Change Orders for High School Renovation Project – The list of change orders for the month of August totals $74,761 from the contingency fund, $42,847 from the Capital Fund and $27,846 from soft costs. The recommended change orders are as follows:
a. GC-104-239 to Nello for $56,811 for modifications to stairs, bathrooms, ceilings, ducts, posts, doors and floors,
b. EL-64-240 to Farfield for $10,654 for power to fans, building circuits, elevator work, plaster and fiber optic lines,
c. ME-26-241 to McKamish for $7,296 for HVAC and duct work,
d. IN-03-05 to Nello for $3,311 to repair broken glass windows,
e. IN-04-06 to Vrabel for $2,172 is to repair toilet fixtures,
f. IN-05-07 to Farfield for $4,005 to repair lights and power,
g. IN-06-08 to McKaqmish for $3,539 to repair leaks and water heater controls,
h. PL-33-242 to Vrabel for $29,820 to modify railing at pool, and
i. EL-65-243 to Farfield for $27,846 to add power for computers in Library.
The superintendent recommends approval of these change orders.
Way to go, MTLSD. You are now breaking this down into three funds. Which goes to which? The only one I can figure out is soft costs for Item i. Do I start a new total for soft costs?
Lots of REPAIR WORK for a new building,
ReplyDelete$27,846 for power for computers in the library??????
ReplyDeleteWeren't we told they were building a 21st century school? What were they going to use to power the library's computers before this change order... snake oil?
They don't care what we think or what would be the best solution that would take time to properly research. They will just spend into oblivion because they were elected, and they can.
ReplyDeleteBe sure to vote next time.
1:43, people should be informed to do a little research before casting a vote.
ReplyDeleteNothing worse than a vote for a familar name or a cheap shot, sound byte.
4:37 is right on about repairs. Were there any natural disasters or vandalism incidents to prompt these repairs? If not, what about warranties? Who knows if any general funds are also being used to help defray construction costs? What about costs to to remodel and repurpose the old stadium field house? What about the costs including staff labor expended at Hoover to house guidance department workers who previously worked out of the HS? At this point "what difference does it make"?
ReplyDeleteThe old stadium fieldhouse is a preexisting, nonconforming structure and use according to the Mt. Lebanon Zoning Ordinance. It is sited entirely within required 75 foot back yard of the high school. It is "grandfathered" as an athletic field house, but cannot be transformed into another use. Otherwise, it violates the Zoning Ordinance and there is evidence to show the district was/is aware, intending to proceed anyway. A building permit should apply here and the muni should challenge the project and require a Zoning Hearing Board hearing.
ReplyDeleteThe District quietly decided in planning the high school project to remodel and convert the structure into offices and storage for facilities management personnel, not include it in the official high school project and use staff labor for the remodel (PA law forbids use of District labor exceeding $5,000 for such work !).
Master Design Team (MDT) meeting minutes obtained in a RTK reveal this scheme, as does the construction two years ago of an 8-space parking lot inside the stadium entrance quietly intended for eventual maintenance personnel parking. This was occurring because the high school project eliminated the facilities management offices in the school buildings complex.
This project and intent was also proposed and the school board approved in a board meeting months ago along with a laundry list of other projects.
Thank you for that information, 9:29 AM. I remember something about MTLSD having to provide parking for UPMC in that area, as well.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, the municipality will look the other way so that they can get their Middle and Wildcat artificial turf maintained by the school district.
You have exposed more corruption, but they do it because they can. No one challenges anything around here. The commission appointed board members are afraid of their own shadows and when they do speak up, are ignored. The staff liaisons feed the boards a bunch of nonsense saying that things don't apply like our planner did with the Planning Board over the turf.
Bottom line, our commission needs MTLSD for the Turf Maintenance Agreement and will not challenge anything with MTLSD.
Elaine
10:45 am. Speaking of challenges, did you notice that executive session next week includes discussion of "legal issues"?
ReplyDelete9:29 Thank you. I wish you were the superintendent because its clear you understand ethics and the law.
ReplyDeleteElaine - the UPMC reference deserves more exposure and daylight !
ReplyDeleteThe District was in discussions and negotiations back in 2010/11 with UPMC about medical coverage for athletic programs and rehab for sports injuries. UPMC was proposing that UPMC have a sports medicine facility in the District, preferably at the high school. The high school project had not provided for such a facility in the plans or budget; however, there was a 12,000 square foot unfinished area not designated or deemed suitable for use in a lower level of the new athletic building that the District schemers secretly proposed could in fact be finished and used by UPMC as a business serving the public. Some local critics caught wind of this, called it the "hidden bunker" and went public with it to expose and embarrass the schemers.
That scheme did not go forward, but the District did, I believe, sign a three year contract with UPMC for athletic-related medical services. Included in that contract is the provision that UPMC can erect or install UPMC advertising banners on District buildings and property. Of course, such banners are not permitted per the muni Zoning Ordinance. The District did not seek a Zoning variance prior to or following the signing of the contract with UMPC.
1:41 PM, I have the five year contract posted on my website, http://www.lebocitizens.com/Lebo_Citizens/The_Facts.html
ReplyDeleteOn that same page, I have the Master Design Team meeting minutes which you referenced.
Going down the page, you will also find the ordinance for the stormwater fee.
Pretty much anything you are looking for is on that page.
Elaine
Elaine, I believe that PA Act 53 (PA Municipal's Planning Code) indicates that all Capitol Improvement Projects that apply to land use, including municipal parks, are to be maintained by the municipality only. I would think that any contract with the school district for turf maintenance would violate the Code, meaning that it is illegal.
ReplyDelete4:05 PM - the PA MPC is a 95 page document in legalize. Please cite the MPC Article number and Section number(s) that confirm your belief.
ReplyDeleteThe MPC is a lot longer than 95 pages.
ReplyDeleteOn 29 July 2014, I received a PDF document from the MLSD of a complete list of change orders to date; i.e., the end of July. This document listed the following:
ReplyDelete7/21/14 GC-103-235 Nello Masonry, doors, steel,beams, window blocking, fire rating, building dimensional discrepency (sic), stairs, handrails, cooling towers, and slab changes, $152,400.00.
The original amount of this CO had been listed on the District's website as $158,947; however, during the combined construction update/discussion session/business meeting of the school board on 21 July 2014 it was announced that Nello had reduced this particular CO to $136,954. This amount was subsequently approved by the board. I wrote to Ms. Jan Klein and asked for an explanation. Ms. Klein responded on 4 August 2014 saying, in part, that what I had received was "..an early draft of NEXT month’s report which had not been updated with the final revised change orders from July." Ms. Klein averred that the discounted figure of $136,954 is correct and will appear on the revised report, which she says will be sent to me. She did not explain where the $152,400 came from.
In addition, the CO shown on this Blog as #240, $34,531, was stated as being "7/21/14 PL-32-236 Vrabel storm and sanitary changes and credits for drains and piping 34,631.00" on the document I received from the District. During the construction update it was the $34,631 figure that was announced and subsequently approved. Therefore, through the end of July, 2014, $3,637,394.57 of the $4,276,000.00 contingency fund has been spent, or 85% of the fund.
It has already been proven beyond doubt that the current rate of expenditure will exhaust the contingency fund well before the end of the project. The District is left with few sustainable choices, and a referendum is out of the question for the District, thus the money shuffle we see now.
Why is a referendum out of the question? Is it because the School Boards knows the outcome? We are still trying to get a former School Board member to tell the truth about the project and how "they" lied to avoid the project going to a vote.
ReplyDeleteRG, I updated #240 to read $34,631. I pull these numbers right off the agendas. I see that numbers are changed and the public is never notified. Now, I have to wait until they read the change orders at the meeting. This is what I have to do with the August change orders since they have not clarified which items are going into the second account (capital projects) and now the third account (soft costs.)
ReplyDeleteSo Klein says that there are draft copies now and revised change orders from the month before???? Can we make it any more confusing, Jan?
Elaine
The referendum that conceivably could be required applies only to the cost of the NEW portion of the overall project, not the renovated portion or even the Act 34 total cost of $113 million. The ACT 34 (PLANCON) maximum NEW construction cost is about $48 million of the now alleged $109 million project. Anything above that is supposed to require an electoral referendum.
ReplyDeleteFew remember that when the initial construction cost bids on the project came in at a range of $102 million to $122 million v. a budget allowance of $86 million, there was near panic in the District. They immediately went about a major redesign and cost reduction blitz. Out of nowhere came a 197 item delete alternative candidate list for a revised project.
No one seems to remember that Dr. Timmy, under sworn oath in the prior Zoning hearing, testified that "everything in the (original) design was absolutely necessary in order to provide a 21st. century programatic education for the children". Yet they incorporated enough of the 197 delete alternates to bring the cost down to close to the target in the subsequent bidding. Included was the elimination of 30,000 square feet of NEW construction !
With all the CO's and project problems, some not yet revealed, we could be on a track where the NEW costs will exceed the allowable limit. Issue here is, who's keeping track and going to blow the whistle ? District, Celli, Nello, PDE/PLANCON ? Don't count on it !
EG:
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry to say that there is not much choice but to take the change order amounts from the agendas as they are published, note them as "subject to change," and then wait to see what actually gets approved; and out of what fund they will be paid.
As I mentioned in my previous post, there is no way the contingency fund can survive the current rate of expenditure. I also ruled out a referendum as a way of getting more money to pay for this foolish project. Somebody wanted to know why I thought it "out of the question." I'm sure it's a rhetorical question, but I'll play along: The reason is that the MLSD cannot admit to an error. To go to a referendum is an admission of poor planning, and an invitation for public (and state) scrutiny that would go well beyond what the District is experiencing now from a few disgruntled but persistent residents. In addition, a referendum would likely bring out large numbers of the heretofore "silent majority" of voters who usually stay home; not to mention the "newcomers," who are already feeling the warm and fuzzy way Mt. Lebanon greets new homeowners. Despite the few public education sycophants that show up for school board meetings, the District has no way of knowing how such a vote would be received by the public at large, and they just can't afford to take a chance.
6:10 PM, don't count on PJ Dick either.
ReplyDeleteRemember how we could never get a straight answer from Jan/Timmy on the YSA's contributions to the Joint Maintenance Agreement? Ask the question three times and you would get three different answers.
Don't forget the double counting that Bill Matthews uncovered.
The district can't even keep track of change orders. Draft copies, variances in amounts, revisions, moving money from here to there and then somewhere else - keeps us all guessing. No one is keeping track. I'm doing my best, but they keep changing things. Richard Gideon has our numbers and their numbers! God bless him!
Elaine
You can rest assured that our resident state representatives won't sic the PA Dept. Of Education, or the Audit General on the school district.
ReplyDeleteOne would hope the Governor's office would be watching that the school district is playing by the construction/PlanCon rules, since the school district and certain muni commissioners keep saying he sucks.
But he won't.
There was a public school federal fraud hot line established a few years ago to report possible budgetary, accounting, financial and related fraudulent practices. A Lebo taxpayer called the hotline number, responded to an answering machine (no human) requirement for name, phone number, description of fraud allegation, school district, etc. and was told someone would call back. The next day there was a callback from an FBI agent, who after obtaining further and more specific information and details about the MTLSD fraud allegation, politely and indirectly advised the local taxpayer that the monetary amount of money involved did not justify the establishment of a formal federal investigation and possible prosecution.
ReplyDeleteSo, the fed's are of no help either.
I, for one, am not suggesting that the MLSD is engaged in fraud. I am suggesting that in order to keep the high school project on course and avoid a referendum the District will likely be shuffling money around in such a manor as to cover the contingency expenses of the project, with the consequence of making it very difficult for the public to see where their tax dollars have gone, and thus diminishing transparency. I also suggest that transparency is not something that has a high priority at the MLSD. The irony is that if the District was open with its accounting, providing better explanations for why some items that appear on one list suddenly find themselves removed to another, even critics of the renovation project would have to admit that the whereabouts of all of the dollars are known. As it is the fact that the District seems irritated when residents ask for an explanation of where their money has gone, and offer only the barest of answers to such questions, is what gives the District the appearance of impropriety, even if it is not justified.
ReplyDelete7:44 If you email the Dept of Education, expect them to write back and include Steinhauer in the email. Then Steinhauer will become very aggressive and shock both you and the Dept of Educaiton representative. I wouldn't go the normal email route with any of your questions.
ReplyDeleteConstruction is a major source of fraud in Pennsylvania and is up there among the worst in our country, per a recent study. Maybe the contractors warrant more attention... (and their associates, of course).
ReplyDeleteIf vandalism is the cause of the shattered windows, destroyed toilet hardware, and whatever else, shouldn't insurance cover those costs? Or is vandalism a "natural cause" here in Mt Lebanon?
ReplyDeleteThat's disturbing, 11:46 PM. The PDE rep can't do anything about it and parents have no recourse? Can they notify the school board? Oh wait, I just realized how stupid that sounded. Timmy should be getting his whopper of a raise soon.
ReplyDeleteElaine
Mr. Gideon, I respectfully agree to disagree with you about the shenanigans going on in ML. it is quite apparent to me that there are substantial State Ethics violations both with Commissioners (some who are attorneys subject to investigation by the American Bar Association), municipal and school administrators aand employees, and specific individuals associated with the various sports teams involved. One would think that the State Attorney General's Office could be notified and request an investigation of such behavior of all of these people. There's way too much lying going on and I really believe there are 2 sets of financial books being maintained. One set for the public and the other set for deceiving the public for individuals hidden agendas.
ReplyDeleteThen take action, 12:43 AM.
ReplyDeleteElaine
Elaine, you say that nobody challenges anything. You're right but it mighy be based on ignorance. Every resident had standing if the school board is going to willfully try to circumvent zoning regulations. I would encourage residents to push back.
ReplyDeleteNot true, 7:56 AM. Zoning challenges must be by residents with standing; neighbors of the high school.
ReplyDeleteElaine
One can have standing granted by a judge.
DeleteI agree with you regarding 12:43. If they are certain that violations are being made, put then in a letter to the AG.
ReplyDeleteOn challenges to zoning violations, how close must a challenger live to the high school? Would Cedar residents be included for instance since HS parking extends down to there for graduation and football/baseball and now after turfing HS lacrosse and soccer games?
I don't know who August 11, 2014 at 12:43 AM is, and I never engage anonymous posters in a "one on one" conversation, but that poster likely was responding to mine of August 10, 2014 at 10:23 PM. With that in mind I would suggest that there is a world of difference between ethics violations, as the poster puts it, and fraud. The prevention of fraud is one of those few functions that even we libertarians consign to government. However, fraud must be proven, and the payment of certain high school construction activities out of accounts other than the contingency fund is not in and of itself fraud. Now one may be irritated about such activity - and rightly so, I might add - because it makes it hard to keep track of who is paying for what, and it's a great way of proclaiming that the contingency fund was not exhausted at the end of the project; but my opinion is that what the District is doing is simply obfuscating the issue of construction payments, not engaging in fraud. Those people are too smart to engage in fraudulent activity for the simple reason that people who commit fraud go to jail, while people who simply are unethical or play "whack-a-mole" with construction payments do not.
ReplyDeleteThis is not to say that fraud is impossible at the District; but if there is one needs concrete proof of it. If anyone has concrete proof of District fraud then I can assure you that there are several public interest law organizations, such as the Institute for Justice, that will be more than happy to pursue a suit.
I would also add that it is not surprising to me that both our Commission and District behave poorly. Their role model is the federal executive, who has demonstrated an Orwellian tendency to call secrecy "transparency," lies the "truth," and mass disregard of civil liberties "privacy." Don't take this as a reverse endorsement of the Republicans - they are no better, particularly in Mt. Lebanon.
Richard do you think the School Board would "allow" an outside audit to occur? Not on your life! What is there to hide... Seems a whole lot! What about the new indooor lacrosse field. Will that go to a vote or do taxpayer have to suck that up too? What about the new teacher's union contract? Will taxpayers get stuck with a longterm "No Fire/No Layoff" deal with a declining school population? Are our classrooms to be filled with illegals? The School Board changed the rules on that.
ReplyDeleteRG - consider a widely accepted legal definition of fraud and then consider whether it might very well apply to some of the District and Muni shenanigans exposed on this blog : "fraud, a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain or advantage"- Blacks Law Dictionary
ReplyDeleteWith respect to the change orders for August, it was stated at last night's discussion session that the following "change orders" were being submitted as insurance claims (thus the IN designations):
ReplyDeleted. IN-03-05 to Nello for $3,311 to repair broken glass windows,
e. IN-04-06 to Vrabel for $2,172 is to repair toilet fixtures,
f. IN-05-07 to Farfield for $4,005 to repair lights and power,
g. IN-06-08 to McKaqmish for $3,539 to repair leaks and water heater controls
It was also stated that it was not know at this time how much, or if any, of these amounts would be reimbursed by the District's insurance company. (I thought it interesting that one of these repairs, IN-03-05, was due to vandalism.)
I was pleased to hear the explanation concerning the accounting of these "insurance claims." It is reasonable to show them as expenses now for the simple reason that the people who did the work - the contractors working on the high school renovation - deserve to be paid for the work they performed. Since these repairs came out of the Capital Fund it is logical to assume any possible insurance reimbursement will be credited to that fund. Stay tuned.
Hate to burst your bubble 3:47 but wholesale costs for those cheap Chromebooks is MUCH less than $179.99. Hate to see the costs for repairs/replacement in just year one. But since taxpayers are loaded with cash lets provide each and every student with an iPad Air and an i7 laptop every year. Maybe we should add a pair of Air Jordan's too!
ReplyDelete5:05, you miss the point, but I'll play along.
ReplyDeleteBestBuy online shows Chromebooks starting with the acer at $179 and going up from there.
I don't know what Bethel bought but perhaps you can offer them your wholesale price.
It does seem though our commissioners and directors believe taxpayers are loaded with cash since they're buying bridges, artificial turf, trophy cases and paying for the super to lunch with the kiddies at around a $150/hr salary.
Yep, it is all for the kids.
How much is that student parking fee again? Increased fieldsports fees? Activity fees? Stormwater fees? PAYT fees?
Seems the point is Bethel built a new high school for tens of millions less and are moving ahead with technology integration ahead of Mount Lebanon.
ReplyDeleteBingo 9:01.
ReplyDeleteIf our school district is such a guarantee that buying property here is such a sound investment why did Jan Klein high-tail it outta here?
ReplyDeleteDo you know that Collier Township hasn't raised the millage in years because 40% of their land is undeveloped? Think about where families and singles are moving. Did Jan move into Collier?
ReplyDeleteThey like to point out that our schools are why people move here.
ReplyDeleteJan Klein does the bookkeeping for the schools and got her keister the hell out of here. What does that tell you?
Probably a more appropriate spot for this comment than under "How low can we go"...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thealmanac.net/article/20140818/NEWS/140819966
"The $109 million in renovations finishing up this year are part of a “right-sizing” project that frees up new classroom space while centralizing arts and science in the school. The four-year project, district spokesperson Cissy Bowman said, has reduced space from 550 thousand square feet to 454 thousand. Some renovations from the project started in 2010 were open for use in 2013, like the pool and the main and auxiliary gymnasiums. Over 110 classrooms have been upgraded, renovated or retained as part of the project."
Hey Cissy, tell the district's taxpayer about the millage reduction they'll be getting since the project is coming in under the $113 million cap! Hahahahaha!!!
Not true that the completion and the $109 million are mutually 'inclusive,' is it Madame PR Director?
Remember taxpayer, this on time, on budget $109 million renovation is the same one that then SB President Kubit said would likely be completed for under $100 million.
ReplyDeleteBy the way - we'll be lucky if it stays under the $113.4 million cap that will trigger a referendum.