Board Approves Retaining Stadium Turf Consultant

Last night, the Board approved an agreement with Professional Sports Field Services LLC to write the specifications and provide installation inspection and monitoring for the turf replacement.  This is the first step in replacing the stadium turf after 2010 graduation but before fall sports begin.

The current turf has reached the end of its useful life and has become a safety hazard for players.  A recent collection of significant liened taxes would allow us to fund this project without incurring debt or impacting taxes.

Last week and last night, I expressed interest in exploring the possibility of expanding the turf to a regulation size used by soccer and lacrosse.  The current size does not meet that criteria.  Expanding the turf to a larger size would obviously impact the track, the walkway around the field as well as bleachers.

Our architect, Tom Celli, indicated that a rough estimate they'd established early in the design phase was approximately $2 million to make those accommodations. While there did appear to be interest in Board members in expanding the size, this significant cost prevented us from making that modification to the resolution prior to unanimously adopting it.

Mrs. Birks recommended that Mr. Kubit work with the municipality this year to develop a comprehensive fields plan in order to establish a community-wide inventory of space needs and the costs for enhancing and maintaining those spaces.  I requested this from the Board last year, spoke to commissioners about it and continue to support such a plan.  While field improvements and maintenance may not be a focus in the municipality's 2010 budget, without a comprehensive plan, it's difficult for either taxing body to forecast appropriately or to understand what the community's priorities are and what costs can be shared.  Working toward this is a great goal - not only to revisit the turf size issue but to plan for appropriate space for all of the sports our community participates in.

Board Accepts CAC Recommendations

Last night, the Board continued its discussion regarding the Community Advisory Committee's report that the CAC presented last week.  We heard from a number of residents at last night's meeting; in addition we received a number of calls and emails offering feedback about the report.

In the end, the Board voted 8 - 1 (Mr. Fraasch dissenting) to move forward with Design Development in substantially the form presented with the inclusion of the following recommendations by the CAC:

• Create a plaza off Cochran Road for walking students
• Re-look at the loading dock area
• Re-look at the tennis courts
• Examine two-way traffic pattern on Horsman Drive
• Commit to LEED Silver
• Examine congestion in the Commons area

There also appeared to be Board consensus on adopting these additional recommendations made by the CAC although these were not voted on last night:

• Mechanical / electrical design peer review
• Single prime contractor
• Owner's representative

These three recommendations, in my opinion, are the ones most likely to offer cost savings.  The first six will have little impact on cost with the exception of creating a plaza off Cochran, which could add cost.

The plaza would create a more visible, recognizable main public entrance along the most traveled street bordering the school.  The CAC described it as an opportunity to "continue to promote Mt. Lebanon as a premier walkable community by showcasing the public connection to the High School."  It would be a beautiful way to establish a presence that the community can feel connected to.

While I like the concept, I did express concerns I have about its development.  Today, 77 percent of our high school students travel to school via car (either driving or being dropped off).  Even if the intent is to create a pedestrian plaza, the reality is that we may still be dealing with the same traffic and pedestrian issues on Cochran that we're trying to resolve by establishing the main entrance in the rear of the school.  My other concern is cost.  This will add an aesthetic rather than programmatic cost to the project.  We want our school to be beautiful and something the entire community can be proud of but we also need to keep in mind the reality of logistics and costs.

CAC recommendations the Board did not adopt were those related to retaining Building C.  The public, the Board and the architects offered many reasons ranging from re-design cost and expense, asbestos abatement issues, the use of modular classrooms, additional square footage incurred, way-finding, security, departmental proximity, and the impact to athletics and fine arts.

I'm looking forward to seeing how we can continue to refine the project based on these recommendations.  Some of these may or may not be possible.  The architects have examined several possible locations for the loading dock and have found challenges with elevations as well as interior traffic flow with most.  Likewise, the tennis court location does not have an easy solution.  

I'm also looking forward to further discussion regarding a mechanical / electrical design peer review, our ability to hire a single prime contractor and an owner's representative.  I appreciate the time and creativity the CAC put into their recommendations and for the public's, the Master Design Team's, the architect's and the Board's thoughtful consideration of them.  

PSERS Bill Introduced

From PSBA today:

"An announcement on the introduction of a bill calling for a major change to the Public School Employees Retirement System and backed by PSBA will be introduced this afternoon (Dec. 16) at 2:00 p.m.at the State Capitol.

Sponsored by Sen. Gene Yaw (R-Lycoming) and Rep. Glen Grell (R-Cumberland), the bill would transform PSERS from a 100% defined benefit system to a hybrid defined benefit/defined contribution system.

The proposal, HB 2135 (no Senate bill number at this writing), is part of the recommendation made by PSBA's Pension Study Committee in 2007. The recommendation was unanimously accepted by the PSBA Board of Directors and the PSBA Platform Committee and was overwhelmingly reaffirmed this past fall by voting delegates from around the state at the meeting of the PSBA Policy Council.

The legislation being proposed represents the committee's long term solution to the pension issue. As described previously, PSBA is calling for the creation of a hybrid pension system for school employees, one that combines the advantages of a defined benefit and a defined contribution system.

The bill would create a new class of employees, T-E, comprised of individuals who join the system after June 30, 2010. These employees will enjoy the benefits of a defined benefit system, albeit at a lower benefit level, but also have the opportunity to make contributions and control the types of investments in which their contributions are placed through a newly-created defined contribution program. At the time of their retirement, these individuals would reap the benefits earned by both the defined benefit investments and their defined contribution benefits.

The defined benefit features that would be included in the bill for class T-E employees are 1) an employee contribution rate of 3.25% of salary, down from the current 7.5%; 2) a multiplier of 1%, down from the current 2.5%; and 3) a vesting period of 10 years, up from the current 5-year period.

The new defined contribution system calls for the creation of an Individual Annuity Savings Account for all eligible members of the system. Each eligible member would contribute a minimum of 3% of their salary to the account, along with a mandatory match of 2% of compensation by the employer. Employees could contribute more subject to IRS limitations.

The PSERS Board of Directors would have the power to make any necessary rules and regulations for the administration and management of the Individual Annuity Savings Plan and have the power to enter into written agreements with one or more financial institutions or other organizations relating to the plan's administration and investment of funds. These rules and regulation include, but are not limited to the following:

• The types of investments that are permitted
• How and when individuals can transfer contributions between investments
• Procedures for deducting amounts to be deferred from members' compensation
• Standards or criteria for the selection for the selection of financial institutions or other organizations that may be qualified as managers of funds deferred under the plan or to provide other services relating to the administration and management of the plan
• Standards and criteria for disclosing and providing options to eligible individuals regarding investments of amounts deferred under the plan
• Standards and criteria for disclosing the anticipated and actual income attributable to amounts invested, property rights and all fees, costs and charges to be made against amounts deferred to cover the costs and expenses of administering and managing the plan or funds
• Procedures, standards and criteria for the making of withdrawals from the plan upon separation from employment or death or in other circumstances consistent with the purpose of the plan.

The bill also modifies the 4% minimum employer contribution floor, so that it would remain in effect in years when the funded ratio of the plan is 100% or more. However this minimum rate would be offset by the amount of funds contributed as part of the defined contribution part of the system.

Also, the bill provides that increases in school district contributions to the pension system would be capped at the Act 1 index. Should the increase in the school district share of the employer contribution rate exceed the current year Act 1 index, the state would pick up the difference between the new employer contribution rate and the index.

The hybrid pension bill would save the system, including school districts and taxpayers, money over the long run because it would create a system that is less expensive to operate, both in terms of the contributions needed and in terms of the benefits paid out to retirees. Projections from Buck consultants, the actuaries used by PSERS, show that the employer contribution under the hybrid plan would be less than under the current plan over the next 25 years. Moreover, the current PSERS system benefit represents approximately 72% of final salary, while the hybrid plan benefit would represent anywhere from 53% -63% of salary depending on investment returns and the amount of salary employees choose to contribute to the defined contribution part of the plan.

How you can help
Please call your House and Senate member(s) and ask them to sign on to the co-sponsorship letter for HB 2135 and the Senate Bill.

Interested legislators can also call Sen. Yaw's office at (717) 787-3280 or Rep. Grell at (717) 783-2063. These bills represent a major change to the current school employee's pension system that will save taxpayers and school districts millions of dollars that are needed to pay for pension contribution increases over the next 22 years.

Visit PSBA's Web site now for access to a host of information on the pension issue including a sample letter we are asking you to send to your legislators asking them to co-sponsor the legislation.  (Contact Representative Smith here and Senator Pippy here.)

The 2010 employer contribution rate has been set at 8.22%, a 72% increase over the current rate, so the large increases have already begun. The employer rate is projected to hit its maximum of 33.60% in 2015 and to remain above 20% until 2032, meaning that it is crucial that the Legislature begin its work now to find a solution so that those increases can be mitigated."

CAC Report 12.14.09

Update: Report available here (12.17.09)
Ideas / Suggestions document available here (12.18.09)

Last night, the Community Advisory Committee (CAC) presented their report for Board consideration.  There are nine "principle issues" the CAC identified.  Some of these have been identified by the MDT and architects as well.  When considering the 15 design criteria from which they worked, some may be debatable.  They are:

• Location and operation of the loading dock
• Conflicting vehicular circulation
• Compromised tennis court solution
• Costly site work
• Proximity of athletics to parking
• Lack of a front entrance
• Increased travel distance between classrooms
• Bottle-necked and unclear internal circulation
• Congested common spaces

 There are three unanimous recommendations the committee presented:

• Mechanical / electrical peer review
• Single prime contractor
• Owner's representative

There are, in my opinion, merits with each of these suggestions.  I look forward to exploring whether we may be able to implement them.  In addition, the report listed 80 other ideas and suggestions for our consideration.  Of these, 14 were ranked as the most important for our consideration.  Each were  reviewed by the MDT and by the architects and once the report is available online, you'll be able to read each party's comments as well as whether each party believes the ideas meet the 15 design criteria.  They are, in order:

• Create a plaza off Cochran Rd. in the tradition of other building plazas for walking students
• Relook at the loading dock area
• Place gym complex by Fine Arts area
• Decrease travel distance between academic wings (keep C building)
• Place all academic facilities on floors 4, 5 and 6 of Buildings B and C
• Reintroduce the road in front of the Fine Arts Theatre
• Do not move tennis courts
• Concerns about athletic complex: concession queuing, entry to gym, shower/locker ratio; New athletics complex where building G is proposed; improve proximity to parking
• Maintain current one-way traffic pattern on Horsman and add governor's drive
• Circulation patterns through the new Center Commons
• Relocate loading dock to lower level Building C
• Demand that the architects turn the LEED credits from likely to yes
• Move Central Administration to a more accessible location
• Cochran Road front entrance for pedestrian traffic only

The other suggestions aren't ranked but range from closing off the cafeteria to eliminate traffic through it to retaining the North Gym to not adding a bridge to the Athletic Complex to rotating the current pool to maintaining the planetarium.  Their report is not yet available online but I will post a link when it is.

The MDT's and Architects' comments include whether each idea met design criteria, whether they meet code, whether there is an additional cost incurred and what the potential delays are.

While we did not discuss each of the ideas at length, the Board did discuss concerns some of us have regarding keeping C Building, including its ability to meet programmatic needs, asbestos abatement, use of temporary classrooms, and security.  Kerry Leonard provided an overview of the architects' previous rationale for not keeping C Building, which has been shared publicly during public architects' updates.

The Board will continue our discussion about this as well as the other ideas presented on Monday.  I encourage residents to watch last night's meeting, attend Monday's meeting and especially to give the Board your feedback.  I appreciate the CAC's time and energy in developing this report and look forward to further review.

2010-11 Calendar

Last night's meeting was jam-packed with good discussions about the CAC report, turf recommendations and more.  I'll start with something easy: approval of the year's Board meeting calendar.

The calendar is something that has generated good discussion for years.  When I was first elected in 2005, the conversations centered around changing our meeting days so as not to conflict with Commission meetings.  Past Board members talked to past commissioners about doing just that.  The challenge the District has is that we have a large number of school events that fall on other nights of the week.  Things like athletic schedules are planned up to a year in advance so for us to move to a Tuesday or Wednesday night would inevitably create conflicts for residents, Board members and staff not to mention issues with parking during athletic events.

Last year, a director suggested moving our monthly discussion meeting to the first Monday of the month.  The idea was to create more space between the discussion meeting and regular meeting on the third Monday of the month.  The issue with this option is that our financial reports would not be complete and available for review for that first meeting since books close at the end of each month.

This year, he suggested that we move the regular meeting to the fourth Monday of the month, keeping the discussion meeting on the second Monday, creating two weeks between meetings.

During last night's discussion, I indicated that I would be unable to support such a move.  Making this change would mean that our meetings would be on exactly the same two nights as Commission meetings.  While we currently overlap one meeting each month, scheduling both of our meetings on the same nights would preclude residents from attending both meetings.  While both bodies now televise meetings, this convenience is not a replacement for attending meetings in person, in my opinion.  Just as a concert is a different experience than listening to an iPod, attending a meeting, speaking at the podium and maybe even talking one-on-one to an elected official before or after a meeting are important parts our residents play in the democratic process.

My other issue was whether we truly need more time between meetings.  I took some time to review agendas from the past year's worth of meetings, paying particular attention to challenging decisions we made.  There were definitely instances where unanswered questions came up during a discussion meeting and more information was needed by the following week's regular meeting.  For myself, I don't find that more time helps me make a better decision.  More information certainly does and our staff are extremely responsive in delivering it.  Residents' feedback is important in decision-making, too.  Our constituents are engaged in important decisions and often voice concerns or questions well in advance of us even discussing the issue in a public meeting.

In addition to these concerns, Board members mentioned conflicts they would have with some of the dates presented should we decide to change our schedule.  One Board member would miss as many as four Board meetings if we moved to the second/fourth week scenario.  For all of these reasons, the concensus seemed to be that we will revisit the original second/third week schedule for approval on Monday.

This does not solve the problem.  We do have residents who would like the opportunity to attend both Board and Commission meetings and we currently have a conflict.  I encourage the Commission to consider changing their meeting day to a different night of the week.  While both taxing bodies can continue to stand firm and wait for the other to blink, the reality is that the District has a much more complicated activity schedule than the municipality and after exploring many options, I feel like the ball is in the Commission's court.  Anything we can do to encourage more participation in democracy is worthwhile and until this ongoing schedule conflict is resolved, I'm sure it will continue to be a point of discussion - at least once a year.

December Board Meetings

December is a busy month for many of us but you'll want to make time to attend one or both of this month's meetings.

We'll start Monday's public meetings with a 7PM Architects' Update in the High School Library.  This review of the "95% drawings" will be followed by our 7:30PM Discussion Meeting where we will hear a report from the Community Advisory Committee on their recommendations.  I anticipate this report being lengthy and it's important to get community feedback on implementing or not implementing any of their suggestions.  Some of them could save project costs; some could have significant cost and timing implications if adopted.

This discussion will be followed by a presentation on the High School turf given by our athletic director, John Grogan as well as a report regarding the Act 34 Hearing required for the renovation project.  The Board may consider using revenue from back taxes to replace the turf before or simultaneously with the renovation project.  Mr. Grogan will report on the pros and cons of different material options for the Board's consideration.

An Act 34 Hearing is a public hearing "to ensure that no major school construction would be undertaken without making certain facts and details of a project known to the public."  There is a specific procedure we must follow, including advertisement, a resolution and a project description and we will review this process on Monday.

Another item for discussion is the approval of the Board's calendar, which was tabled during Monday's reorganization meeting.  A director has proposed moving our meetings to the same nights as the Commission meetings (second and fourth Mondays of each month) in order to allow more time between our meetings.  We have previously discussed moving ours to the first and third Mondays or changing the night of the week we meet and found that we would not have financial items complete for review on the first Mondays and that the District's activities have numerous conflicts on other nights of the week.

If you can make time between all of this month's many activities, please consider attending Monday's meeting.  We look forward to your feedback.

Ringing in the Holidays

Last night, I took my children to the High School Orchestra concert, one of many opportunities we have had this month to enjoy some great music courtesy of the District.  The highlights for me were Julian Pearlman and Ben Brodie's senior violin solos (Mozart's Concerto No. 4 and Saint-Saens' Introduction and Rondo Capriccioso) and the String Orchestra's 7 Sketches for String Orchestra, Op. 31 by Robert Schultz.

Last night was the premiere performance of the string orchestra version of this piece and the composer was introduced after its performance.  Schultz and his wife live in Squirrel Hill and his wife, Dr. Tina Faigen, is a Mt. Lebanon alumna who performed in the Mt. Lebanon High School Orchestra as a student.  Mr. Vogel, the Orchestra's director, explained that he usually chooses a piece each year with a Pittsburgh connection, often with a Mt. Lebanon connection.  Last night, it was a treat for the Orchestra and audience to not only be a part of this premiere performance but to actually meet and show appreciation to the man who composed it.

There still opportunities to enjoy first-class entertainment at the High School before we break for the holidays.  This weekend is the Percussion Concert and next week is the Holiday Show and Thespian Benefit.  Middle and elementary concerts are also taking place around the District.  Click here for more information.

New Beginnings

Last night, the Board elected Ed Kubit (5-4) president and Sue Rose (5-4) vice president for 2010.  The other nominees were myself for president and James Fraasch for vice president. (For the record, I voted for myself for president and for Mrs. Rose for vice president.) While every reorganization is an opportunity to examine how the Board sets its priorities and manages its workload, this year is a chance to improve governance and collaboration among Board members and to develop a united team working toward common goals.

I have confidence that Mr. Kubit and Mrs. Rose will be a strong leadership team.  Last night’s meeting was a chance for the Board to share concerns some members, including myself, have had regarding the responsibilities Board leadership have fallen short on during the past two years and to recognize the division this has created among the team.  Mr. Kubit offered a commitment to improve communication with constituents, Board members and stakeholders, work on team building and correct gaps some of us have observed in governance.

Mrs. Rose, our longest-serving member brings six years of Board experience, an in-depth understanding of Policy and a commitment to cooperation and respect among Board members.

Congratulations to Mr. Kubit and Mrs. Rose.  I’m looking forward to working with them both during this important year ahead.

Pennsylvania American Water Announces Scholarship Program

I'm proud to work for Pennsylvania American Water.  It's a great company with exceptional people at every level of the organization.  But I'm especially proud this week to share information about a new scholarship program we're launching for graduating seniors living in one of our service areas who plan to pursue a course of study critical to the water or wastewater industry.

Because I know parents read this blog, because college is expensive and because I love seeing kids rewarded for their hard work, I'm giving some shameless promotion to the program.  We will award ten $2,000 scholarships to students throughout the commonwealth.  An application is available here or through the guidance department.  The deadline is February 12 and I encourage all eligible seniors  - not just in Mt. Lebanon but throughout Pennsylvania - to apply.

Capital Projects Update

One of the expenditures I'm proudest of during my tenure on the Board has been our investment in our facilities.  Repair and maintenance of the District's ten buildings is important to safety as well as adequate learning space.


This year, the Board approved a Capital Project plan that includes 102 projects totaling almost $1.4 million.  Of these, 77 are complete with expenses coming in at about 30% under the budgeted amount.  The seven projects that are in progress are:

• Mechanical system balancing (District-wide)
• Plumbing modifications and repairs (District-wide) 
• Installation of a retaining wall at Washington
• Work to Lincoln's front walkway
• Replacing broken locker doors at Mellon
• Regrading and resealing at Hoover
• Installing new outlets and ceiling mounts for projectors (District-wide)

Replacing B Building's roof is on hold.  Upcoming projects include:

• Masonry work and plastering (District-wide)
• Concrete replacement (District-wide)
• Fence repair and replacement (District-wide)
  
• Repaving and seal-coating (District-wide)
• Tree removal and pruning (District-wide)
• Carpet replacement (District-wide)

I'm grateful to Mr. Marciniak, Mr. Ingram and their staff for managing this ambitious schedule so efficiently and cost-effectively.