posted by Mike Madison at 8:10 AM /
Last night I attended the Community Forum on the renovation of the Mt. Lebanon High School facility, sponsored by the School Board and featuring a brief presentation by the project architects, the construction manager, and the Superintendent on the design options and the likely costs. The presentation lasted about an hour; questions and comments from residents lasted nearly two and one half hours. We started at 7 pm and finished around 10:30 pm. I didn't do a head count, but I estimate that there were about 150 people in the audience when the forum started. That's an impressive turnout in cold, snowy weather.
The whole thing was recorded and, I assume, broadcast on the School District's TV channel. Live satellite versions of the forum will be enacted three times next week, on January 20, 21, and 22 at Markham (Jan. 20), Howe (Jan. 21) and Jefferson (Jan. 22) schools, each one at 7 p.m.
I am optimistic that a copy of the slides presented will be posted to the High School Renovation blog. When that happens, I may try to update this post with some specifics and numbers.
Some reflections on and reactions to what I heard last night:
One -- The construction numbers have been revised upward, compared to the numbers that were shared with the community last night. Still, not all of the costs of the project -- in any form -- have been rolled into the big, red "this is what each option will cost." The most expensive and elaborate alternative presented last night would cost roughly $150 million dollars -- and then some. The least expensive alternative presented last night would cost roughly $100 million dollars -- and then some.
Two -- So long as the questions and comments focused on big themes, such as "we need to do what's best for this great community and our children, and that's why I live in Mt. Lebanon," then there seemed to be broad support for the most elaborate and expensive option. Lots of the speakers were parents of current or future high school students. Lots of the speakers shared anecdotes about inadequacies of the current facilities. There was lots of applause.
Three -- The tenor of the comments and the tenor of the reaction changed when some speakers pointed out that the presentation omitted important and useful information, and when they and other speakers focused on certain details of the proposals. In broad outline a big project seems like a good idea; up close, there is skepticism.
For example, the two most expensive alternatives both include spending roughly $25 million for comprehensive repair and renovation of "Building B," which the community recognizes as the charming old building with the long facade on Cochran Road. However, that renovated building would *not* be used as part of the educational program of the new high school. Part of it would be used for administrative offices for the district; the rest would simply be available for community use or could be rented out to other organizations. Several residents noted -- to broad applause again -- that the point of the project is to acquire a first-class educational facility for the students. Chopping $25 million from the top-end budget, and simply demolishing the old building and reusing the land, would be far, far cheaper and achieve the same educational result as the top-end alternative. School Director Dan Remely argued that this is simply not an option. He said that the high school alumni and the Mt. Lebanon Historical Society have made it clear to the board that any project that did not involve protection of Building B would be blocked. I suspect that this point in particular will be discussed and reviewed in subsequent community meetings, and elsewhere. (Update, Jan. 15 at 4:15 pm: I've heard from several people by email that Dan Remely should have referred to the Mt. Lebanon Historic Preservation Board, which is part of the Municipality, and not to the Mt. Lebanon Historical Society, which is not. Please note a Comment to this post from M.A. Jackson, who is president of the Historical Society.)
For a second example, several speakers pointed out that the educational program on which the architects are relying has not been specified in sufficient detail for the community to assess its reasonableness. There were lots of references last night to an educational program of roughly 440,000 square feet, but there was little detail regarding how that figure was arrived at or how different elements of 440,000 square feet translate into $150 million or any other figure. When the request for that information was made -- apparently renewing requests for that information that have been made before -- the architects (again?) agreed to provide it. There was applause on that point.
For a third, final, and probably most important example, that portion of the presentation that focused on tax increases was missing a lot of detail. (Just to be clear on this initial point: There is unanimous agreement that everyone's taxes will go up under any of the construction options presented.) The presentation included one slide that listed the millage increases and the monthly dollar tax increases that would accompany projects of different scales. The implication of the slide was clearly that this isn't a lot of money, if you break it down on a monthly basis. I'll try to put up specifics later, but the maximum figure was a dollar increase of "only" $100 per month for the owner of a home assessed at $300,000. That would be for the $150 million project.
There are at least two problems with looking at the numbers that way.
One is that it was not explained *how* the construction costs translate into specific millage increases. There was some discussion of interest rates in the bond market and a great deal of reliance by the presenters (District Finance Manager Jan Klein in particular) on the District's "financial advisors." (I assume that these include Moody's Iinvestor Service.) It appeared to some commenters that according to the slide, at higher levels of construction cost, one mill of tax increase was buying more construction dollars than one mill would buy at lower levels -- leading to the suspicion that the real tax increase would be larger than the presentation suggested. (That's always a suspicion, at any level of government and for any new program.)
Two is that the presentation's numbers have a more substantial impact when read differently.
I ran a quick mental calculation of my own tax bill based on the numbers I saw last night.
For the $150 million project, my school taxes would go up by at least 20%. And that's a long-term, effectively permanent increase.
One commenter asked if taxes would go down when the bonds are paid off (25 years in the future), and everyone laughed. We know how this works. And don't forget the other tax increases that are clearly coming. The School District is facing large pension liabilities in a few years, and eventually the Municipality will come asking for money to pay for sewer repairs.
Four -- Only a couple of speakers made what I regard as an obvious point: The goal of this entire project is *not* to build a beautiful new building. The goal is to ensure that the children of Mt. Lebanon have a rewarding and challenging education. When any of us focuses too much on accomplishing that goal solely by reconstructing the building (and/or solely by focusing on constructing facilities that enable "21st century education," whatever that is), we miss both an essential point and we also miss an enormous opportunity.
I've written about this before on the blog and won't repeat the whole thing here. The basic point is this: It is possible to have a first-rate building but to house a second-rate education. It is possible to have a first-rate education in a second-rate building. The best of all worlds is to have a first-rate education in a first-rate building. But we do not live in the best of all worlds.
Five -- Director James Fraasch has proposed and Director Mark Hart supports a different approach, involving relatively minor spending now to fix the most dramatic problems and postponing major work until the District's finances are more stable. At last night's meeting, there was very little support for that approach. But it is also evident that the Board is aware of at least one other option, closer to the $110 million number, that was not presented last night. During the presentation this was referred to as "Alternative 4," and the architects insisted that there are no drawings or programs for it. The coyness of the response and the fact that "Alternative 4" was mentioned on the slides suggests that this is something that the Board has discussed, and with good reason: It would involve recognizing some real-world politics that surround the project. The Board may eventually be confronted with the fact that it has a certain amount of money to spend ($110 million? $150 million?) and then have to decide what to do with that money. The current approach, which involves selecting a bunch of features, then seeing what the cash register says, may not be politically sustainable.
What would Alternative 4 look like? After the meeting I heard some speculation that it would involve a major new building (possibly situated on the upper athletic field, next to the parking lot), then demolition of the problematic Building C (the newest of the current crop, which houses Centre Court), perhaps with minor renovation of the Fine Arts complex. That's not a complete picture, but it's quite different from anything that was presented last night.
Six -- Where do we go from here?
Under relevant state law, any construction budget of $110 million or more means that the School Board cannot authorize borrowing all of that money without going to the residents of Mt. Lebanon in a referendum. $110 million is a kind a magic number in that sense, and there is no prospect that it will go up (it might go down). My read of last night's meeting is that there is a lot of support in the community, as well as on the Board, for spending more than $110 million. So it is likely that a public vote is on the horizon.
There are at least three things to note about a referendum, all of them direct and pragmatic:
One is that the School Board will have to pick a project, specify that project in much more detail than we saw last night, and put a dollar number on that project. Will the citizens be asked to vote on a $150 million project? A $120 million project? Something else? The specifics of the proposal likely will not bind the District once the election is over. But if the referendum passes, the District will end up with a fixed amount of money, and then it will have to decide how to spend it. Before the referendum, the Board will simply have to decide how much money to ask for.
Two is that there is no gurantee that a referendum will pass. There is no precedent for this exercise here in Mt. Lebanon. A majority of taxpaying households in Mt. Lebanon do not have school-age children. Lots of those people will support a referendum on the ground that a new school is good for the community and good for their property values. But lots of those people, and even lots of people who *do* have school-age children but evaluate the costs and benefits here differently, will vote "no."
Three is that whether or not a referendum passes, the process of going through a referendum will be painful, and it may impose some long-term costs on the community. This being an election, and it being unlikely that everyone will simply raise their hands and agree to pass the proposition, it is likely that a "No on the Referendum" group will be organized. With a website, and signs, and volunteers, and coffees and all the usual trappings. Think about the arguments that will be offered. Even if it doesn't get ugly, it will get tense and unhappy, and the tension and unhappiness will likely persist even once the vote is taken.
At the conclusion of last night's meeting, Director Elaine Capucci encouraged residents to continue to voice their comments and opinions about the project, by attending one of the future Forums (see above), by emailing the members of the Board, or by posting comments at the High School Renovation blog. There was no reference to this blog (though I never expect any!).
I know that members of the Board read what is posted here. I'm sure that I've missed some things about the meeting, and I'm sure that some people will disagree with my characterizations of others. Fire away, but as always, include your name.
The whole thing was recorded and, I assume, broadcast on the School District's TV channel. Live satellite versions of the forum will be enacted three times next week, on January 20, 21, and 22 at Markham (Jan. 20), Howe (Jan. 21) and Jefferson (Jan. 22) schools, each one at 7 p.m.
I am optimistic that a copy of the slides presented will be posted to the High School Renovation blog. When that happens, I may try to update this post with some specifics and numbers.
Some reflections on and reactions to what I heard last night:
One -- The construction numbers have been revised upward, compared to the numbers that were shared with the community last night. Still, not all of the costs of the project -- in any form -- have been rolled into the big, red "this is what each option will cost." The most expensive and elaborate alternative presented last night would cost roughly $150 million dollars -- and then some. The least expensive alternative presented last night would cost roughly $100 million dollars -- and then some.
Two -- So long as the questions and comments focused on big themes, such as "we need to do what's best for this great community and our children, and that's why I live in Mt. Lebanon," then there seemed to be broad support for the most elaborate and expensive option. Lots of the speakers were parents of current or future high school students. Lots of the speakers shared anecdotes about inadequacies of the current facilities. There was lots of applause.
Three -- The tenor of the comments and the tenor of the reaction changed when some speakers pointed out that the presentation omitted important and useful information, and when they and other speakers focused on certain details of the proposals. In broad outline a big project seems like a good idea; up close, there is skepticism.
For example, the two most expensive alternatives both include spending roughly $25 million for comprehensive repair and renovation of "Building B," which the community recognizes as the charming old building with the long facade on Cochran Road. However, that renovated building would *not* be used as part of the educational program of the new high school. Part of it would be used for administrative offices for the district; the rest would simply be available for community use or could be rented out to other organizations. Several residents noted -- to broad applause again -- that the point of the project is to acquire a first-class educational facility for the students. Chopping $25 million from the top-end budget, and simply demolishing the old building and reusing the land, would be far, far cheaper and achieve the same educational result as the top-end alternative. School Director Dan Remely argued that this is simply not an option. He said that the high school alumni and the Mt. Lebanon Historical Society have made it clear to the board that any project that did not involve protection of Building B would be blocked. I suspect that this point in particular will be discussed and reviewed in subsequent community meetings, and elsewhere. (Update, Jan. 15 at 4:15 pm: I've heard from several people by email that Dan Remely should have referred to the Mt. Lebanon Historic Preservation Board, which is part of the Municipality, and not to the Mt. Lebanon Historical Society, which is not. Please note a Comment to this post from M.A. Jackson, who is president of the Historical Society.)
For a second example, several speakers pointed out that the educational program on which the architects are relying has not been specified in sufficient detail for the community to assess its reasonableness. There were lots of references last night to an educational program of roughly 440,000 square feet, but there was little detail regarding how that figure was arrived at or how different elements of 440,000 square feet translate into $150 million or any other figure. When the request for that information was made -- apparently renewing requests for that information that have been made before -- the architects (again?) agreed to provide it. There was applause on that point.
For a third, final, and probably most important example, that portion of the presentation that focused on tax increases was missing a lot of detail. (Just to be clear on this initial point: There is unanimous agreement that everyone's taxes will go up under any of the construction options presented.) The presentation included one slide that listed the millage increases and the monthly dollar tax increases that would accompany projects of different scales. The implication of the slide was clearly that this isn't a lot of money, if you break it down on a monthly basis. I'll try to put up specifics later, but the maximum figure was a dollar increase of "only" $100 per month for the owner of a home assessed at $300,000. That would be for the $150 million project.
There are at least two problems with looking at the numbers that way.
One is that it was not explained *how* the construction costs translate into specific millage increases. There was some discussion of interest rates in the bond market and a great deal of reliance by the presenters (District Finance Manager Jan Klein in particular) on the District's "financial advisors." (I assume that these include Moody's Iinvestor Service.) It appeared to some commenters that according to the slide, at higher levels of construction cost, one mill of tax increase was buying more construction dollars than one mill would buy at lower levels -- leading to the suspicion that the real tax increase would be larger than the presentation suggested. (That's always a suspicion, at any level of government and for any new program.)
Two is that the presentation's numbers have a more substantial impact when read differently.
I ran a quick mental calculation of my own tax bill based on the numbers I saw last night.
For the $150 million project, my school taxes would go up by at least 20%. And that's a long-term, effectively permanent increase.
One commenter asked if taxes would go down when the bonds are paid off (25 years in the future), and everyone laughed. We know how this works. And don't forget the other tax increases that are clearly coming. The School District is facing large pension liabilities in a few years, and eventually the Municipality will come asking for money to pay for sewer repairs.
Four -- Only a couple of speakers made what I regard as an obvious point: The goal of this entire project is *not* to build a beautiful new building. The goal is to ensure that the children of Mt. Lebanon have a rewarding and challenging education. When any of us focuses too much on accomplishing that goal solely by reconstructing the building (and/or solely by focusing on constructing facilities that enable "21st century education," whatever that is), we miss both an essential point and we also miss an enormous opportunity.
I've written about this before on the blog and won't repeat the whole thing here. The basic point is this: It is possible to have a first-rate building but to house a second-rate education. It is possible to have a first-rate education in a second-rate building. The best of all worlds is to have a first-rate education in a first-rate building. But we do not live in the best of all worlds.
Five -- Director James Fraasch has proposed and Director Mark Hart supports a different approach, involving relatively minor spending now to fix the most dramatic problems and postponing major work until the District's finances are more stable. At last night's meeting, there was very little support for that approach. But it is also evident that the Board is aware of at least one other option, closer to the $110 million number, that was not presented last night. During the presentation this was referred to as "Alternative 4," and the architects insisted that there are no drawings or programs for it. The coyness of the response and the fact that "Alternative 4" was mentioned on the slides suggests that this is something that the Board has discussed, and with good reason: It would involve recognizing some real-world politics that surround the project. The Board may eventually be confronted with the fact that it has a certain amount of money to spend ($110 million? $150 million?) and then have to decide what to do with that money. The current approach, which involves selecting a bunch of features, then seeing what the cash register says, may not be politically sustainable.
What would Alternative 4 look like? After the meeting I heard some speculation that it would involve a major new building (possibly situated on the upper athletic field, next to the parking lot), then demolition of the problematic Building C (the newest of the current crop, which houses Centre Court), perhaps with minor renovation of the Fine Arts complex. That's not a complete picture, but it's quite different from anything that was presented last night.
Six -- Where do we go from here?
Under relevant state law, any construction budget of $110 million or more means that the School Board cannot authorize borrowing all of that money without going to the residents of Mt. Lebanon in a referendum. $110 million is a kind a magic number in that sense, and there is no prospect that it will go up (it might go down). My read of last night's meeting is that there is a lot of support in the community, as well as on the Board, for spending more than $110 million. So it is likely that a public vote is on the horizon.
There are at least three things to note about a referendum, all of them direct and pragmatic:
One is that the School Board will have to pick a project, specify that project in much more detail than we saw last night, and put a dollar number on that project. Will the citizens be asked to vote on a $150 million project? A $120 million project? Something else? The specifics of the proposal likely will not bind the District once the election is over. But if the referendum passes, the District will end up with a fixed amount of money, and then it will have to decide how to spend it. Before the referendum, the Board will simply have to decide how much money to ask for.
Two is that there is no gurantee that a referendum will pass. There is no precedent for this exercise here in Mt. Lebanon. A majority of taxpaying households in Mt. Lebanon do not have school-age children. Lots of those people will support a referendum on the ground that a new school is good for the community and good for their property values. But lots of those people, and even lots of people who *do* have school-age children but evaluate the costs and benefits here differently, will vote "no."
Three is that whether or not a referendum passes, the process of going through a referendum will be painful, and it may impose some long-term costs on the community. This being an election, and it being unlikely that everyone will simply raise their hands and agree to pass the proposition, it is likely that a "No on the Referendum" group will be organized. With a website, and signs, and volunteers, and coffees and all the usual trappings. Think about the arguments that will be offered. Even if it doesn't get ugly, it will get tense and unhappy, and the tension and unhappiness will likely persist even once the vote is taken.
At the conclusion of last night's meeting, Director Elaine Capucci encouraged residents to continue to voice their comments and opinions about the project, by attending one of the future Forums (see above), by emailing the members of the Board, or by posting comments at the High School Renovation blog. There was no reference to this blog (though I never expect any!).
I know that members of the Board read what is posted here. I'm sure that I've missed some things about the meeting, and I'm sure that some people will disagree with my characterizations of others. Fire away, but as always, include your name.
Labels: high school renovation
11 Comments:
I am posting the following comment at the request of and on behalf of John Ewing:
Building B will only use 22,000 sq. ft are for administration offices. Bill Mathews brought up the $25,000,000 cost of renovating building B that is included in the projected cost figures at the January 14th Facilities Forum. Dan Remely said it was made very clear to him from the Historical Society that a referendum would never pass if building B were torn down. He said the space could be used for a Day Care Center for teachers’ children and possible other social services.
Dan never said WHAT INDIVIDUAL (S) MADE IT CLEAR A REFERENDUM WOULD NOT PASS if an Extra $25,000,000 was not spent and building B were torn down, nor was it revealed who made it clear to the Superintendent and the School Board that they needed to misrepresent our educational building costs.
If you read the school Policy on Executive Sessions no provision is made for the Board to talk to their Architect or discuss facilities matters behind closed doors.
The School Board Executive Session Policy says,
“ Executive Sessions will be conducted for the following reasons as allowed by law:
a. To discuss any matter involving the employment, appointment, termination of employment, terms and conditions of employment, evaluation of performance, promotion or disciplining of any specific prospective public officer or employee or current public officer or employee employed or appointed by the District, or former public officer or employer.
b. To hold information, strategy and negotiation sessions related to the negotiation or arbitration of a collective bargaining agreement or, in the absence of a collective bargaining unit, related to labor relations and arbitration.
c. To consider the purchase or lease of real property up to the time an option to purchase or
lease the real property is obtained or up to the time an agreement to purchase or lease
such property is obtained if the agreement is obtained directly without an option.
d. To consult with the District’s attorney or other professional advisor regarding information or strategy in connection with litigation or with issues on which identifiable complaints are expected to be filed.
e. To review and discuss District business which if conducted in public would violate a lawful privilege or lead to the disclosure of information or confidentiality protected by
law, including matters related to the initiation and conduct of investigations of possible or
certain violations of the law and quasi-judicial deliberations. “
We were told until January 14th that the building costs were for educational facilities, not possible day care centers. Tonight we found out what happens when elected officials ignore their own Policy and deny the public access to their facilities meetings. If I were a teacher or a parent in this District I would wonder about the continued integrity of the educational program under the control of a Board who spends an extra $25,000,000 for day care centers or other unknown ideas.
John Ewing
Former Mt. Lebanon School Director
I attended last night's meeting and asked a few questions. The architect said the existing school does not provide students of the district with a 21st century education. This is a roundabout way of saying students will get a better education if a new school is built. No academic improvemement goals have been set by the district for any of the renovation options. In fact, if the budget is shifted from education to the largest capital project in South Hills history, it is likely a new high school will cause the academic performance to suffer. This goes against the stated mission, "To Provide the Best Education Possible for Each and Every Student". Are the parents ready to foot the bill for a new high school, 2010 teacher contract, 2012 pension increase, the new middle school construction mentioned by a board member at 12-JAN-2009 meeting, paying off bonds from the grade school renovations, “other post employment pension” (OPEB) obligations (GASB no.35 and no.45) AND a private school eduation required for satisfactory academic achievement in a school district hell-bent on capital projects it cannot afford? Does anyone agree with the architect that the current Mt. Lebanon high school provides a substandard quality of education? I have yet to hear any complaints about the education students of the current building are getting. The new school district mission: "To Provide the Most Expensive Facilities Possible to Break the Backs of Each and Every Taxpayer Regardless of Student Outcomes".
"
I am posting the following on behalf of M.A. Jackson:
In the 8th paragraph of your story about the high school renovation project you have the following sentence:
"He said that the high school alumni and the Mt. Lebanon Historical Society have made it clear to the board that any project that did not involve protection of Building B would be blocked. I suspect that this point in particular will be discussed and reviewed in subsequent community meetings, and elsewhere."
As president of the Historical Society, I can assure you that our group has never talked to anyone from the school board. You mean the Historic Preservation Board, which is a municipal entity. The Historical Society of Mount Lebanon (our proper name), is a small community organization with no connection to the municipality (although the municipality has given us some funding). Our goal is education and collecting old documents, photos and memorabilia. At this point, I do not foresee the society commenting or getting involved in any way in regards to the high school renovation project.
[The society's email address is info@hsmtl.org; phone number is 412-563-1941; and website is www.hsmtl.org.]
I am posting the following at the request of and on behalf of Dean Spahr:
The following article on classroom design is relevant to the question of teaching and learning environments:
Schools restructure classrooms; Open spaces out of vogue
"Open classrooms seemed like such a cool idea in the 1970s. But like disco music and leisure suits, the fad has fallen out of favor.
Mariemont and Sycamore high schools are among the latest in the Tristate to close up their classrooms with walls. Mariemont City School District held an open house Sunday to show off a new addition and renovations at the high school, which included transforming the building into a traditional school setting.
Open classrooms came into vogue in the late 1960s and ran rampant in the 1970s. Noise, technology needs and security concerns have all contributed to their demise in many schools.
Mariemont High School was built with open classrooms about 1971.
"It was state-of-the-art at that time," said James Renner, Mariemont High School principal. "We had people coming from around the world to see how education was going to be in the 21st century. It proved not to be the case, at least in secondary education."
Open classrooms were established to provide for flexibility in scheduling, team teaching and active learning. But schools soon began putting up partitions and bookcases to divide space.
"As we quickly found out, it was just not conducive to an academic learning environment," Mr. Renner said. "It was just tougher for high school kids to deal with ... I think they forgot to take into account the distractibility.."
David Huston couldn't be more right: A new school does not equal a better education.
There is a growing body of research that suggests there is no meaningful cause-and-effect relationship between overall school facilities and student achievement. (There is, however, research showing that correcting serious deficiencies in schools, such as inadequate lighting, has meaningful effects.)
Take a look at Green Schools: Attributes for Health and Learning, a 192-page report published by the National Research Council. In Chapter 8: Overall Building Condition and Student Achievement, the researchers who wrote the report reviewed 20 studies that attempted to measure the relationship between school facilities and overall student achievement. While most of the studies claimed to have found a relationship, typically accounting for 5 percent or less of test scores, a diligent researcher is apt to question whether an effect that small is real or "noise" in the statistical models. The Green Schools researchers explain:
With 19 out of 20 studies showing increases in test scores for students in buildings in better condition, one might reasonably assume a relationship exists between building conditions and student achievement. In fact, the limitations of the methodologies and data used in these studies may reflect a consistent underlying bias rather than a consistent, albeit undefined, cause-and-effect relationship. (Source: p. 126)
Indeed. It's particularly telling that the 20th study in the review, the study that found no relationship between school facilities and student achievement, was a more recent study (Picus et al., 2005) that controlled for confounding factors that earlier studies overlooked. The abstract of the study says it all:
A growing issue in school finance adequacy relates to the condition of school facilities and the role that the condition of those facilities plays in student learning. Using the results of standardized test scores from Wyoming students and a detailed assessment of every school building in the state of Wyoming, it can be concluded that there is essentially no relationship between the quality of school facilities and student performance when other factors known to impact student performance are accounted for. This does not suggest investments in school facilities are not important -- all children are entitled to attend school in safe, clean, and appropriate educational environments. However, policymakers should be aware that investments in facilities by themselves are unlikely to improve student learning. (Emphasis mine)
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Now that most of the people who attended the recent forum on the High School renovation made it clear that they consider Mr. Fraasch's proposal irrelevant, perhaps we can begin some serious discussions on the realistic options available. Because of the size of even the smallest option being considered, it appears as though the final decision may call for a referendum. Some board members and some of the people making comments at recent board meetings and at the forum seem to be panicked about the idea of letting the community vote on this project. I would think that the opponents of the proposals seriously under discussion would relish the idea of people voting. If the referendum fails, then we will automatically have a system of applying band-aids to the High School for the foreseeable future. On the other hand, if it does pass, it will negate the silly idea that there is some secret cabal, meeting in the dark of the night, scheming to put something over on the people. The fact that a referendum would bring out political groups and committees of all stripes, is not a terrible thing; it is called democracy.
Your piece on Wednesday night’s community forum on the high school renovation was an excellent summary. We do want to add something about the “historical” issues, however. One of us is a member of both the Design Advisory group and the Historic Preservation Board; the other is the current chairman of the Historic Preservation Board.
The Historic Preservation Board has consistently and openly urged that the older existing classroom structure that faces Cochran Road be retained and incorporated into any renovations because of its presence and visibility in the community, its legacy and its architectural quality. (This is the building that is referred to in planning discussions as “Building B.”) We think that retaining it is important to the community for the future, and it’s something we’ve advocated.
(We should stress that word “advocated.” The Historic Preservation Board is an advisory body within the Municipality, and “advocate” is about as strong a verb as can be used to describe what we do or what we can do. In that context, let us say that we’ve never suggested to the School Board that we would try to “block” anything. Somebody may have said that to Dan Remely at some point, but it sure wasn’t us. )
Our position is essentially a conservative one. There is usually a cost savings involved in incorporating quality older structures into a renovation or into a largely new school building. This is not an unusual idea – it is widely practiced across the country and, in fact, is officially recommended to School Boards by both the Pennsylvania School Boards Association and the state’s Department of Education. We’ve also always encouraged the idea that the inside of “Building B” could be thoroughly renovated to provide new spaces for educational programs.
This, by the way, is exactly what “Alternative Approach 2” does. This is the proposal that represents the middle-range in costs of the several proposals our School Board has so far put together.
Significantly, “Alternative Approach 2” uses Building B but provides that all the learning spaces would be new or “renovated like new,” something that matches what you get in the more expensive Alternative 3 – which is the proposal for building a totally new school. Alternative 2 also provides for new physical education and athletic spaces. So Alternative 2 makes full use of Building B but still creates essentially the same result for students as Alternative 3.
At Wednesday’s meeting, Bill Matthews called attention to the fact that Alternative 3 includes keeping Building B as a stand-alone building, one that wouldn’t be part of the high school’s education functions and wouldn’t be connected to the entirely new school that Alternative 3 contemplates. Given that Alternative 3 doesn’t make full use of Building B, his questions about the cost and use of the building were very pertinent. But it should be noted that the cost issues he raised relative to Building B apply only to Alternative 3.
This entire project – as you indicate – is going to be a difficult one for the community. And we think the community should be respectful of the hard choices that School Board members will have to make, and grateful for the time and commitment they’re putting into this.
John Conti, member of the Design Advisory Group and of the Historic Preservation Board and Bill Callahan, chairman of the Historic Preservation Board
For more dicussion on the topic of renovating older school buildings for modern use, see the following publication:
http://www.saveourlandsaveourtowns.org/renovate.html
If you want to squander educational dollars on Building B please donate the $25,000,000 renovation cost and deliver a check to Mrs. Klein or Mr. Allison.
I prefer to direct dollars to the educational program.
John Ewing
Mike, thanks for keeping this topic in the front of people's minds. This month is an important one in the process of choosing which direction the District will take with regards to the high school.
I am going to agree with Mr. Cannon here. Outside of doing a simple renovation, it seems that the options on the table will most likely require referendum. Unless there is a full fleshing out of whatever Option 4 is (a project costing less than $110 million that avoids a referendum) then that appears at this time to be the direction things are heading.
As for the likelihood of the proposal I put out there taking hold, well, I think putting this to referendum increases the chances of something like that proposal being what the District is forced to do.
At least now, when/if the referendum fails, we have an idea of what we might be able to do to move this community towards the next step in getting the high school problem solved. Getting there has been the goal. The question has always been "how?".
James Fraasch- Mt Lebanon School Director
Two clarifications for your readers to keep in mind while considering your observations: One, the $25MM for Building B that Mr. Matthews mentioned needs to be verified. He brought up a very good point – one I’m looking forward to discussing with the board once we have some specific dollar figures in consideration of whether keeping it makes economic and historic sense.
Two: Suggesting “…the fact that "Alternative 4" was mentioned on the slides suggests that this is something that the Board has discussed…” is inaccurate. Just as Mr. Fraasch mentions in an earlier comment and I mention
here
in my overview of each of the options presented, the board has not discussed an Alternative 4 or Alternatives 1, 2, 2A or 3 for that matter. Perhaps this concept was unclear during the presentation, but I believe the Design Team and architects’ intent was to throw out a conversation starter in order for the board to get community feedback regarding their desire to go to referendum with one of the options on the table or to create a new building option within our debt limits. I’m not sure yet how I would feel about giving the architects a dollar limit under our debt limit in order to see what they can do for that amount but I’m looking forward to having that conversation with the board if there’s community and board interest in exploring it.
Post a Comment
<< Home