Here are the official figures concerning change orders for the high school reconstruction project through the end of December, 2014:
Total spent: $4,028,968.57
Average Change Order (includes refunds): $15,924.78
Median Change Order (includes refunds): $9,797.00
Beginning Contingency: $4,276,000.00
Balance (31 Dec 2014): $247,031.43
% used (31 Dec 2014): 94.22%
The total spent thus far reflects another, rather irritating, situation. A couple of months ago I noticed that a change order in favor of Farfield Electric going back to July of 2013 (7/15/13 EL-37-133 Farfield, Light fixture changes in both interior & exterior locations due to code, 28,907.00) had been changed from $28,907 to $28,097, resulting in an $810.00 discrepancy in my spreadsheet. I wrote to Mrs. Klein asking her to verify which one of the two figures is correct. Mrs. Klein replied saying, "We checked our records and found it was in fact a typographical error which we have corrected for December’s report." And here is where we have a problem; Mrs. Klein did not confirm a figure, she just said "...it was in fact a typographical error..". What does "it" refer to?; the $28,907 figure or $28,097. I assumed it was the $28,097 amount (and wrote about it on this Blog), but after listening to the podcast of the School Board meeting in December it became clear that Mrs. Klein was referring to the original $28,907 figure. This was confirmed when I received, yesterday, the latest Change Order PDF accounting through December, 2014, which listed $28,097. Here is the exact line from that document:
7/15/13 EL‐37‐133 Farfield Light fixture changes in both interior & exterior locations due to code requirements, maintenance issues & fire department review. 28,097.00
To be perfectly fair to Mrs. Klein, perhaps I should have worded my message differently (and not assumed!); but in fairness to me, I did ask for verification of which one of the two figures was correct, and instead of a number I got a pronoun. A subsequent message to Mrs. Klein about the issue was not answered.
One interesting note is that the December change orders totaled "only" $49,311.00; the lowest monthly total since July, 2013, when a series of refund adjustments resulted in a negative CO balance for that month of -$29,292! Even so, the average monthly total for change orders since the project began is now $129,966.73*. In theory, the average monthly CO total, given a starting account value of $4,276,000 spread over 41 months (the project "life"), cannot exceed $104.292.68.
I have predicted that the District will run out of money before the project is completed, based on its rate of expenditure, and I'll stick to that prediction. However, it will be quite interesting to see what the District proposes to do to stop this "money bleed."
Richard Gideon
-------------------
*In the interest of disclosure, there have been a total of 31 monthly periods of change orders since the project began, totaling $4,028,968.57, resulting in an average of $129,966.73/month.
11 comments:
The District proposes to litigate, Mr. Gideon.
Do not forget that the board decided In order to get the original project bid down to accept full responsibility for any unknowns uncovered when they tear down bldg. C.
This could run into big money very easily.
Mr. Gideon,
I, for one, very much appreciate your efforts.
We would never get this kind of transparency fro the District or the Board otherwise.
http://www.thealmanac.net/article/20150113/NEWS/150119988
Forgive me for asking an off topic and perhaps stupid question.
The Almanac reports: "The Mt. Lebanon school board will vote on a preliminary budget at its Jan. 19 meeting, in order to preserve its ability to raise taxes in excess of Act 1 limitations."
How limiting is Act 1 if the board can preserve its ability to raise taxes in excess of the Act's limitations simply by passing a preliminary budget?
Has a PA school district ever been forbidden to exceed their Act 1 limits?
It's like the Dept. of Ed is talking to a spoiled little child... "if you step over this line you're going to be in big trouble!"
"OK, you've done it now Missy, do that one more time..."
"that's it, you've made really, really mad and you're going to get it when your father gets home!"
Act 1 is a joke!
"Peters Township School Board members agreed at the Jan. 20 meeting to ask the Pennsylvania Department of Education for an exception – as required by Act 1 – to allow it to increase real estate tax."
http://www.thealmanac.net/article/20150121/NEWS/150129986
It'd be nice if one of our legitimate newspapers did an exposé on how many school district's don't get their exclusions and exemptions approved under Act 1!
Some info on Act 1.
http://www.ptcc.us/act1explain.htm
"The backend referendum is supposed to give taxpayers some control over escalating school property tax by allowing taxpayers to vote on tax increases above an annual cost of living increase called the "index", which is different for each district. The allowable 2012-2013increase before referendum varies from 1.7% to 2.7%. The 2012-2013 index by school district is here.
In fact, the backend referendum does very little and is essentially valueless. The exceptions to the referendum are more generous than those under Act 72; only 1 of the 110 Act 72 school districts needed a voter referendum even though many exceeded the so-called "index."
This is not an attack on the Governor because Republicans and Democrats both contributed to passing this disaster, but, by the Governor's own admission on his website, he says:
[Act 1 has] "More flexible referendum exceptions. The new law wisely expands the exceptions for special education, health care costs and pension obligations. The 10 exceptions that school boards could seek in order to raise taxes faster than inflation because of emergencies or educational necessities are maintained – and they add greater flexibility where school districts need it the most."
NOTE: On June 30, 2011, Governor Tom Corbett signed into law SB 330, legislation that reduces the number of exceptions from referendum to three from the original ten. The seven exceptions that were eliminated are highlighted in red below; the remaining allowable exceptions are in blue.
During the bill signing, Governor Corbett hailed the legislation as “meaningful property tax reform.” The three exceptions that remain have accounted for almost 60% of all exceptions granted since 2006, essentially making this purported “reform” measure meaningless.
Further, it does nothing to stabilize the index. The largest allowable increase before referendum and without exceptions was 6.9% in the 2008-2009 school year. What's going to happen when inflation starts climbing and the index climbs with it? Will wages go up as much as the index? Not likely, and we'll again be nailed with huge property tax increases that we can't afford.
This is yet another example of the lawmakers doing as little as possible in an attempt to make the taxpayers believe that they've done something substantial about property taxes even when the "solution" is valueless."
Anonymous.
http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/lawsuit-against-guhsd-over-funds-alpine-high-school-be-heard-court-dec-5
There is something that I've only recently become aware of and it sends up some red flags concerning comments made by our school board and administrators.
Apparently, there is a "hold harmless" provision in the state's school funding formula that requires state money to be NO LESS than the previous year.
If this provision does in fact exist, how could the Super, Cappucci, Klien and Birks claim that Corbett cut their state funding?
Anonymous.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2014/06/susquenita_school_district_has.html
Thnks for that enlightening article, 3:04.
Now we know why MTLSD doesn't change auditors every few years and we can rest assured our representatives in Harrisburg will once again DO NOTHING to reform school spending and budgeting!
While this thread is about Mt. Lebanon's high school reconstruction project, I'd like to direct your attention to the following story recently released by the Reason Foundation: "This Impoverished City Hiked Spending to $25,000 per Student to Fix Its Schools. And Nothing Changed." I offer this to demonstrate that neither money nor school buildings are any guarantee of a good education. Then, for a bit of hope, check out "How a Great School is Breaking the Cycle of Poverty in America's Poorest City," also from the Reason Foundation.
The future of education in America does not lie in the traditional, Prussian model school system; it lies in innovative educational delivery systems that completely repudiate the "District" model, and offer individual students (educational consumers!) education customized to that individual's rate and style of learning.
Post a Comment