posted by Tom Moertel at 10:27 AM /
In the continuing evolution of Blog-Lebo Letters to the Editors, I am going to start posting selected letters individually. That way, each letter will have its own area for comments. Also, the blog's home page now offers instructions for sending a letter to the editors; they're located in the sidebar, right under the comments policy. For reference, I'll reprint them here:
If you've got something to say that doesn't belong in a comment, write a letter and email it to the editors (Joe and Tom). Use the subject "Letter to the editors." We'll select the best and post them at regular intervals. To be selected, a letter should be well written and say something new; it should be insightful, informative, or entertaining, not inflammatory. In short, it should be worth reading.
And now, on to a new letter! –Tom
The High School Project needs fewer contradictions, more compromise and responsibility
Where do I begin? It's hard to put the pen to the paper with so many thoughts running through my head. After all that has been said and done, the high school project design is now potentially being modified as indicated through the architect's recent request for the identification of delete alternates (the potential elimination of features). Now this, in spite of the many times I have heard that the current project simply must move forward as is. The question is why this new development? From anticipated opportunistic bidding environments to necessary features in the "21st century learning environment" contradiction after contradiction has surfaced and it is enough to make one's head spin.
In response to concerns being raised about the high cost of the high school renovation project back in February, one board director voted against the approval of the "spend up to $113.3 million" limit after suggesting the project should be conducted using a phased approach. The idea was to make initial improvements to the high school and, as economic conditions improved or a more certain economic climate emerged, move ahead with other projects accordingly. "It can't be done that way!" was the resounding response. Now, that very option is being put on the table as of the July 12th School Board meeting. Sworn testimony by school district representatives on March 11, 2010 as part of a variance request process, stated that (page 129/315 lines 2-8) "this was the best design to meet the needs of our students and the community" and (page 130/315 lines 1-2) "this ultimately ended up being the best design for our building". The statements were made in an effort to gain needed zoning variances. So, what has changed? If that was the best design, then what does the less than best design represent?
When I raised my concern about the high project cost many months ago, I was told by a school board director that the project would probably come in somewhere around $90 Million. I didn't believe it then based on a few assumptions; one being there would most likely be cost overruns like those which occurred during the elementary school renovation projects. I began circulating a petition in late February requesting a $75 Million cap on the high school project in an effort to prove to our board that there was little community support for their high cost plan. Weeks later when the support for the petition could no longer be denied, the same director presented "what $75 Million won't buy" at a school board meeting, a slap in the faces of some 3,800 residents who signed the petition. Along with stating what reasonable spending wouldn't buy was the minimization of project costs to the taxpayers – a mere $18 per month. The recent whopping 10.5% tax increase which only supports the initial $75 million bond issue raised my school district taxes $68.58 per month or $823.04 annually. That's more than the cost of the extra refrigerator running in my basement, a frequently employed analogy.
There has to be a solution that we can all live with and it is unfortunate the divisiveness the situation has caused over time. The way things are going folks in any of the camps are not going to be happy with the outcome, especially with the new approach of "what $113.3 Million won't buy either". The Mt. Lebanon Board of School Directors, also members of this community, owes it to everyone to find a solution which demonstrates compromise, fiscal responsibility and respect for our municipal law.
Charlotte Stephenson
If you've got something to say that doesn't belong in a comment, write a letter and email it to the editors (Joe and Tom). Use the subject "Letter to the editors." We'll select the best and post them at regular intervals. To be selected, a letter should be well written and say something new; it should be insightful, informative, or entertaining, not inflammatory. In short, it should be worth reading.
And now, on to a new letter! –Tom
The High School Project needs fewer contradictions, more compromise and responsibility
Where do I begin? It's hard to put the pen to the paper with so many thoughts running through my head. After all that has been said and done, the high school project design is now potentially being modified as indicated through the architect's recent request for the identification of delete alternates (the potential elimination of features). Now this, in spite of the many times I have heard that the current project simply must move forward as is. The question is why this new development? From anticipated opportunistic bidding environments to necessary features in the "21st century learning environment" contradiction after contradiction has surfaced and it is enough to make one's head spin.
In response to concerns being raised about the high cost of the high school renovation project back in February, one board director voted against the approval of the "spend up to $113.3 million" limit after suggesting the project should be conducted using a phased approach. The idea was to make initial improvements to the high school and, as economic conditions improved or a more certain economic climate emerged, move ahead with other projects accordingly. "It can't be done that way!" was the resounding response. Now, that very option is being put on the table as of the July 12th School Board meeting. Sworn testimony by school district representatives on March 11, 2010 as part of a variance request process, stated that (page 129/315 lines 2-8) "this was the best design to meet the needs of our students and the community" and (page 130/315 lines 1-2) "this ultimately ended up being the best design for our building". The statements were made in an effort to gain needed zoning variances. So, what has changed? If that was the best design, then what does the less than best design represent?
When I raised my concern about the high project cost many months ago, I was told by a school board director that the project would probably come in somewhere around $90 Million. I didn't believe it then based on a few assumptions; one being there would most likely be cost overruns like those which occurred during the elementary school renovation projects. I began circulating a petition in late February requesting a $75 Million cap on the high school project in an effort to prove to our board that there was little community support for their high cost plan. Weeks later when the support for the petition could no longer be denied, the same director presented "what $75 Million won't buy" at a school board meeting, a slap in the faces of some 3,800 residents who signed the petition. Along with stating what reasonable spending wouldn't buy was the minimization of project costs to the taxpayers – a mere $18 per month. The recent whopping 10.5% tax increase which only supports the initial $75 million bond issue raised my school district taxes $68.58 per month or $823.04 annually. That's more than the cost of the extra refrigerator running in my basement, a frequently employed analogy.
There has to be a solution that we can all live with and it is unfortunate the divisiveness the situation has caused over time. The way things are going folks in any of the camps are not going to be happy with the outcome, especially with the new approach of "what $113.3 Million won't buy either". The Mt. Lebanon Board of School Directors, also members of this community, owes it to everyone to find a solution which demonstrates compromise, fiscal responsibility and respect for our municipal law.
Charlotte Stephenson
Labels: high school renovation, letter to the editor, zoning
15 Comments:
This latest development is just another kick to the gut of the Mt. Lebanon resident. Even if you are 100% in favor of this project in its current form (whatever that is), even you must be starting to get overwhelmed and a bit fed up with the misinformation, lack of coordination, etc. For months, the advocates of this project have been suggesting that it's either all or nothing. Anything less than that would be foolish and incomplete, they suggest. Now this . . . .
One point in this latest news that I found to be downright laughable is that we would even consider a $113 million comprehensive project that did not include AC in the field house. Wow, that's really some forward thinking, eh? That will no doubt set us ahead of our rivals, right?
I also found it interesting that Celli is now suggesting that modifications to the pool design would result in additional fees for him. I raised this very point with the School Board last month when I suggested that a smaller project wouldn't be promoted by the architect and/or the contractor because it would reduce their fees. However, I was quickly corrected by Mrs. Cappucci , who informed me via email that, "Both the architects and the construction manager for the high school project have fixed fee contracts. The final cost of the building will not affect the fees that they are paid."
Hmmmm . . . . .
Before the "Design Criteria" were a twinkle in Mr. Celli's eye - - the Community was presented with the District's "Evaluation Criteria" at the 07-22-08 Community Forum.
Noteworthy is that the Evaluation Criteria included "Zoning" as a consideration.
When the schematic designs (and design development drawings) were presented for consideration, I don't recall the architect mentioning to the school board (or Community) that the designs were not zoning compliant.
There was a time you could get something for your $6,000,000.
A major expenditure like this construction project should have been placed on the ballot for a community vote. This terrible fiasco is an excellent example of what happens when we grant essentially unlimited power to a local school board.
We need to start requiring a community vote by ballot for any major school district expenditure or school district tax increase.
The bad news is that this same Board is negotiating the new teachers contract...God help us!
To add to Bill Matthews comment, the Zoning Hearing Board hearing transcript, page 55 (PDF page 58), reveals that under sworn testimony Mr. Celli stated, " I think the plan we developed responds to all the criteria that the Mt. Lebanon School District set forth". Note the careful use of the word "responds" rather than *satisfies*, *meets*, or *conforms*.
He is leaving the EVALUATION up to the Board, and the Board majority failed to ask, determine & require that the design satisfied, met or strictly conformed to all Zoning provisions during the early Design Development phase last Fall. And still did not when the design was into the Construction Drawings phase months later, earlier this year.
The Board majority has seemingly failed in their fiduciary responsibiliy to properly oversee the largest project in the history of Mt. Lebanon. And they are about to try to change the heretofore fixed (and flawed) rules of their game plan to deal with it....and still get what will remain of their way without admitting fault.
Everyone should take note that the Planning Board tabled a review of the slightly revised proposed plan during the initial, formal consideration on June 22nd. because of "many issues". And note that further consideration has not been scheduled for a July Planning Board meeting. The reason for this is that the the thus far identified "issues" have not been resolved sufficiently enough to justify continued consideration. And, additional issues are likely to emerge during any successive meetings.
All this is *no never mind* to the Board majority....their main focus and attention is on meeting a bid opening target date of December 10, 2010. Full steam ahead...shovels in the ground ! After all, we've got the money from a $69 million bond issue sitting in the bank...since last October.
Oh, I neglected to mention that the $69 million bond issue occured far in advance of when it otherwise should have so that it would avoid a voters referendum to approve the resulting increase in millage and tax rates above a State mandated maximum.
Taxpayers were advised it was because interest rates were lower than they had been for a couple of decades....they still are, now since the 1950's.
I thought the same thing, Dave, when I saw Mr. Celli pointing out that any modifications to the pool would result in more fees for him. I wonder if the Board has considered asking for some money back since the Celli design wasn't within code to begin with. If it were my money I'd argue that they should be paying the attorney fees associated with that element of this whole fiasco as well.
Hindsight is 20/20. But what if the community had STARTED with the same CAC members that ultimately ended up serving (for free) and gone with their well thought out and fiscally prudent design? From there we could have contracted with an architect to draft the plans and been so much further ahead in both respectability and dollars that it hurts to even think about it.
My guess is that the realities of the marketplace are now truly kicking in for certain members of the Board. Is it awful that, as John Ewing pointed out in a previous post, that we've essentially blown five million dollars to this point? Absolutely!!! Heads should roll. But five million is a but a pittance compared to the 113 million they still want to spend.
Cap it at the 69 million we've already borrowed. I have a very hard time believing that, based on where the economy is today - on both a macro and micro level - we can't do some wonderful things to improve the quality of the education your sons and daughters are going to receive for that amount of money.
Mr. Taylor DID speak out as early as possible, long before the CAC was formed.
I spoke out the first day Mr. Celli made his presentation in the large auditorium, and I questioned his past work in the public forum.
I also spoke at my neighborhood elementary school, encouraging the board to consider Mr. Fraasch's proposal to replace the roof and boiler.
The CAC could not have made their recommendations before they did, because the plans were not complete enough to review.
We need to cap it at the $75 million we already borrowed.
Why didn't anyone listen when I pointed out Celli's Penn State library was a year overdue?
Attributed to Mrs. Cappucci above:
"Both the architects and the construction manager for the high school project have fixed fee contracts. The final cost of the building will not affect the fees that they are paid."
This does not appear to be an informed statement.
Yes, the Architect's contract was modified to include a fixed fee for the bulk of the architect's services. However, it also includes opportunities for ADDITIONAL fees under specified conditions for things like add alternates, deduct alternates and change orders.
The MTLSD-CFB Addendum details these additional fee opportunities.
Upon review, it sure seems the final project, as built, may affect the architect's fee.
What routinely concerns me about the HS Project is how often the folks "in the know" demonstrate they are not.
This is a +/-$100,000,000 project and should be treated as such.
Bob Reich, we will spend over $5,100,000 on the school bond issue by February 15, 2011. Of that amount $700,000 will be repaid to bond holders on that date.
The Architect has asked the Master Design team to identify up to ten $700,000-deletions to the high school project. Since we are paying back the bondholders before a shovel goes into the ground we should wonder if Celli has considered the $700,000 bond repayment in his calculations or will it dawn on someone that Celli should have asked for eleven $700,000-deletions to the project?
If Celli can’t draw to our Zoning Ordinance perhaps we should consider Bowie Gridley Architects of Washington D. C. Copy and paste their website into your computer to see their expertise in educational services:
http://bowie-gridley.com/sustainability.htm
Look at their Portfolio of clients
Notice they do:
Architecture
Master Planning
Sustainable Design
Interiors
They also work with schools that raise substantial voluntary donations and work to complete large renovations on a phased basis over time instead of trying to collect as much money at one time as they can and asking to be paid more when they design a mistake in the project.
Bill M., anyone who has ever picked up an AIA contract (the form of agreements used by owners, architects and contractors) knows that only the architect's Basic Services are covered by the fee (whether it be fixed or not). As you point out, Additional Services are always over and above that fee. That's why when I received Mrs Cappucci's I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. How is it possible that one of the SB members tasked with managing this project didn't understand or fully appreciate the scope of the architect's services and what the fixed fee covered? I don't want to blame Mrs. Cappucci alone for this because it's obvious that someone led her to believe that we only had to pay Celli a fixed fee, nothing more, nothing less. I can only hope that she and other SB members who responded to me in the same manner now appreciate exactly what they are getting - and NOT getting - for their fixed fee.
I'm more troubled by the SB's apparent "waiver" of Celli's obvious inability to design within the zoning ordinances. Every AIA contract requires that an architect familiarize himself with local laws and ordinances and then design the project in compliance and in conformance thereto. I have every reason to believe that his staff did so, and probably pointed out to the SB that the design was non-conforming. At that point, the SB
and its solicitor made the decision to move forward - arrogantly assuming that the municipality would just roll over and wave the non-conforming design. Well, we all know how that ended up. And now, since the SB and its solicitor blessed the knowingly non-conforming design, we can't really task Celli to fix it for free.
From the SB, to the solicitor, to the architect, to the financial advisors, to those who have blindly pushed and promoted this project forward without a full appreciation of its flaws - this whole process has been one minor disaster after another. The unwillingness to challenge authority or just say "wait a minute, that doesn't make sense," has now placed all of us in a very precarious position.
Dave, Dan Remely made the same fixed-price statement about the architect’s contract in a public meeting. Here we have a Chair of the Facilities Committee who manages commercial property but it appears he doesn’t understand the basics of an architect’s contract any better than Elaine Cappucci.
Our directors are elected officials who are supposed to represent us. They are also volunteers. No one can expect that they would know all the right answers every time, but what has been most disturbing is that when issues have been brought to their attention by other community volunteers with particular knowledge and expertise, the board majority has appeared to ignore them.
Time after time individuals have attempted to raise flags regarding this project and the lack of engaged dialogue which should have followed has been deafening. Whatever the evidence presented whether it was related to project design flaws (travel time issues), promises of fundraising meant to offset costs of features and which never materialized (master design team minutes dated September 29, 2009), petition signatures (submitted to the board), zoning regulations (readily available), enrollment statistics (disputing an FAQ stated 20 year enrollment projection), a risky tax trajectory (2/3/2010 budget projection) or cost per student outliers, and now important evidence about the misunderstood architectural fee structure, the board behavior has remained the same – it really doesn’t matter, just push forward.
Effective leadership requires tapping into available resources to gather facts and then make the best possible informed decision. Sometimes you get it wrong, but more often you will get it right. Monumental decisions are not meant to be made in a vacuum or based on experts’ opinions when those experts stand to gain from their influence on the decisions. (A 21st century learning environment design comes to mind.) Why “just move forward and get the shovels in the ground” when it is truly time to step back and reconsider the best way forward for this community? It’s not too late to find a better solution.
-Charlotte Stephenson
During the July 12th architect's project update, delete alternates were presented to keep the high school renovation on budget if bids exceed the Act 34 limit. Mr. Celli, offered several that could be cut to save money including ddeleting a gym, moving tennis courts offsite or delaying renovation of the fine arts theaters to a future date. I believe each alternative was estimated to save approximately $1,000,000+-.
This week, Ms. Posti wrote a blog entry on LEED and Truang Li that sheds some additional light on the LEED topic.
From the beginning of the HS project three goals were set. First, to provide our students with the best facilities possible. Second, to improve and expand the facility for community use and third to save energy. I believe the community supports those objectives in one manner or another.
However, examining the delete alternates and evaluating which I would favor if asked by the board, a light bulb went on based on information from the following articles.
The following Dartmouth College article is interesting considering their lower than LEED projected energy savings and comment on not pursuing LEED certification on future construction projects.
Dartmouth College energy engineer Stephen Shadford comments: "Although LEED standards will be taken into consideration for future College projects, including the Class of 1978 Life Sciences Center and the Visual Arts Center," Purcell, who oversees college projects at Dartmouth, said his department will focus on energy results, rather than on winning certifications.
“We try to build high-performance buildings,” Purcell said. “We don't let LEED drive the decision process.”
TheDartmouth.com | LEED-certified projects fall short of projections http://thedartmouth.com/2009/09/25/news/leed)
Additionally, it appears reimbursement isn't guaranteed. As I understand the LEED process, our district will put up $875,000 to acquire Silver certification. That money doesn't go toward energy efficient equipment and building materials, it only covers the certification process costs.
According to the following "LEED Buildings Flunk Targets" article on reimbursement, which is paid out over a number years, the final reimbursement could at some point be reduced if a building doesn't meet targets. They are now requiring audits in the new 2009 rules, so can penalties for not achieving energy savings be far behind?
Consilience: The Blog - Consilience: The Blog - LEED Buildings Flunk Targets http://www.consilienceblog.org/consilience-the-blog/2009/8/6/leed-buildings-flunk-targets.html
With the above in mind, I would like to offer the board a suggestion on the delete alternates. Delete the quest for LEED Silver certification before cutting gyms, tennis courts, pool lanes or theater renovations.
Certification costs around $875,000. This money doesn't buy high efficient boilers, lights, windows or technology. Strive for energy savings of course, but focus on improving the areas that benefit students and residents directly.
Ms. Posti's LEED blog post this week points out several Pittsburgh buildings that received or are working toward LEED certification. How many people could name the 7 buildings without reading the article? The board will discuss cutting a gym or deleting tennis courts for around $875,000. Why not drop LEED certification? The district and Mr. Celli lose a coveted Silver Star, but we may save a gym, pool lanes or onsite tennis courts.
Perhaps the Environmental Sustainability Board (ESB) could evaluate the energy consumption of moving the tennis courts offsite vs. the keeping them at their present location! The ESB discussed restrictions and putting signs on school grounds to curb idling car engines spewing CO2. Surely transporting tennis players by bus or van to remote courts rather than walking 60 feet to practice, play and use locker and weight rooms at the high school will create more CO2, than they do now!
The "Devil" is in the details!
Dean Spahr
The MLSD is asking the State for over $1,000,000 in reimbursement for LEEDS. The State budget is $3,8 billion in the red this year. How long will it be before we realize the Board bought themselves an expensive plaque at our expense?
John, 6 of the 9 board members want to see their names memorialized in bronze. For the community it will be a never-ending reminder of the monumental mistake we will be paying for over the next 30 years.
Joe Wertheim
Post a Comment
<< Home