in needed infrastructure repairs will continue to negatively impact the conditions in the building for students and staff. As mentioned earlier, the assessment performed by Valentour English, Bodnar and Howell, stated that many of the critical systems were at, or were approaching the end of their useful life nearly 10 years ago. Significant updates have been not made since that time.
Why has the building square footage increased by 30,000 square feet?
The current building square footage is approximately 545,255 square feet. The new high school design is approximately 479,845 square feet, an approximate 14% decrease in space. Early schematic design goals were to establish the square footage at about 440,000 square feet. Since that time, the design has evolved. Some of the changes include adding two more lanes to the pool to make it eight lanes and adding a third auxiliary gym. The space under the current pool, which was not originally intended to be used, is now being converted to a storage area. The new academic wing is now being turned to rejoin the building at the fine arts area. Early space estimates in the DeJong Space Utilization Study did not include all space in the current buildings to be renovated. Our science curriculum was reorganized which requires additional space, space for the District maintenance facilities were not included, the driver education program, including the space for the driver simulator, was not included as well as space required in the kitchen for the addition of the elementary lunch program. Square footage may change slightly as the design is refined.
Who is making the decisions about the High School project?
The School Board makes all decisions about this project with input from the Superintendent, administration, teachers, architects, construction manager, consultants, Master Design Team and community. The Board has discussed and held public votes on key milestones throughout the process which has moved this project forward since it began in 2006.
What are the next steps?
The next step for the project is to hold an Act 34 hearing on February 22 at 7:00 pm in the High School Fine Arts Theatre. After the hearing, the community will have at least 30 days to submit comments to the District about the project. In April, the Board will vote to approve and submit PlanCon D which will include the minutes from the Act 34 Hearing, any written public comments sent to the District, the proof of advertisement and the Act 34 booklet. PlanCon D will then be submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Education. The District will continue through the process which includes seeking zoning and planning approval for the project while preparing construction documents for bid. Questions concerning single prime bid vs. multiple prime bid and the hiring of an owner’s representative must also be addressed and approved by the Board this year. Our goal is to begin construction in the winter of 2010-2011.
We will continue to add to this list of questions which will be posted on the High School Renovation FAQ page on our website at www.mtlsd.org.
Thank you for taking the time to become informed about the High School project. I know we are all committed to doing what is best for our school and community. Please feel free to contact the School Board at schoolboard@mtlsd.net. Your feedback is always welcome.
Sincerely,
Ed Kubit
President,Mt. Lebanon School
Local school districts that have recently approved construction projects were able to take advantage of seriously reduced construction rates leading to building costs between 17% and 25% below their estimates. We are trying to take advantage of this excellent bidding environment for our project. A reduction in our construction costs by 20% could reduce our need to borrow money by $18 million. We do not know how long this favorable bidding environment will continue, so by bringing this project to bid we can save money for the residents of our community.
Additionally, further delays in needed infrastructure repairs will continue to negatively impact the conditions in the building for students and staff. As mentioned earlier, the assessment performed by Valentour English, Bodnar and Howell, stated that many of the critical systems were at, or were approaching the end of their useful life nearly 10 years ago. Significant updates have been not made since that time.
Why has the building square footage increased by 30,000 square feet?
The current building square footage is approximately 545,255 square feet. The new high school design is approximately 479,845 square feet, an approximate 14% decrease in space. Early schematic design goals were to establish the square footage at about 440,000 square feet. Since that time, the design has evolved. Some of the changes include adding two more lanes to the pool to make it eight lanes and adding a third auxiliary gym. The space under the current pool, which was not originally intended to be used, is now being converted to a storage area. The new academic wing is now being turned to rejoin the building at the fine arts area. Early space estimates in the DeJong Space Utilization Study did not include all space in the current buildings to be renovated. Our science curriculum was reorganized which requires additional space, space for the District maintenance facilities were not included, the driver education program, including the space for the driver simulator, was not included as well as space required in the kitchen for the addition of the elementary lunch program. Square footage may change slightly as the design is refined.
Who is making the decisions about the High School project?
The School Board makes all decisions about this project with input from the Superintendent, administration, teachers, architects, construction manager, consultants, Master Design Team and community. The Board has discussed and held public votes on key milestones throughout the process which has moved this project forward since it began in 2006.
What are the next steps?
The next step for the project is to hold an Act 34 hearing on February 22 at 7:00 pm in the High School Fine Arts Theatre. After the hearing, the community will have at least 30 days to submit comments to the District about the project. In April, the Board will vote to approve and submit PlanCon D which will include the minutes from the Act 34 Hearing, any written public comments sent to the District, the proof of advertisement and the Act 34 booklet. PlanCon D will then be submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Education. The District will continue through the process which includes seeking zoning and planning approval for the project while preparing construction documents for bid. Questions concerning single prime bid vs. multiple prime bid and the hiring of an owner’s representative must also be addressed and approved by the Board this year. Our goal is to begin construction in the winter of 2010-2011.
We will continue to add to this list of questions which will be posted on the High School Renovation FAQ page on our website at www.mtlsd.org.
Thank you for taking the time to become informed about the High School project. I know we are all committed to doing what is best for our school and community. Please feel free to contact the School Board at schoolboard@mtlsd.net. Your feedback is always welcome.
Sincerely,
Ed Kubit
President,
1/27/2010
Residents should be willing to pay for education
To the editor:
Mark Twain once said there are three types of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics. That about sums up the misinformation campaign being waged inMt. Lebanon Lincoln Center Mt. Lebanon
Residents should be willing to pay for education
To the editor:
Mark Twain once said there are three types of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics. That about sums up the misinformation campaign being waged in
Deb Smit
Mt. Lebanon
Mt. Lebanon
School District Budget Numbers Mocked, Misrepresented
An email from fellow Lebo resident John Ewing (a former School Board member who resigned prior to completing his term) landed in my In Box today. The Subject line read "Klein to Board: 45% Real Estate Tax Increase in Mt. Lebanon by 2015-16 School Year." I opened the attachment that went with Mr. Ewing's email to find School District budget projections issued by the District's Finance Director, Jan Klein, within the last week along with a nifty bit of editorializing inserted into the projections, to wit:
"Director Fraasch was right - Real Estate Taxes are going up 45.3%
Kubit, Rose, Remely, Cappucci, Posti and Birks are full of prunes !"
I'm certain Ms. Klein, a circumspect individual if there ever was one, did not say anyone was full of prunes. Mr. Ewing's churlish rejoinder to the budget projections does not serve the serious conversation going on in our community right now around School District budgets and taxes.
A couple of things to consider:
1. Projections are just that -- a gaze into the future. In this case, a look into the future seven years from our most recent audited figures. My experience in 2+ years in Mt. Lebanon is that the annual School District budget projections are a starting point. Much reconciliation and conversation takes place over a period of months and the final number invariably comes in LOWER than the initial projections. That's not to say that taxes don't go up -- they do. But my experience of the process is that they do not go up anywhere near the initial projected figure.
2. If Ms. Klein, Mr. Fraasch, Mr. Ewing or anyone else in this community has a crystal ball that is telling them what WILL happen in 2015, I want in! The statement "Director Fraasch was right - Real Estate Taxes are going up 45.3%" is absolutely ridiculous and, in my opinion, only serves to frighten community members. Do these same folks also know if the Steelers will win the Super Bowl in 2015 based on the current roster? what the Dow Jones Industrial average will be in 2015 based on current economic indicators? if Iraq or Afghanistan will be the greatest threat to global peace in 2015 based on the current quagmires?
Here's hoping we can tamp down the rhetoric on School District matters and continue to work collectively toward positive outcomes.
"Director Fraasch was right - Real Estate Taxes are going up 45.3%
Kubit, Rose, Remely, Cappucci, Posti and Birks are full of prunes !"
I'm certain Ms. Klein, a circumspect individual if there ever was one, did not say anyone was full of prunes. Mr. Ewing's churlish rejoinder to the budget projections does not serve the serious conversation going on in our community right now around School District budgets and taxes.
A couple of things to consider:
1. Projections are just that -- a gaze into the future. In this case, a look into the future seven years from our most recent audited figures. My experience in 2+ years in Mt. Lebanon is that the annual School District budget projections are a starting point. Much reconciliation and conversation takes place over a period of months and the final number invariably comes in LOWER than the initial projections. That's not to say that taxes don't go up -- they do. But my experience of the process is that they do not go up anywhere near the initial projected figure.
2. If Ms. Klein, Mr. Fraasch, Mr. Ewing or anyone else in this community has a crystal ball that is telling them what WILL happen in 2015, I want in! The statement "Director Fraasch was right - Real Estate Taxes are going up 45.3%" is absolutely ridiculous and, in my opinion, only serves to frighten community members. Do these same folks also know if the Steelers will win the Super Bowl in 2015 based on the current roster? what the Dow Jones Industrial average will be in 2015 based on current economic indicators? if Iraq or Afghanistan will be the greatest threat to global peace in 2015 based on the current quagmires?
Here's hoping we can tamp down the rhetoric on School District matters and continue to work collectively toward positive outcomes.
Dave Franklin said...
Elaine [Labalme]:
I apologize for the tone. I'm sure most would agree I'm not an angry person. I would defy you to find a more proud supporter of this community and its schools. However, on this issue I am very frustrated. I too would like to think that we could bring this project in $18-23 million below estimates, but think about that! Does anyone think that is remotely possible? Many people have told me to trust the experts, but if the experts are truly off by that much, how good are they? And if the Board is so convinced that they can do better than these estimates why approve a max cost that is so much higher? These are things that make no sense to me. And what happens when the municipality brings its next big ticket item to the taxpayers in the next 3-5 years? How do we pay for that? I realize that thoughts like this are interepreted by some as fearmongering, but I view them as good governance and responsible management.
I'm also frustrated because no one seemed to be asking these hard questions until Mr. Fraasch circulated his report. Sure, there were a few, but let's face it, he got people thinking about this project in ways that no one else could. Mr. Fraasch was the same person who suggested that we should put together a plan and approach the project in phases as we saved some of the money. Ironically, had Mr. Fraasch been around 10 years ago with that proposal he would have been lauded as a forward thinker and perhaps the greatest champion of the high school project. Unfortunately, since Mr. Fraasch is on the Board during the "build it now" era, his concerns and plans are seen as disruptive and anti-Lebo. Think about that . . .
In my opinion, since the new high school will have a useful life for generations to come (and not just my kids), why not plan it out so that it doesn't bury us financially? After all, what's the easier task - phasing this project so that we can afford it or trying to squeeze $20 million of savings out of the current estimates?
I apologize for the tone. I'm sure most would agree I'm not an angry person. I would defy you to find a more proud supporter of this community and its schools. However, on this issue I am very frustrated. I too would like to think that we could bring this project in $18-23 million below estimates, but think about that! Does anyone think that is remotely possible? Many people have told me to trust the experts, but if the experts are truly off by that much, how good are they? And if the Board is so convinced that they can do better than these estimates why approve a max cost that is so much higher? These are things that make no sense to me. And what happens when the municipality brings its next big ticket item to the taxpayers in the next 3-5 years? How do we pay for that? I realize that thoughts like this are interepreted by some as fearmongering, but I view them as good governance and responsible management.
I'm also frustrated because no one seemed to be asking these hard questions until Mr. Fraasch circulated his report. Sure, there were a few, but let's face it, he got people thinking about this project in ways that no one else could. Mr. Fraasch was the same person who suggested that we should put together a plan and approach the project in phases as we saved some of the money. Ironically, had Mr. Fraasch been around 10 years ago with that proposal he would have been lauded as a forward thinker and perhaps the greatest champion of the high school project. Unfortunately, since Mr. Fraasch is on the Board during the "build it now" era, his concerns and plans are seen as disruptive and anti-Lebo. Think about that . . .
In my opinion, since the new high school will have a useful life for generations to come (and not just my kids), why not plan it out so that it doesn't bury us financially? After all, what's the easier task - phasing this project so that we can afford it or trying to squeeze $20 million of savings out of the current estimates?
Kristen Linfante said...
I stand by my words. I have been involved every step of the way and feel that appropriate steps have been taken and that every effort will be made to keep costs as low as possible while still trying to provide everything that the teachers, staff and community have asked for. I am also excited by the cost-savings that will be seen by having a more energy efficient building. The LEED certification is wonderful as well.
Dave Franklin said...
Yesterday I received a copy of a letter circulated by Mary Birks, in which she labeled Mr. Fraasch as "unethical" and basically a liar who has left a "mass of wreckage behind" him. I am troubled by this in many respects.
First and foremost, I am troubled because I chose to support Mary during her campaign and listened closely as she explained to me about she should would work to set aside differences and build consensus.
I am further troubled because regardless of whether you like Mr. Fraasch's point of view or not, he did not lie to anyone, nor did his report contain a single personal attack.
I am still further troubled by the fact that prior to the Jan 22 meeting, Mary informed her supporters and other residents that the proper forum for discussion was at the Board meetings and not in off the record emails, blogs or letter writing campaigns. Somewhere she changed her mind.
But lastly, I'm especially troubled because letters like this, regardless of their author or their position, erode the credibility of the entire Board and the District. Theses off the record letter undoubtedly frustrate the progress of this project and make our whole community look incredibly dysfunctional in the eyes of those looking closely at us.
Frankly, I am officially tapped out. I can no longer expend my energy trying to hear the substance over the static . . . from all sides. Sadly, I am left to only hope that leadership emerges from somewhere and we get this whole thing right.
First and foremost, I am troubled because I chose to support Mary during her campaign and listened closely as she explained to me about she should would work to set aside differences and build consensus.
I am further troubled because regardless of whether you like Mr. Fraasch's point of view or not, he did not lie to anyone, nor did his report contain a single personal attack.
I am still further troubled by the fact that prior to the Jan 22 meeting, Mary informed her supporters and other residents that the proper forum for discussion was at the Board meetings and not in off the record emails, blogs or letter writing campaigns. Somewhere she changed her mind.
But lastly, I'm especially troubled because letters like this, regardless of their author or their position, erode the credibility of the entire Board and the District. Theses off the record letter undoubtedly frustrate the progress of this project and make our whole community look incredibly dysfunctional in the eyes of those looking closely at us.
Frankly, I am officially tapped out. I can no longer expend my energy trying to hear the substance over the static . . . from all sides. Sadly, I am left to only hope that leadership emerges from somewhere and we get this whole thing right.
Rob Papke said...
When my pleas to you for help in finding ways to help lower costs went unanswered, yes I questioned Your ability and willingness. After all, War is easier than Peace...or is it? I would like to think that it is the other way around and hope that you do as well. I look forward to your solutions, Tom and to your willingness to engage your readers in helping to find ways to help lower costs such as Grant Writing and P/P Partnerships.
Dave Franklin said...
Rob, I've not met anyone in Mt. Lebanon
"One final comment - to all of those people out there who want a $75M cap...exactly whom would decide what to ax from the current project to get down to that #??? The fact is, every brick and detail of the current project was put there for a reason - based on countless hours of study and conferencing with key people. Don't think we need an 8-lane pool? - ask the swimmers or coaches - I guarantee they will disagree. Don't think we need tennis courts ?- ask the tennis people - I guarantee they will disagree. Don't think we need as much arts space ?- ask the arts people, and the list goes on. Anyone who has the guts to think that they have all the "right" answers about what the school "really" needs should take a reality check. This plan was developed over years of detailed study. To overlook that and belittle it is downright wrong. Kristen Linfante
Another one from Real Lebo:
Last night I urged the board not to be intimidated by the people in this community who are willing to do anything to derail this project – the very same people who yell and scream and show great disrespect for their fellow neighbors at these board meetings. The kicker at last night's board meeting was when a member of the opposed citizens to the high school renovation got up and flat out LIED on local television - stating (in response to me and the letter that I read from the resident who wanted her name removed from the petition) that they have never stated to anyone that taxes would go up 50%! How ludicrous! These very same people have even stated that number in board meetings in the past! It's a little late to back-pedal now wouldn't you say!!?!?!! Their disingenuous, [Isn't that what Joe DeIuliis called me the other night?] underhanded approach is not only amoral but inexcusable. As their credibility crumbles, I encourage the board to remain focused on this extremely important project. As always, I thank them for their tireless efforts.
Get the real facts, folks. There are people out there who will literally say and do ANYTHING to derail this project. Be very cautious about what you hear on the street. There are two things that I just can't tolerate - mean people and liars. The people who call themselves the "Concerned Citizens of Mt. Lebanon" have got both of those covered! I'm am so happy that residents are finally getting the real facts and are rethinking their allegiance to this fringe group.
Listen to the yelling and screaming here. http://www.lebocitizens.com/Lebo_Citizens/Podcasts/Entries/2010/4/19_School_Board_Business_Meeting.html (About 3/4 of the way through)
Welcome to VOICE of Mt. Lebanon
Everyone in Mt Lebanon agrees: SOMETHING has to be done to fix our dilapidated high school.
We at VOICE of Mt. Lebanon believe that rather than address the school's issues with band aids and half measures, it's time to do SOMETHING A LITTLE MORE. We believe it's time to address the school's needs, as well as the community's needs, in a way that insures we won't need to have this debate again in our lifetimes. We believe the $18 per month difference to the average Mt. Lebanon taxpayer between the plan that exists today and a $75 million plan some suggest should be adopted is a small monthly incremental investment to protect our rich heritage of educational excellence. That's all that separates the two sides in this debate: $18 per month.
Having discussed this project for over four years, it's easy for facts to get lost or distorted. Please consider this website your resource for updates regarding the high school renovation, as well as an archive of past discussions.
[Website hasn't been updated since February 14, 2011]
This renovation will be the single largest capital project in Mt. Lebanon's history. Join the discussion. Get the facts.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
VOICE of Mt. Lebanon
I encourage everyone to check out a newly launched website - www.voiceofmtlebanon.org
The website is dedicated to giving the true facts about our town's impending high school renovation. The members of VOICE support the renovation and are dedicated to making it happen. Check it out! While you're there, click on the upper left section called "Your Voice". There you can, with one easy click, send a letter of support to the school board and commission. It's worth a look!
Kristen LinfanteThe website is dedicated to giving the true facts about our town's impending high school renovation. The members of VOICE support the renovation and are dedicated to making it happen. Check it out! While you're there, click on the upper left section called "Your Voice". There you can, with one easy click, send a letter of support to the school board and commission. It's worth a look!
3 comments:
Yep, that'd be my first choice for a ward commissioner!
A "lady" that calls her fellow residents "mean people and liars" because they have an opinion different from hers.
Since the board directors have derailed the project by not accepting the bids I'm guessing they're mean, liars too although the candidate hasn't yet stepped up and called them so.
I'm thinking seems someone needs to apologize, but I'm betting it'll never happen!
Just can't wait to see her handle the responsibilities and the opposition to important topics as a commissioner!
Here's the candidates comment once again as a refresher. she did get one thing right... "be very cautious about what you hear on the street."
"Get the real facts, folks. There are people out there who will literally say and do ANYTHING to derail this project. Be very cautious about what you hear on the street. There are two things that I just can't tolerate - mean people and liars. The people who call themselves the "Concerned Citizens of Mt. Lebanon" have got both of those covered! I'm am so happy that residents are finally getting the real facts and are rethinking their allegiance to this fringe group.
Posted by Kristen Linfante at 10:42 PM"
Oh, by the way the proposal to delete the tennis courts, third gym and rifle range, then phase them back in as capital projects. Recollect James Fraasch's idea was to do the renovation in phases. It appears he's owed an apology also!
- Giffen Good
All of this shows that money, intelligence and class are mutually exclusive.
Wonderful and direct writing.
Post a Comment