posted by Joe Polk at 12:48 AM /
Mt. Lebanon school directors will consider cheaper options should the construction bids to renovate Mt. Lebanon High School come in over the projected $113 million.
An update on the high school's renovation was provided to the board on Aug. 9 by Kathy Stoughton of the architectural firm Celli-Flynn Brennan (CFB). Also on hand were representatives John Teramino and Dana Damon of the schools' construction managing firm, PJ Dick.
Read more: www.thealmanac.net/ALM/Story/08-11-2010-ML-architect-update
An update on the high school's renovation was provided to the board on Aug. 9 by Kathy Stoughton of the architectural firm Celli-Flynn Brennan (CFB). Also on hand were representatives John Teramino and Dana Damon of the schools' construction managing firm, PJ Dick.
Read more: www.thealmanac.net/ALM/Story/08-11-2010-ML-architect-update
Labels: high school renovation, school board, school district
7 Comments:
"Board member Daniel Remley said it would be better to reduce costs now instead of waiting to see if the bids come in over $113 million. "I don't think these should be deducts, but a part of the plan," Remley said."
Dan Remely finally gets what Concerned Citizens of Mt. Lebanon have been saying all along. Maybe you can even cap it at $75 million!There are people out there willing to help you figure out how. You are taxing us out of our homes. The Municipality is at the point where they will cut services or raise taxes. Or both. Let's look at what we need instead of what we want, School Board Directors. Do you still think we are fear mongers, Mr. Kubit?
Elaine Gillen
This also proves that the District set the project budget at just below what the state mandated debt limit level would likely be 2 years hence, and then instructed the architects to design as much as they could for that amount of money. Take note that there are only deduct alternates being considered, no add alternates. The decision to do this was back in February when the Master Design Team realized they were fast approaching both the debt limit and the Act 34 spending limit.
The full school board and general public were not made aware of the deduct alternates (and no add alternates) prospect until just a few weeks ago. The contract-required 50% Construction Drawings cost estimate update is a bit tardy as well seeing that the 50% CD level was reached in late May...it's on their plan drawings submitted to Muni.
Also interesting is the fact that the cost estimate update is dated Aug. 4, 2010....and the school board did not receive it until the evening of the SB meeting on Aug, 9th. Also, the now $113.2 million estimate is essentially the same as the Act 34 handbook $113.275 million, developed in January 2010. This in spite of the fact that the project has grown in size by 6,000 square feet since January...it is now 486,000 square feet v. 279,845 in January compared to an originally SB approved project design limit of 440,000 square feet in early 2009.
The SB was apparently not given previously provided detailed cost breakdowns....the really key cost number is that for the "new/additions" portion of the project. Exceeding that cost portion by a state-limited amount can lead to both a 2nd. Act 34 hearing and/or an electoral referendum.
Bill Lewis
Whoops...a typo in my preceeding comment, second to last paragraph...the 279,845 should have been 479,845. Sorry about that !
Bill Lewis
Just one more observation about the deduct discussion during the Architects Update : the P.J.Dick representative responded to the question as to what the cost reduction would be if the 3rd. gym was removed from the project, and his answer was about $1 million.
Contrast this to the June 8, 2009 SB meeting where the SB approved the addition of the 3rd. gym at an estimated cost then of $2,251,000. This figure can also be found in the powerpoint presentation at the SB meeting on Aug.10,2009 on a chart entitled "Mt Lebanon High School Schematic Estimate", on the District website. The additional 2 pool lanes were also approved on June 8,2009 at an estimated cost adder of $1,080,000.
No one inquired as to why there would be a $1,251,000 cost difference between adding a gym v. not adding a gym...goes to show no one paying attention to what is going on....or perhaps they're afraid to ask, or don't want the public to know ?
Bill Lewis
Re: Agenda Item "Radon Mitigation at High School"
What's with the secrecy with the radon levels; why didn't they just say what the "slightly higher" levels were at our building at Monday's Board Discussion meeting? Lame. Why are they doing this ahead of the renovation, while kids and staff are in school, and using falsehoods to justify it? I've inquired, but they're not answering.
---------------
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Dear Mt. Lebanon School Board and Dr. Steinhauer:
Why did your Facilities Department tell the School Board at Monday night's meeting that EPA requires remediation for radon when it's not true?
What are test results?
What are these "slightly higher" test results that Mr. Marciniak made reference to at the Board Discussion meeting Monday (August 9, 2010)?
What is the reason the Administration/Facilities is timing this project now?
The recommended EPA protocol at http://www.epa.gov/radon/pubs/schoolrn.html is as follows:
Step 1 - Initial Testing - Take short-term tests.
Step 2 - Follow-up Testing - Take a second short-term test in rooms where the initial level is 4 pCi/L or higher. Take a long-term test in these rooms for a better understanding of the school-year average radon level.
Step 3 - Take action to reduce levels if: The average of the initial and short-term follow-up test is 4 pCi/L or greater or the result of the long-term test is 4 pCi/L or greater.
Sincerely,
Pam Scott
---------
More questions the District doesn't answer:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Dear MTLSD:
Has the radon contractor been told that the spray-on fireproofing that they may encounter in Building F is RACM (Regulated Asbestos-Containing Material)? Or are you folks still going with the illusion that it has magically become "non-hazardous"?
The list for the "savings for asbestos" and "the reduction in the amount of asbestos" that was referenced at the 9 August 2010 Architect's Update is not located on the District website. Where is this list? There's no mention of it in the so-called "revised hazardous materials assessment" of the high school that Mr. Marciniak mentioned at the 14 December 14 2009 board meeting either.
Sincerely,
Pam Scott
On Aug 17, 2010, at 7:30 AM, Ronald P. Davis, EdD wrote:
Dear parents and students,
During the 2009-2010 school year, the District followed its protocol of conducting radon tests in the school buildings, including the high school. The process started with 131 areas within the high school tested using the EPA protocol of a short-term test. This testing batch resulted in the identification of spaces that needed follow-up testing. Again in accordance with EPA protocol, additional short-term tests were conducted.
When the series of short-term tests that were administered in a particular area consistently returned results above the EPA recommended level of 4.0 pCi/L, the District followed the EPA guidelines of administering a long-term test. The areas that received long-term tests were the Pumpkin Theatre, the Dance Studio, the Fine Arts Faculty area (used as a practice room), and a golf storage area. Additionally, and as a precaution, a long-term test was administered in room 437, directly above the golf storage area.
The results came back identifying that the Pumpkin Theatre, Dance Studio, golf storage area, Fine Arts Faculty area (used as a practice room) were above the 4.0 pCi/L threshold. Tests for Room 437 came in far below the threshold. To mitigate the radon issue in the identified areas, the District prepared bid specifications for the mitigation work and awarded the bid at the Board meeting last evening. The contractors will be expected to start as soon as possible on the scope of work, which is anticipated to last 2-3 weeks.
I have asked that the instructional spaces be prioritized as one of the 1st spaces addressed so that they can be used at the onset of school. Should a room not be ready for student occupancy on August 30, I will identify an alternate meeting space and work closely with the staff member to relocate the classes.
Ronald P. Davis, EdD
Principal
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For more information about asbestos in schools, see this BlogLebo post from April 2010, reposted here:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
April 19, 2010
Anyone interested in AHERA should check out:
http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/pubs/asbestos_in_schools.html
That webpage contains a direct link to "How to Manage Asbestos in School Buildings - AHERA Designated Person's Self-study Guide (PDF) (103 pp, 653K) (January 1996)
http://www.epa.gov/region2/ahera/e23.pdf
A direct link to the AHERA-relevant CFR (Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 40, Part 763, Subpart E) is
http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/pubs/asbreg.html
During the elementary renovations, Mt. Lebanon School District failed miserably on four of the seven required actions listed in Dave Franklin's 2:05pm April 15 post. Asbestos mismanagement is not a reasonable justification for the current $113 million high school project plan that is likely to exacerbate the District's problems with asbestos mismanagement and increase airborne asbestos levels in the high school.
The cure for asbestos mismanagement is proper practices, not heads in the sand or false claims that the high school is falling down.
--Pam Scott
[Originally posted to
"Mt. Lebanon Votes To Submit Renovation Plans To State"
http://bloglebo.blogspot.com/2010/04/mt-lebanon-votes-to-submit-renovation.html#comments
]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Post a Comment
<< Home