A meeting or so ago, a question was raised about the high school renovation project. A resident felt that there is confusion concerning what is included on the add/delete alternates lists. Josephine Posti felt that all the information is published online and didn't feel that a forum, circular, or some other update was in order for the community.
I thought it would be interesting to gather questions about the renovation and post them on another poll. After your votes are cast, I will submit the most popular questions to the School Board and print their responses here, if or when I receive them.
You may submit them here anonymously, or email them privately to egillen476@aol.com. I would like your questions by Sunday, October 2 so that I may start a new poll early next week.
Depending on your response, I may do something like this for the candidates running for Commission and School Board. I have not heard anything about a Candidate's Forum for November's election, so I may do something later in October, if there is enough interest.
47 comments:
How many gyms are we getting? Are we getting tennis courts at the high school? Will there be a rifle range? What happens if the bids come back too high? There are four questions to start with.
I agree with the first comment with this change...
If you indeed support 3 gyms, tennis courts and rifle range, why don't you insist that they be sticken from the list of delete/adds?
If you won't vote for the project without them why make deleting them an option?
Dick Saunders
My question is when is this very controversial issue going to put to a referendum vote, as should have been done in the first place?
When will you start listening to your constituents and build what we want, not what you want?
Anon 2:43, what question do you put on the ballot?
Anon 2:48, I think we are where we are largely because the SB listened to too much of what "we want" and not enough of what we need.
I am Anon2:46. There is no Anon 2:48. Fair enough.
When will you start listening to your constituents and build what we NEED, not what you WANT?
I would like to ask why did the Board ignore the Solicitor and Construction Experts and go with multiple prime contractors?
Will you please save the 1972 building?
If the Board had accepted the $8,000,000 fund raising from the deceitful athletic supporters would the kids have better air circulation in their classrooms?
Was the high school designed for the deceitful athletic supporters or the best education possible for each and every child?
"Anonymous" 6:16
How about:
Was the high school project designed for special interest groups or to provide the best education possible for each and every student?
'Cause now I have another "anonymous" comment directed at you.
Elaine
Were you aware of an $8 million promise?
What was the range of $ bids by the 6 bidders in April for the Act 34 limit for new/addition construction cost only ? This very important fact was not revealed by the District...the Act 34 limit was roughly $45 million based on the then design.
For those who would like to have the benefit of some additional background information to consider for posing questions, please review the blog of noted local architect Dan Rothschild, who has attempted to provide guidance and advice to the District....his blog address is http://lebodesign.net. Please review all of his many postings as well as comments submitted.
In addition, also review the District website posting under High School Renovation, Latest News, and click on "Architects Update Sept. 12, 2011", a 20-page powerpoint presentation.
Bids were $103M, $104M, $109M, $121M, and $123M. Value engineering resulted in getting only to the low bid of $103M. Tom Celli said at the last board updatethe real number is $103M as verified by the $104M number. By that logic, the real number could be $121M as verified by the $123M bid. Should caution be exercised to value engineer even more because the middle number seems to be $109M? Aren't we cutting it tight?
The Administration Dept. area has been reduced from about 25,000 sf to only 7,100 sf, now only 28% of the original design which was declared needed to provide the programatic needs for a 21st. century education. Beyond the elimination of the 8 curriculum supervisors and their staffs, the Special Ed. Dept. and the School Psychologists have also been removed from the Admin. Dept. design area. The employee count has been reduced from the original 45 to only 20. In addition, the Large Group Room has been eliminated.
Where will the offices of the Special Ed. Dept and School Psychologists be located, and what will be the costs for creating such offices ? Are such costs included in the project costs ?
Among other planned uses, the Large Group Room was also to be used for school board meetings. In the revised design, where will board meetings and other uses originally planned and designed for the Large Group Room be held ?
Anonymous 10:31, it doesn't matter what the final $ amount is as long as they avoid a referendum!
Here's a question for the incumbent candidates.
If you are so absolutely sure you have overwhelming support for the project why do you run away from a referendum vote?
Elaine, ran a simple poll here on Lebocitizen, can't you do the same before election day? Do you intend with all the IT and technology available in the district to stick with your unsubstantiated "claims" of wide-spread project support?
Nah, didn't think the board had the cajones to put those claims to the test! Its no wonder people are disagreeable!
P.J. Dick will be providing cost estimates for the "modified" design within days...information that should be made available to the public immediately.
What will be the new and latest construction cost estimate for only the new/addition portion of the project according to ACT 34 and the PlanCon process ? Has PlanCon reduced the maximum $ limit due to all the design changes and reduction in architectual area by 31,000 sf, all of which seems to be in the new/addition portion of the project ?
If the new school project completes, what is the expected % increase in academic results? From what existing examples are you making that assumption? What year will you be using as a baseline for the comparison?
I mean, who makes an investment without some sort of expectation of a return, correct? And those exceptions usually are based upon research, correct?
Of course past examples don't always equal future results, but at least they let you make an educated assumption. I'd like to hear a better justification on a dollar spend of this amount. Each line item should be justifiable, just as if we were dealing with a business. And those justifications should be related to the mission statement of the School Board, not the mission statement of a special interest group.
Dan Rothschild states in his blog " The science department is isolated in its own building, a physical plan that is counter to your earlier goals of interdepartmental collaboration.".
*Togetherness*, close proximity and interdepartmental collaboration were included in your stated needs for a 21st. century education....have you now compromised achievment of this need by design changes ? If not, explain why and how ?
Also, Dan claims that " circulation distances have been increased..". What are the circulation distances now in this revised design compared to the original design and the current building ?
If you are so sure that this high school project is supported by most of the residents and taxpayers, why won't you put it to a referendum? What are you really afraid of?
The original design of the high school earlier this year had something like 302 rooms. What is the room count of the design being prepared for rebid ? Please explain the reason(s) for any differences beyond those in the Admin. area in Building B if the enrollment estimates have not changed.
Would the Board agree to a referendum if they could only have votes from those who reside on Alinsky Alley?
Where will the Facilities Management organization and their storage area be located ? Where in the existing high school property; or, if elsewhere in the District, precisely where might that be ?
What are the cost estimates for each of the high school project items that are being considered for "off budgeting".....that is, removed from the official high school project and added later and separetly, and paid for with funds separate from those officially dedicated and accounted for towards the high school project ?
Do the PDE and PlanCon overseers readily agree to such practices ?
Nothing against youth basketball, but don't we have gyms with basketball courts at each of the 10MTLSD school buildings ? Are they not available to the community and youth sports organizations during non-school hours at least 5 days/week, maybe even 6 ? For a fee or gratis ?
In terms of the high school, did not the 3 existing gyms serve over 3,000 Jr.& Sr. H.S. students for a number of years when phys-ed was required for grades 9 - 12. Is it true that we now have just under 1,800 students in the H.S., and phys-ed is no longer required for grades 11 & 12 ?
What's the gym problem ? Don't shoot the questioner....I just don't have all the facts, answers or kids in school and am not aware that the school board has ever delved factually and publicly into this 3rd. gym issue.
All good questions Anon 5:28. Another question, how did the nurses office serve those 3,000 kids but in the first renovation design it was somehow far to small.
One would assume as you ask, the board evaluated the need for 3 gyms in the first design. Otherwise, why'd they go to bid with 3?
Apparently there wasn't a lot of analytical thinking going on in the first plan! Which also explains how we arrived in the zoning fiasco and legal battle with the municipality.
One has to ask, was the $24,000 in legal fees and the subsequent agreement to maintain the commissioners parking lot a mindless waste of money by the district?
I would think the smaller school would not have required the - what was the number of parking spaces they were short - 8!
This whole project really begins to look incredibly silly as you review it day-by-day and claim-by-claim!
Here's a question.
Since the building has changed does it once again need approval from the zoning commission?
How about fire codes?
Aren't non-operable windows a possible add/delete option?
I'm not aware that the Fire Code of Mt. Lebanon has ever been addressed. If it has been addressed past consideration of a lawsuit against the Municipality by the Board then the Board should post the minutes of the Facilities Committee meeting at which they were addressed.
John Ewing
Wow! I didn't expect this! Well, I guess I knew there were too many questions and not enough answers. I have decided to keep accepting anonymous questions for the school board, but will not have a poll to choose which ones to ask. I am going to send them all. I guess the poll question should be, "Do you think the SB will answer any of our questions?"
Elaine
I would ask the Board why they fear a referendum? A referendum is the most logical course of action for the Board to take. They should put a realistic sum before the voters – one that reflects the project that they really want – and then let the residents decide the issue. After all, the Board maintains that its critics do not represent the majority opinion in this community. Very well. If that's the case the Board should have nothing to fear. But I think there's another dynamic at work here: What if they win?
If the Board wins a referendum based on the project it really wants then it faces criticism not only from its opponents but from its supporters as well, who can correctly claim that the Board has wasted both time and money fooling around, trying to placate its critics. For a group of nine people with huge egos this might be worse than a loss!
But a referendum is only part of this Board's problems. Currently the Board is telling Mt. Lebanon residents the following: We have a new design that is better than our original design, which back in January was the absolutely necessary design. We knew that the bid-price of our original design would come in well below the referendum limit, but it did not. We know the community is behind us and that a few “Bloggers” do not represent the “voice” of the community as a whole. But we don't trust our own rhetoric on this issue because we actually believe that we would lose a referendum vote. Thus the Board is trying to maintain a contradiction – and a contradiction cannot exist - which does not bode well for its credibility.
This was emailed to me.
Information from District Bond Prospectus, recent Budget Forum, and Municipal Meeting comments:
$75,000,000 was borrowed by District in October 2009
$36,640,000 is going to be borrowed in a later year
$ 1,700,000 is in a Fund dedicated to removing Asbestos from the HS
$113, 340,000 Total is above the Act 34 spending total.
So tell me why we have:
$9,125,000 extra District dollars consisting of
$8,000,000 in the Capital Projects Fund, and
$ 600,000 in the Food Service Fund Balance, and
$ 615,000 in the Elementary School Bond Account?
Why wasn’t the $615,000 spent on Capital Projects since the Elementary Schools were finished?
Where did the $600,000 Fund Balance come from in the Food Service Fund Balance?
Where did the $8,000,000 come from in the District Capital Projects Fund?
How is the Total $9,125,000 going to be spent?
Why did the District need to negotiate a Building Inspection Fee reduction with the Municipality, behind closed doors, with $9,125,000 over the Act 34 amount?
Why does the District need a 20% discount on the Storm Water Fees with $9,125,000 extra in the bank?
Why would the District want the Municipality to finance turf on Mellon Field or a Baseball Field at McNeilly when the Municipality has a Structural Deficit and the District has $9,125,000 extra?
Why would the District ask for a discount High School Building Inspection Fees when the Municipality has a Structural Deficit and the District has $9,125,000 extra?
Why don’t the Commissioners suggest the District use the $9,125,000 to pay for the recreational needs of the Municipality with the $9,125,000 of extra District Funds instead of considering another Municipal bond issue?
Here is something that no one in the public has seemingly discovered or reported, and needs disclosure.
The school board reviewed and discussed/debated in a public meeting a 15 page document that contained a listing of a reported 197 potential cost saving items for the high school project. This 15 page document, dated 8/8/2011, is posted on the District website under the "High School Renovation" link. The items listed are each classified in 1 of 3 possible categories : "Accepted", "Pending" or "Rejected".
However, doing a count of each of the listed items on each page results in the following totals for the categories : Accepted = 215, Pending = 6 and Rejected = 63. In other words 215 + 6 + 63 = 284which is certainly not 197, the number that has been widely quoted and referred to by the District and public. The reality is that the District created and the school board in fact considered a list of 284 individual cost reduction possibilities, not just 197, less than 4 months after the round of embarassingly high bids were opened. And we were told repeatedly that the design had been thoroughly "value engineered" by the architect & CM in the preperation for the original bidding, and the Superintendent had stated repeatedly that everything in and associated with the design was absolutely necessary for the programatic needs for a 21 st. century education.
The simple reason for the higher number of actual items...a number of individual items are repeated with subcategories (eg. 83, 83a, 83b, etc.) In fact, item 83, the most glaring example, has a listing of from 83 to 83x...83 is comprised of 25 individual listings !
A question for the School board : how many of the 215 "Accepted" cost reduction possibilities in the 8/7/2011 listing are in fact incorporated in the final redesign about to go to bid, and which ones specifically (identified) are not ?
284, not 197? Math has never been my thing. Obviously, it isn't theirs either! Oh yeah. We are definitely in good hands.
Elaine
Another one emailed to me:
MYPlainview.com, Plainview, Texas, Sept. 28th, 2011 - PISD administrators break ground for high school renovation project - "The school board chose Amarillo-based Southwest General Contractors as the construction manager at risk for the high school renovation work. That means that they must present a guaranteed maximum price for the construction portion of the project, and if the final cost goes above that the district is not liable for the overrun, according to PISD Director of Finances Rusty Ingram."
Does Mt. Lebanon have that sort of guarantee?
Will the renovation include pickleball courts? What is Pickleball?
If not, how about pickleball courts at McNeilly Park?
Elaine:
There are some really great questions here and some astounding evidence and claims that demand answers from public servants that continually ask their constituents for trust!
I thinking though without clear and concise questions you will leave the board too much room to maneuver around the issues.
I don't know how or if its a task you wish to undertake, but I'm thinking 10 or 12 of the ones here would shed a lot of light on the project.
It doesn't have to be nasty, disagreeable or whatever they like to charge inquisitors with. Just straight forward questions and a polite request for straight forward responses.
For $113,000,000 thats not too much to ask. If it is they should step down as Mr. Diaz suggest.
If they are the people they claimed to be, interested in unselfishly serving the community, you'd think they jump at the chance to get out the facts.
We aren't the enemy, we're not going to hang 'em high if they messed up.
BUT, if they have or do while rejecting offers of help - we just might! (figuratively of course)
Can the board or the administration prove the high school will be successful because of the input and commitment of teachers and their representatives?
Anon 4:02, you do realize they read this blog, don't you?
Remember how a few commissioners stepped forward and answered questions here? In the land of rainbows and unicorns, it be perfect if they started answering the questions here. We could have a dialog!!!
Yes, I would imagine that they read your blog, but how many have ever engaged in a dialogue? Just a couple and very rarely.
I'd invite them to step up to the keyboard and then ask all participants to keep the "conversation" civil and to the point.
Then maybe we can come to an agreement without being "disagreeable."
Worth a shot!
By mistake, I hit delete instead of publish. The comment was about how the Board dislikes independent thinking.
Elaine
On 20 April 2010 I asked the Board the following three questions:
1. Since property taxes are calculated on the value of improved land (i.e., land and buildings upon it), but payments are funded by an individual's income, what percentage of a person's income would the board consider to be "enough?"
2. What programs will the board institute to help senior citizens, or disadvantaged citizens, pay increased school property taxes on their homes; given that, in many situations, these homes were purchased years ago and have appreciated in value to a point where the taxes upon them confiscate a large portion of the owner's income?
3. Would the board be willing to apply the [U.S. Supreme Court's] Kelo vs. New London ruling upon any citizen who cannot pay the increased property tax?
I was particularly interested to read what the members of the Board would say about the third question. I received exactly ONE reply – from James Fraasch, who wrote, “The easy answer to your third question is, ABSOLUTELY NOT! I am not in the business of confiscating private property from private citizens.” Note that Mr. Fraasch's reply is in the first person singular. My expectation was that I would get nine replies on this issue, all vehemently denying the possibility – or perhaps one from the Board president speaking for the entire Board. But only Mr. Fraasch was willing to answer.
One may think that confiscating private property and giving it to another private entity for “the greater, public good” is absurd and out of the question. It may be absurd, but it is definitely not out of the question.
Today would be a good day to walk up to Mellon and decide for yourself if it needs turf.
The importance of the the new/addition construction cost portion of the high school project at bid opening ? If that cost exceeds an amount set in and by the PlanCon process, the project would be subject to an electoral referendum !
Unless the public is very familiar with PlanCon instructions and forms, this referendum fact will escape public awareness because the District sure did not make it generally known (reference to it was made briefly in the minutes of a Master Design Team meeting).
There is a strong possibility that the new/addition construction cost portions inside the 6 April bids for total construction costs (excluding asbestos removal) that ranged from $102 - $123 million far exceeded the allowable limit for new/addition construction costs, which would have otherwise required an electoral referendum had the project proceeded. At that time, the new/addition square footage (sf) was about 51% of the total size of the 485,000 sf project, and new construction costs far exceeded renovation or "existing" costs per sf.
This tends to probably explain why most of the major cost reduction efforts have been directed at elements of the new/addition portion of the project....removal of an entire floor in the new G building, removal of the 2nd. Lower Level of the new Athletic Building and using the unfinished portion a large 1st. Lower Level area under the gyms instead, etc.,etc.
This explains why answers to the questions posed in comments 9/29/2011 @ 8:45 AM and 9/29/2011 @ 11:53 AM are very important.
Exceeding the $113 million total project cost limit is not the only cost-related referendum trigger.
The change by the board to multiple-prime contractors will complicate and make difficult a determination of just the new/addition construction costs being bid. There will now be 7 separate prime contacts and very likely multiple bidders on each one. It is unlikely that the District will voluntarily disclose bid results on new/addition costs unless the results are without question below the referendum limit. The sf of the new/addition portion of the diminished design is now only about 47% of the now 455,000 sf building.
As the 9/29/2011 @ 11:53 AM question poses, in view of all the design and specification changes, will PlanCon modify and lower the referendum trigger costs ? If not, why not ?
I'm thinking that its not a case of the board or the administration not liking independent thinking!
Rather they feel they know best, are smarter than all their constituents and are above reproach.
Exemplified by Mrs. Posti's response to Tom Moertel's request for a simple paper on what the second building design encompasses before it goes to bid.
Her response basically, its all out there-- look it up!
My suspicion is they really don't know themselves all of the ins and outs and therefore can't tell us.
Some late breaking questions for at least two incumbent school directors.
From their campaign literature:
"Our goals:
Focus on student achievement, effective teaching, and constituent satisfaction. [HOW AND DIDN'T SATISFACTION FALL LATELY?]
Manage the district's finances responsibly. [LIKE YOU HAVE BEEN?]
Move our district forward with a new Strategic Plan. [WANT TO LET US IN ON THE PLAN OR IS IT A SECRET?]
Position our district to be a leader in 21st-century education. [LEBO'S NO LONGER #1-HOW COME?]
Just got back from driving up to Erie for the day. I had a lot of time to think about how I was going to word the questions that you all asked the school board. As one commenter said that it didn't have to be nasty or disagreeable, so I wanted to mindful of that. That got me thinking about the recent forum about disagreeing without being disagreeable. I got truly involved with the renovation project when almost FOUR THOUSAND people disagreed without being disagreeable. I was trying to speak at the podium but was interrupted by Kristen Linfante, who was being disagreeable. Ed Kubit was disagreeable towards me when he hit the gavel while Kristen was interrupting me. Sue Rose was being disagreeable when Mr. Bies, the nicest man in Mt. Lebanon wanted one more minute and she wouldn't let him finish his thought. I thought about how many of us were humiliated by school board directors when we tried to disagree without being disagreeable. I thought about the nasty letters to the editor by school board directors who were disagreeable when experts in their fields disagreed. I thought about those who wanted James Fraasch censured because he disagreed. I thought about the VOICE people who were nasty and called us fear mongers. I thought about how Elaine LaBalme and Kristen Linfante were so disagreeable when we disagreed with them on Real Lebo. I thought about all the emails to the school board that went unanswered. I thought about how less than 15% of the votes on the latest poll here approved of the school board members. Then I came home and had campaign literature in my door from two of the incumbent directors with one of them being a major player of this fiasco. I approved today's comments including one from an athletic supporter (Reese? Franklin?) and was reminded of David Reese's emails and Franklin's nasty comments towards me and thought I had to be mindful???? Then there were Gardner's cheap shots. I hope all these people learned something from that forum. If the board had the least bit of interest in answering these questions, they would have jumped in and started responding. I will still pose the questions, but does anyone honestly think we will get answers?
We won't get answers to these questions and anyone who has paid any attention to this process knows the tactics are those of Alinsky.
Soon we will ask for community volunteers to serve on the Strategic Plan Committee. Anyone who volunteers to serve this Committee either has a personal agenda, represents a special interest group, or is a damn fool!
Post a Comment