Policy Committee Meeting Changes

The School Board Policy Committee meetings have moved to Tuesdays at 5:30 PM, instead of Wednesdays at 4:30 PM. The next meeting is scheduled for this Tuesday in the Jefferson Middle School Library.

Interestingly enough, the Policy Committee will have their first review of Policy FEG, Construction Contracts, Bidding and Awards. Uh...the Policy Committee is getting around to review this policy now? Policy FEG, Construction Contracts, Bidding and Awards was last revised April 16, 2007.

Item #5 states: Policies and procedures will be developed separately for major renovation or construction projects prior to the commencement of each project.

The first item on the agenda is Policy DJA, Purchasing Authority. This policy was last revised April 16, 2007.

Audio recordings of the policy meetings are posted here on the MTLSD website,

September 4, 2012 Agenda 

1. Policies - First Review
    A.  DJA, Purchasing Authority
    B.  FEG, Construction Contracts, Bidding and Awards
    C.  IJOA, Field Trips by School Groups

2.  Questions and Comments from Residents

High School Renovation Update? UPDATED 2x

Now that school is back in session, I would love to get feedback from parents or high school students about the high school renovation. How is the student parking situation? How about those generators?  Are they noisy? How is the construction going? I haven't seen much activity around the athletic wing.  Anything going on there?

The School District has posted this reminder on their website. Traffic and Parking Reminders for Football Home Opener

The Mt. Lebanon High School football team kicks off their season with a home opener on Friday, August 31 at 7:30 p.m. against North Allegheny. We look forward to a great crowd at the game to cheer on the Blue Devils and would like to share some information to help you navigate the changes around the stadium due to construction.

Update August 30, 2012 5:39 PM I guess this is the District's response as written in today's PG story, "Mt. Lebanon High School renovation continues despite power outage."

School officials said despite this, the 31/2-year project is on schedule. The future athletic center is showing the most growth, as structural steel was erected in that building this summer, Mr. Steinhauer said.

Athletic Wing 8/30/12



Science Wing 8/13/12

He said the athletic center was among his favorite parts of the project "because you can really start to see progress."

Update September 2, 2012 4:00 PM Athletic wing after yesterday's rainstorm. Pooling along the back half again.

Athletic Wing 9/2/12 4:00 PM

The Neverending List

Through a Right To Know request dated 8/24/12 asking for "List of vehicle registration plate numbers, vehicle make model and color, with unpaid parking tickets from January 1997 through December 2011.  Please include the number of outstanding tickets per vehicle and the amount of the original fine." I am uploading the 1,717 page document and it is available here.
I had been denied the list of names of scofflaws, but license plate numbers are public information. I just didn't ask for the right information. 

Hoover has a beef with Chick-Fil-A

The principal of Hoover elementary has advised that Hoover Spirit night at Chick-Fil-A may be eliminated due to company president Dan Cathy's position on gay marriage.
You may remember the petition that I wrote about here, http://lebocitizens.blogspot.com/2012/08/check-out-this-petition.html There are now 25 signatures.
The Hoover website lists classroom supplies for K-5, but also states that "the district's schools provide the children with supplies throughout the school year."

There is a new service available at commission meetings!

I signed up to speak at last night's commission meeting.  For those of you unaware of the process, there is a sign up sheet in the back of the room for Citizen Comments. During the time Kristen Linfante admitted that she was having meetings with the school district and never updated the commissioners, I went to the back of the room and looked at the sign up sheet. (That was when Kristen said that the sports groups shouldn't be charged for fields.) I saw Dave Franklin's name scribbled on the sign up sheet.  He was not in the room, so I thought he was coming back. Nope,  Mr. Franklin was MIA.  If you listen to the podcast, you will hear President Brumfield make an announcement that he signed Dave's name as a reminder to him. It appears that Dave Franklin wanted Dave Brumfield to announce that there were approximately 300 signatures on his turf petition. I had never seen that done before.
If you have an announcement to make, or if you have your comments printed up, email them to dbrumfield@mtlebanon.org. He will read them for you. Thanks, Dave Franklin for that discovery!!

Joint Maintenance Agreement Approved 4-1

Last night's podcasts have been uploaded on to Lebocitizens.com. The end of Part 1 of the Discussion Session includes the JMA. I believe all of the commissioners asked Staff questions about the Joint Maintenance Agreement. Dave Donnellan emailed all the sports groups, Dr. Steinhauer, and Jan Klein in March asking about the Joint Maintenance Agreement.  He never heard back. On June 6, Jan Klein contacted Dave Donnellan to say that the YSA was not sure if they could move forward as an organization. There were two meetings held since then, June 26 and July 18. Last week, Klein got back to Donnellan to verify that the YSA and School District came to an agreement. The Commission did not get any information about the JMA until Friday when they received their packets.

During last night's discussion, Kristen Linfante, school board liaison, revealed that she was in touch with Elaine Cappucci, Commission liaison, to say that the School District was more concerned with maintaining the field maintenance rather than the YSA portion of the agreement. Kristen also said that we are the only municipality that requires sports groups to pay to use the fields. She wonders if the School District should even charge them at all. I guess that is a preview of coming attractions. Of course.

Kelly Fraasch and Matt Kluck asked to table the vote, but were outvoted. In the end, Kelly said that she would approve this six month extension only. Six months gives the municipality the ability to get out of the fiscal year with being reimbursed for the work that was budgeted for 2012. Six months gives all parties involved to decide to continue the JMA or to go with user fees. Six months also gives the YSA time to decide if they will continue as an organization. Matt Kluck was the only commissioner to oppose the six month agreement.

New JMA Amendment signed by Mrs. Dave Franklin

Through a Right To Know, here is the link to the Joint Maintenance Agreement Amendment signed by Timothy Steinhauer and Stacy Franklin, a.k.a. Mrs. Dave Franklin, on August 20, 2012. You may remember how Dave said on August 24, 2012 at 1:11 PM:

I'm not a member of the YSA. I never have been. I actively participate in several associations that are part of and contribute to the YSA, but I have no formal position or voice within the YSA itself. In fact, assertions to the contrary only underscore the misconceptions and frankly the lies that have been published here, not only about me but about the YSA.

Here is part of the amendment showing YSA's contribution being reduced to $23,000.

1. Paragraph 5 of the Agreement is hereby amended by the addition of the following sentence: "For the 2011-2012 school year, YSA's contribution is reduced to $23,000 due to a reduction in the number of fields, and YSA agrees to pay such $23,000 contribution on or before August 31,2012."

Excuse me, but when did MTLSD take over the Municipality? UPDATED

From the Mt. Lebanon School District website: 

"Student parking is available in the Mt. Lebanon United Lutheran Church Parking Lot and Dixon Field Parking Lot on a first-come, first served basis until paid permits are required on September 10."

Excuse me, but I'll park at Dixon whenever I please and suggest the students do the same and do not pay for a permit. The district has no authority to enforce and collect fees from students or anyone else that choose to park in a municipal lot. Who will be issuing tickets and how will they know if I'm in the Rec Center, the park, or the tennis courts and not a student parking my car? If the commissioners have somehow transferred control of the Dixon lot to the school district, when did this occur?

While I am on the subject of student parking and traffic patterns at the high school, the Campus Traffic Map indicates that we must make an illegal left turn into the North lot.

August 27, 2012 2:00 PM: Through a RTK, here is the Amended Church Parking Agreement signed by Timothy Steinhauer and Mt. Lebanon United Lutheran Church, where Timothy Steinhauer is a member.

A compromise on artificial turf?

Monday's commission agenda looks like the commissioners have come to a compromise. Based on Dave Franklin's petition showing 285 supporters (Petition for synthetic turf on Middle and Wildcat Fields) the Commission will be voting on an action to create an ad hoc committee to raise funds for an eco-friendly turf on any field in Mt. Lebanon.

Recommended Action: Move to authorize the Municipal Manager to secure proposals and retain a financial advisor and bond counsel for a $5.5 million recreation bond issue and begin the process to create an ad hoc committee to raise funds to install an eco-friendly turf field on an athletic field in Mt. Lebanon.

285 supporters is a good start for YSA's fundraising campaign.  Skateboarders were able to fund a skatepark that could have come to Mt. Lebanon, so this should be a cakewalk for YSA folks. If YSA can raise the funds, they can build it at Mellon or Wildcat or Middle Fields, or anywhere else for that matter.  You proved your point. The Veterans Memorial was built this way, so get busy and start your fundraising. I am glad that you linked your petition to Lebo Fields, Dave. You will be able to get more support that way. Good luck guys.

Wait a second!!!

Looking at the newly posted agenda for Monday's Commission meeting, I see the following action item:

Consideration of a Joint Maintenance Agreement with the Mt. Lebanon School District, Municipality of Mt. Lebanon and the Youth Sports Alliance of Mt. Lebanon.

A joint maintenance agreement has been in place for the past 12 years for field turf maintenance of athletic fields on school district property. The agreement expired on June 30, 2012.

The successor agreement is for a six-month period, and the payments shall be in four monthly installments of $8,925 totaling $35,700. The price has been adjusted due to the temporary elimination of two of the 14 original school fields during construction at the high school.

Recommended Action: Move to authorize the proper municipal officials to sign the agreement.

This was never a discussion item. How could the commissioners be voting on this, in light of all the confusion over payments by the YSA? The school district has more homework to do before they try to jam this down the commissioners' throats.  When will the YSA clean up their arrearages? Why is this successor agreement for six months? How was $35,700 calculated? Show us the math. The school board just approved this on Monday. When did it show up in the commissioners' packets? Who put this on the agenda? Mr. President, did you? Dave, please tell me how you plan to vote and WHY??? Folks, contact the commissioners at commission@mtlebanon.org and ask them how they plan to vote, and more importantly WHY.

Where is the Fraasch proposal?

I do not see Kelly Fraasch's August 14, 2012 presentation on the municipal website. I have added a link to her "Recreation in Mt. Lebanon" presentation here on http://lebocitizens.com/Lebo_Citizens/The_Facts.html Why is this so difficult? The YSA presentation was posted with no problems, complete with an upgrade for a more professional look. It was on the home page of the municipal website, as well as on lebomag. Remember how long it took for the Kluck/Cannon presentation to show up on the municipal website? It was buried in many layers of the website when it was finally added.
So glad to see my tax dollars at work.

Pitcher Park going to...

Carnegie!
My son and I were invited to attend the festivities in Carnegie Park on Forsythe Road, the new home of Pitcher Park Memorial Skatepark. Since Joe designed the logo for Pitcher Park, he was presented an autographed poster from Tony Hawk. There will be skate decks made with his logo, but in the meantime, shirts were passed out to all the attendees of the event.  What a thrill for Mom!

We were hoping Mary Pitcher would choose Mt. Lebanon, but as it turns out, the enthusiasm from the residents of all ages, the council and mayor of Carnegie was overwhelming. It is a sweet deal. 85% of the $600,000 cost of the skatepark will be donated. 15% has to be raised initially in order to receive the donation. Here in Mt. Lebanon, Dave Brumfield said at the Pitcher presentation that it should come here because we're Mt. Lebanon. As soon as Mary heard that, she crossed her legs and turned her back to him and said,"Here we go."  It is that kind of attitude in Mt. Lebanon that gives us a bad name. You know, that sense of entitlement and arrogance that I have been writing about here on the blog.

Carnegie deserves this park. I am so thrilled that Pitcher Park will be built there. In this town, it is all about turf and forget about anything else.

Here is the press release:

It's been four years but when Dormont turned the opportunity away, Mary Pitcher did not have to go very far to find three communities that welcomed the idea of a memorial skatepark.

The Ken and Carol Shultz Family Foundation challenged Pitcher Park to reach out to the communities surrounding Dormont to see if there was interest and offered to donate 85 percent of the cost of the approximately $600,000 skatepark. Mt. Lebanon, Scott Township and Carnegie were approached with the idea. All three communities were asked to discuss and then approve the skatepark. Open meetings were held in each community to give residents a chance to voice their opinions. Every community approached approved and welcomed the project.

The lead designer, Micah Shapiro from Grindline Skateparks of Seattle Washington then came to Pittsburgh to view each site allotted by the various communities. Mt. Lebanon offered land in the Main Park above the basketball courts. Scott Township offered two tennis courts on the lower level of the park by their baseball fields. Carnegie offered about six different locations within their park.

Many factors came into play while making a decision between the three communities.. Among them were: Topography of the sites, location and accessibility, "at-risk" youth factors, ability to patrol and maintain the park and enthusiasm from the communities for the project.

Pitcher Park found that Carnegie made the grade in all these aspects.

The designer came to the conclusion that topographically Carnegie Park land would make for the most interesting design and flow to the skatepark.
The accessibility of Carnegie Park right off the Parkway, close to 79, close to the communities of Dormont, Greentree, the City of Pittsburgh, Crafton, Scott Township, Heidleberg and Mt. Lebanon would allow many different people to use the skatepark.
The skatepark being placed in Carnegie will assist many "at risk" youth and this coincides with the Tony Hawk Foundations Mission Statement.
The Police Chief there is very much in favor of "getting the children off the streets and sidewalks" and we have been assured that they will patrol the skatepark diligently.
The clincher of our decision was the enthusiasm of the "kid & family friendly" Council, the residents themselves and especially Mayor Jack Kobistek, who even requested that Pitcher Park holds competitions there yearly.

It has been a long haul for this organization just trying to donate a skatepark but the people of Carnegie have made the organization and project feel "AT HOME" and because of that we are confident that this location is the "right place" to erect a skatepark to honor Vincent and Stephen Pitcher.

Carnegie is the future site of Pitcher Park Memorial Skatepark and we will be announcing the location and holding a brief unveiling of a sign on Thursday August 23 at 7:00 PM with much over due....EXCITEMENT! :)

For more information, visit http://www.pitcherpark.com/index.html

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-west/carnegie-to-be-home-of-memorial-skate-park-650253/

You ain't seen nothin' yet

Josephine posted the new five year Act 93 Agreement. The School Board's objective was to craft "a compensation and benefit package that is market competitive and respects internal equity." This agreement includes the following administrative positions: Principals, Assistant Principals, Technology Directors, Supervisors, Director of Special Education, Athletic Director, and all members identified as Act 93 employees.

Under Salary,

A. Annual compensation adjustments for administrators shall be determined by the Board of School Directors with input from the Act 93 Committee and the Superintendent. Administrators with a Meets Expectations rating shall receive a compensation adjustment equal to the Act 1 Index (Special Session Act 1 of 2006), but within the range of 1.4% to 3.5%. If the Index percentage for any given year falls outside of the above mentioned range, either party may exercise their option to meet and discuss the matter.

B. In addition the Board may authorize additional funds that can be used for merit and/or salary adjustments. The Superintendent has the discretion to award those additional funds based on individual performance and potential for any administrator earning a rating of Meets Expectations or Far Exceeds Expectations.

Look at the fringe benefits. They are unreal. Could someone with a knowledge of the previous agreement, kindly compare it to this one, which the dynamic duo (Posti and Cappucci) put together?  I can't believe what I am reading.

Here is Posti's perspective taken from her Center Court blog:

Tonight, the Board will take action on a new five-year Act93 agreement. This agreement applies to principals, assistant principals, the technology director, supervisors, the director of special education, the athletic director, and all members identified as Act 93 employees and it details compensation, benefits and the evaluation system used for our administration. Its development is the result of many years’ worth of discussions and observations and more than a year’s worth of negotiations. Mr. Ostergaard and I began negotiations with Mr. McFeeley, Mr. Freil and Mr. Wolfson last year and Mrs. Cappucci and I continued that work this year on behalf of the Board.


The new agreement is much simpler and streamlines the compensation process, eliminating the “lump sum” provision as well as the tenure bonus for administrators who have worked in the District for 10 years or more. It also bases annual salary increases for this group on the Act 1 Index, offering them a predictable roadmap and the Board a better forecasting tool along with the ability to consider merit increases for the District’s high performers.

This five-year agreement uses the Act 1 Index as a basis for merit increases identifying the minimum as 1.4 and the maximum as 3.5. 1.4 is the historical low of the Act 1 Index and while the historical high was 4.4, the Board chose a more reasonable cap for merit increases. This year’s Index is 1.7% and is locked in next year at 1.7 because it is a reassessment year, giving the Board and the administration an indication of the possible merit increase that two of the five years of the agreement are based upon.


The administrators’ evaluation tool will also be improved, basing measurements not only on achievement of their annual goals but on performance of their day-to-day management duties. The end result is an agreement that takes into account our community’s high expectations of the District’s management team along with our taxpayers’ available resources which the Act 1 index helps indicate. I’d like to thank Dr. Steinhauer and the negotiation team for their thoughtful, collaborative work during the past year.

It is getting to the point where I get suspicious after seeing the words, "collaborative" or "collaboration." Why is that?

YSA is costing the kids $7,000 UPDATED

At Monday's meeting, the Board approved the Joint Maintenance Agreement extension even though the agreement had expired. At approximately the 38.5 minute mark on the podcast, during "Comments from Residents and Taxpayers Concerning Action Items for This Meeting," David Huston urged the Board not to approve the following:

Joint Maintenance Agreement Amendment: RESOLVED, That the Amendment to the Joint Maintenance Agreement dated as of July 1, 2010 is amended in the form presented, and the Superintendent is authorized to execute such Amendment on behalf of the District.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Joint Maintenance Agreement between the District, the Municipality and the Youth Sports Alliance is extended for a period of six months, through December 31, 2012, with the District paying $35,700 to the Municipality for services similar to those provided previously, and the Youth Sports Alliance paying between $10,000 and $11,000 to the District (based on the number of participating children), and with other terms and schedules to be specified in an Extension Agreement acceptable to the Superintendent and the Solicitor, and to be signed by the Superintendent.

David gave the following reasons:

• The amendment is for an expired agreement.
• The Municipality is not a party to this agreement.
• The YSA's "contribution" is being reduced from $30,000 to $23,000.
• The Board is catering to the YSA's payment schedule, so that it is convenient for YSA.

Listen to Tom Peterson's explanation. I have not been able to provide an audio clip of this portion of the meeting, so tune in at the 38.5 minute mark of the podcast. Of course, Timmy was grateful for the YSA. Jan Klein also spoke. Josephine chimed in to say that since the YSA is made up of volunteers with turnover of officers, discrepancies could occur. The relationship is a collaboration, so the District will not come down on them punitively. The Board wants to work creatively with YSA so that they (the YSA) can continue to do good for our children.

The discussion resumed at the time of the vote. See 01:10:48 of the podcast. By reducing the YSA's contribution by $7,000, the taxpayers (or the students) will take the hit since there will be less revenue collected. Mary Birks needed help with that. We cut staff so that we could reduce costs, but since the YSA is collaborating with the School District and they do good for our children, it is OK to reduce their "contribution" by $7,000. The vote was unanimous.

Update August 21, 2012 9:30 AM Audio clip of both parts of the YSA discussion.

Change Orders and PlanCon I

Tomorrow evening, the Board will be approving PlanCon Part I. See Agenda C3. According to the PA Department of Education,

PlanCon Part I accounts for changes resulting from change orders and supplemental contracts that occur subsequent to PDE approval of PlanCon Part F “Construction Documents.”

PlanCon I is explained in this document, PlanCon Part I Instructions Unfortunately, these instructions expired on 06-30-12. The devil is in the details, so I am leaving this up to you detail guys, but I found this to be interesting:

A change order is a transaction for additional or changed work with a contractor already under contract to provide work which is substantially similar to, or incidental to, that covered in originally approved plans and specifications, or for such minor changes and additions to the plans and specifications as may become necessary or desirable.

Work issued as a change order usually costs less than $10,000, but may be higher for unforeseen conditions discovered during construction. For changes affecting architectural or scheduled area, or building capacity, a revised Part F room schedule and floor plan must be submitted for PDE review.

 In an earlier thread, David Huston posted these numbers:

These numbers are from PlanCon I to be approved 20-AUG-2012:
Act 34 Maximum Building Construction Cost
A. Part D Based on Estimates (D20, Line C) $44,977,920
B. Part D Based on Estimates * 1.08 $48,576,154
C. Based on Actual Costs (I06, Line C) $42,974,012
If C > B, then a second Act 34 hearing is required

The running total for change orders is:

1. $189,306
2. $82,360.57

Total $271,666.57

According to Monday's Construction Update, the second change order should result in a partial credit towards the first change order. I don't know what that number is, but if we already approved the first change order, it is not clear to me how spending more money will reduce the amount already spent.