Lebo Citizens reader and Mt. Lebanon resident, Richard Gideon has been following the change orders for quite some time now; keeping spreadsheets, corresponding with Jan Klein, and filing Right To Knows, when necessary. Below is Mr. Gideon's Letter to the Editor concerning the High School Contingency Fund.
As of the end of October, 2014, the high school reconstruction contingency fund was 90.1% depleted. Here are the numbers:
Change Order (CO) Total: $3,852,473.57
Change Order Average: $15,724.38*
Median CO: $9,797.00
Number of CO's: 245
*Including refunds
Contingency fund beginning balance: $4,276,000.00
Current Balance (October): $423,526.43
Change orders must be vetted and approved, then voted upon by the school board before they are paid. Therefore, an official accounting by the Mt. Lebanon School District is not available to the public until the month following board approval. Because the district has shifted payment of various CO's out of the contingency fund and into the Capital Projects fund I wait to request the change order listing until after the business meeting vote. More on that in a moment. However, based on the numbers announced by the district, here are the projected totals for November:
Projected CO's (November): $127,994.00
Projected total: $3,980,467.57
Projected Contingency Balance: $295,532.43
Projected used: 93.09%
The MLSD is currently spending its contingency fund at the rate of $132,843.92/month. Should this rate of expense continue the district will run out of money by February, 2015. I should point out that at the construction update on 10 November 2014, Mr. Berkebile stated that the project was "..34 months out of a 41 month project." He also stated that the project is slated to be completed "..by the end of next year." This throws some understandable confusion into the numbers. My estimation, based on the rate of expenditure from confirmed October figures, is that the district will be short approximately $630,000, if the project ends by June, 2015. However, if the project goes to the end of 2015 then all bets are off. (If you have not heard the last construction update I highly recommend it; especially the 25 minute mark onward.)
When I requested the October, 2014 contingency fund listing and reconciled it with my own spreadsheet I found a discrepancy of $810. After combing through the numbers I found the difference was due to a contradiction in a change order for Farfield Electric that occurred back in June, 2013. The original figure was $28,907, but the October, 2014 CO PDF showed that figure to be $28,097. At first I thought that the original figure must have been wrong or entered incorrectly back in 2013. But after a couple of messages to Jan Klein it turns out the number was reported incorrectly on the October, 2014 PDF. Ms. Klein told me the figure would be changed back to the original amount in the December report. Therefore the numbers shown above, as of the end of October, are correct. On this Blog the running total extends though November, and is eight cents higher than the projected figures shown above due to an original figure, early in the project, that had not been rounded.
Richard Gideon
22 comments:
Thank you RG and Elaine for making this all available to the public. The District certainly would not unless it was mandated by law; and, even then the PDE would create a waiver for districts for some trumped up reason to circumvent the law. After all, the stated mission of the PDE is to facilitate the plans of the public school districts.
The $1,132,168 ($1,152,160) that has been reclassified from the High School Project to High School Capital Projects is a gross misrepresentation, an intentional deception. The District will go to any lengths to avoid going over a budget limit. This project is actually exceeding its budget right now, with 12 months yet to go !
Thank you Richard for this information, I'm sure this takes a great deal of time to dissect.
Question: Who specifically participates in the vetting and approval process?
Nick M.
So when Philadelphia doesn't have the money to pay their teachers, the schools don't open on time.
What is going to happen when MTLSD runs out of money to pay the contractors? It's not like the state can justify giving them a lot of extra money given the new lawsuit against the state by several rural, poor communities that highlights unequal distribution of state education funding.
Nick M.
As I understand it, the contractors send their CO's to Mr. Berkebile, where he and members of the administration look them over. There may be some negotiation with a contractor, especially if the bill is high or questionable. If everything passes muster Dr. Steinhauer signs off on them. They are presented to the school board during the construction update, and brought up during the board's discussion session. At the subsequent business meeting the board votes to pay them. Someone from the district may want to describe the process in more detail, but that's how I understand it. Interestingly, between the discussion session and the business meeting it is entirely possible for a change order to shift to another fund, be changed in value, or disappear entirely, only to come back at a later time; it's happened before.
For the record, a similar question to Nick M's was asked at the last construction update. Mr. Berkebile gave a good rundown on how things work.
Of the construction updates, discussion sessions, and business meetings, the construction updates are the best. You get more information in less time, and all involved are more likely to show their "true colors."
The high school project will come in one or two percent over contingency and basically on time. The current municipal staff must be envious. Their projects come in 20 or 30% over budget and late. Assuming, of course, they even come in at all.
Ouch! Low blow, 11:05 PM. So funny, but so true! I enjoyed that one.
Elaine
I listened to the construction update meeting and it sounds certain they are going to not only blow through the contingency monies, but go way over, especially with a year left for the project. And the rifle range is a completely different project.
Nick M.
I agree 11:05, contingency money for the turf project is $89,070 and the first change order is already $86,694.
Nick M.
How hard will it be to get the info on the capital projects that were actually supposed to be part of the original construction project?
It seems to me that Kubit and Remely have most egg on their faces.
Dan, if you want a project to come in less than $90 million how in the world could you vote to authorize funds up to $113 million? The fact that Ed simply followed along with your advice is sickening. Your buddy Silhol trusted you, too.
Plus, didn't Dan run on the promise of keeping these change orders under control. Geez, just think if he wasn't up there, change orders might bring this thing up to $200 million.
So when the contingency money is gone and the projects arent finished, then what? Are the winners on the school board and commission going to start raiding other fund balances? The stench of corruption and sleaze is overwhelming. Lie to the entire community, push through pet projects for a tiny little group of your friends, put the cost burden on the backs of the majority of the community, run out of money and just keep on spending.
I expect that kind of selfish and shortsighted approach from the Dems. That's what they do. But for the Repubs to follow suit is shameful and disgusting. The entire local R committee is inept and should step aside to let real leaders take over. I'm so tired of watching bozos like Brummy and Pooch get away with things.
Now if the School Board would have only built a BILLION dollar high school we would have perfect SAT scores, teachers earning a million a year, and people would be fighting on the streets to purchase a $100,000 house for $1,500,000. We'd have plastic grass fields on each block. And four (4) BMWs in each driveway! Who cares about how the bills will be paid for! That's just too damn hard for the "stupid" taxpayers to grasp. That's what our elected ones do... They make those hard decisions. So after the union tells them they will tell us.
Brummie is a DEMOCRAT that is VERY much into the socialist agenda. He's about as far left as you can go. He's turned heads with some of his beliefs. He would, and has lied, stolen and used people to further his wants. Look at the Parking Ticket mess. That just faded into the sunset. Look at the Parking Authority mess. Look at the toxic turf and WHY Mt Lebanon had to have those fields turfed. Look at his bullying!
9:02 AM, "Brummie" is with the municipality. This thread is about the school district.
Elaine
Sorry Elaine responding to 7:53. And hate to break it to you but Dave's wife talks about running for School Board. Mt Lebanon's own "Clinton" family. What can go wrong? Hey... Either way Have a Happy Holiday!
Whether the project comes in "one or two percent over contingency and basically on time," as someone has suggested, remains to be seen. The project was supposed to be over by June, 2015, but in the last construction update Mr. Berkebile said the project would "complete by the end of next year." (Construction update, 11:35). He also stated the following: Constructions costs through the end of October come to $77,955,000* (85% of "construction costs"); with soft-costs added the figure is $92,919,000 (also 85%). We are 34 months along in a 41 month project. In terms of time, the project is 83% complete. (Construction update, 14:54 to 15:35) If you believe that the project will end by June of 2015, and you assume a 2% overrun, then the rate of expenditure must drop to $49,000 per month. If you take Mr. Berkebile at his word that the project will complete by the "end of next year," and you believe that some contingency money will be necessary for that to happen, then the rate of expenditure must drop to $25,000 per month.
*All figures to the nearest thousand
The fact is that the district cannot continue to spend its contingency fund at the current rate and not exhaust it. The math does not lie.
Now, the following is just my OPINION:
1. Will the project come in on budget? No.
2. Will the district go to the taxpayers and ask for more money (a referendum)? No.
3. Will the district find a way to pay for everything out of various accounts? Yes.
4. Will property taxes go up next year? Yes.
5. Will the project come in on time? I guess that depends upon what your definition of "time" is (thanks, Bill!).
When judging the high school project, let us not forget that the public is not only paying more but also getting less. When the school board mailed to the community its FAQs document claiming that the project’s estimated maximum cost of $113 million “does not take into account that bids on recent school construction projects came in at 17% to 25% below their original estimates,” when Dan Remely reassured the public that “$95 million or less” was an achievable target, and when Kristen Linfante claimed that, according to her information, “about $90 million” was what what the public could likely expect, they were all talking about the original plan for the project, not the cost-cut version of the project that the public is getting today. If you examine both what the public is paying and what the public is not getting, the difference between the sales pitch and the reality of the project is massive – over $20 million all told, perhaps as high as $30 million.
Nick M,
Lebo has a rifle range? Why doesn't MtLebanon have our schools in gun-free zones?
The school district gun policy is interesting. Notice that school board members were exempt from the policy when it was last revised..
It's no secret that many attorney's carry concealed weapons - and you'd better believe that Mt Lebanon attorney's are very heavily armed!
I've often wondered how many of our board members have a firearm while seated in front of the room during a public meeting?
Is this what we want as a community? A school board so adversarial that they need to arm themselves from the residents?
Hi John,
Check this out:
http://tinyurl.com/mg2y3yp
Nick
Thanks to Tom Moertel's excellent comment at 1:30 PM, I noticed an irregularity with the Kubit FAQ link that Tom provided.
The School District website shows this response:
"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 10 years. The Pennsylvania Department of Education prepares enrollment projections for 10 years.
BEC 24 P.S. § 7-733, "School Construction Reimbursement Criteria," contains the following requirements for reimbursable school construction projects:
d. 20-YEAR RULE - Buildings may only qualify for school construction reimbursement every twenty years at a minimum unless a variance is requested and approved. To determine the applicability of the "20-year" rule on a project building, calculate the number of years from the bid opening date of the previous reimbursable project to the bid opening date of the planned project."
But the original Kubit FAQ are listed, of all places, here.
"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."
Bill Matthews had questioned the 20 year enrollment projections. As a result, the school district quietly edited Kubit's FAQ. What they have posted on their website is a different version than what was originally mailed to residents.
Thank you, Tom, for clearing this up for me.
Elaine
Elaine, it's sometimes referred to as "sanitizing the records", a common practice in government management, a/k/a manglement. Includes secret destruction of incriminating records as well as changing content by "wordsmithing", back-dating and post-dating of retained records.
There's nothing to worry about now since Wolf is the next Governor. He just added the a$$wipe (Ed Spendall) that spent PA into bankruptcy so what would possibly go wrong. Teachers will get massive pay increases. Businesses will leave the State. Kids will continue to fail. And for all this the State will steal even more money. Wolf asks the Republicans to increase the State's Income Tax rate to fund education.
I've seen all the 10-year enrollment projections since the construction in the 70's. None of the 10 year estimates have been accurate.
We used to have three estimates of enrollment, a Consultant, the District and the PA Department of Education. The accuracy of the estimates were (1) the Consultant, (2) the District, and (3) the least accurate was the Department of Education.
We know this was true because the District published all three estimates for the public to see UNTIL the public figured out the Consultant was the most accurate. That was the end of the Consultant. We haven't seen his estimates for years.
Now we publish a District adjusted Department of Education estimate so we are now using the two least accurate enrollment estimates and adjusting the figures to suit the District.
As far as questioning the 20-year projection, Mr Matthews is right. Most kids graduate at 18 so you have no Live Birth figures to calculate a 20 year projection. Then there is the guessing of
in-migration and out-migration that also distorts the 10-year projections.
Looking at the enrollment figures past five to six years out are a waste of time and energy because you don't know the birth rates and the in-migration, out-migration numbers to any degree of accuracy to make a longer prediction.
John Ewing
Post a Comment