Open Letters to the School Board

For months, starting in March of 2009, Carlynton district residents have written emails to the school board directors and have forwarded them to the CarlyntonSOS.org website. With the author’s permission, we publish select letters. Click the links below to read individual letters our scroll the page to read them all.

02/17/2011 – Michael J. Bernard: Pursuing Renovation-Only Plan is Best Option!
01/29/2011 – Mona Rush: Observations & Comments on January 20th Meeting
01/28/2011 – April Weitzel: Quoted in Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation Newsletter
01/18/2011 – Jim Schriver: The Current Economic Climate
01/11/2011 – Laura King: Consider Renovating Carnegie and Crafton Elementary Schools
12/07/2011 – Mike Magliocco: Background Checks and Clearances Required for Work on School Renovations and New Construction
11/28/2010 – April Weitzel: Letter Published in Post Gazette Advocating Renovation and Gov. Corbett’s Intervention
11/16/2010 – Joe Appel: Select Board Members Meeting with State Representatives
10/29/2010 – State Representatives Dan Deasy & Matt Smith: Request for Community Task Force
10/26/2010 – Nicole MacMurdo: Dr. Panza On Record Favoring Consolidation, Misrepresentation of Facts
10/16/2010 – Michael Kozy Sr.: Competitive Bidding Information
10/8/2010 – David and LeeAnne O’Brien: Competitive Bidding Information
10/7/2010 – April Weitzel: Brentwood Renovated Two Elementary Schools for $5 Million
10/6/2010 – Mike Kozy Sr.: Guaranteed Energy Savings Act
10/5/2010 – Mike Kozy Sr.:Kimball Skewed Numbers to Make renovation More Expensive
10/5/2010 – Joyce Glaser: Carlynton Never Called About Property
9/10/2010 – Alice J. Pescuric: Follow Up to Request to Inquire About Glaser Property
9/29/2010 – Monica Dugan: Please Listen to the People Who Elected You
9/16/2010 – Lorianne Holt: Closing a Neighborhood School Cuts Home Values by 10%
9/8/2010 – Mike Kozy Sr.: Kimball Feasibility Study Full of Errors
5/11/2010 Mike Kozy Sr.: Suggests Getting Community Input with Town Hall Meetings
4/6/2010 – April Weitzel: Kimball Lacks Desire to Renovate Schools
3/19/2010 – Jim Schriver: Rejecting Free Offer Contrary to Tom Brown’s Assertion of Researching all Facets of the Facilities Issue

———————————————————————————————————————————————–
Feb. 17, 2011

School Board Members:

Please pursue the only logical alternative, a renovation-only of Carnegie and Crafton Elementary Schools. The majority of the community who elected you, who promised not to raise taxes, want to see you keep true to your word and pursue a renovation-only plan, the most cost-effective alternative of all! I agree with Dr. Wilson and Mr. Walkowiak as stated at your last board meeting on February 3, 2011, pursuing a renovation-only plan and thus living within our current budget. I also agree with Mr. Jim Shriver in his Reader Forum article in today’s Signal Item that a “New school is a $30 million bad idea!” The poor economic climate in our area especially after Hurricane Ivan coupled with a school district which is already one of the highest taxed in the county and state, definitely warrants extreme fiscal responsibility! I implore you to stop wasting everyone’s time and tax payer money by directing the Architect to only consider renovations of the two existing elementary schools from this point forward! I both spoke at a previous school board meeting and signed the CarlyntonSOS.org petition, echoing this renovation-only view.

Sincerely,
Michael J. Bernard, Carnegie Resident with two children currently excelling at Carnegie Elementary School.

———————————————————————————————————————————————–
Jan. 29, 2011

Dear Board Members,

I wish to comment on proceedings at the January 20^th Board Meeting including thoughts related to the issue of renovating two elementary schools or building a new one.

1. I’d like to bring to your attention the fact that board members talk over one another.  For instance, a review of the tape will show that more than once Directors DiPetro and McCartney spoke over Director Shell making it difficult to hear what she was saying.
2. It was uncomfortable to hear at least two residents apologize because it was perceived by a few Directors that their commitment was being questioned. The residents were put on the defensive while simply expressing their personal opinions or providing valuable insights.
3. What an individual would do regarding building or renovating a personal property has nothing to do with a decision to renovate/build schools which involves taxpayer monies and debt.
4. Director Schirrippa asked that the communities be contacted to ascertain their positions regarding the elementary schools.  The Board should do this with community council meetings open to all and understandings put in writing to be shared with everyone.
5. Director McCartney seemed to indicate that the only people who attended the board meeting were those who oppose one elementary building.  He further seemed to imply that the number of people opposing one building were few.  Considering Director Schirrippa’s concern about the communities’ position and Director McCartney’s implications, I submit that a proliferation of yard signs, two web sites, and public letters sent to the Board since October at least indicate more than a few residents who oppose the closing of the two elementary schools.  In the two meetings I attended, I did not hear one resident speak in support of one building nor have I seen any visible signs of such support.
6. There has been no discussion related to moving grade 6 to the high school, creating a unique middle school model, and thereby providing more room in the two elementary buildings.  The junior high has been in existence for some time, and if parents still have concerns about younger children in the same building with older children, those concerns should have been resolved years ago.  Planning carefully for integrating grade 6, especially with a distinctive middle school curriculum, may well be more attractive to residents/parents.   While Director DiPetro has expressed the opinion that other districts have eliminated their middle schools, Carlynton is in the position of having neighborhood schools which everyone appears to agree work well and a long-established junior high.  Moving one grade level is less disruptive than closing two buildings and moving about 700 elementary students into one multi-story building.
7. Space and staff considerations in two K-5 buildings and a Middle School/High School would need to be addressed.  Ira Weiss, Esq., stated that a middle school configuration would have to be approved by the Pennsylvania Department of Education, and teachers would have time to acquire any additional certification.  Whether those teachers would be certified versus qualified needs to be explained beyond a matter of semantics.  Surely if the teachers are qualified at the moment, acquiring more education should be a plus.  How that makes a teacher less qualified needs to be explained.
8. It is hoped that those Directors who appear to have come to a decision to build a new elementary school will find there are compelling reasons to change their mind. It is hoped that those Directors who oppose closing the two elementary buildings or have yet to make up their mind will become more vocal.  It is hoped that all Directors will weigh carefully numerous factors such as the preferences of residents, debt potential, a decrease in government funding, an increase in pension contributions, and an increase in the tax burden.

Respectfully,

Mona D. Rush, EdD

Crafton Resident
———————————————————————————————————————————————–
Jan. 28, 2011

Crafton Councilwoman April Weitzel called the building a “gem of the community that has served and will continue to serve the citizens of Crafton and Carnegie.” Councilwoman Weitzel is convinced that renovating the school will be less expensive, resulting in no tax increases for the district. She further stated that “maintaining our neighborhood schools instead of abandoning them helps stabilize property values and encourages others to move into Carnegie and Crafton.”

Read full article:

http://www.phlf.org/2011/01/28/historic-crafton-elementary-school-threatened-with-closure/
———————————————————————————————————————————————–
Jan. 18, 2011

Hello School Board Members:

I would like to provide some feedback on the Thomas and Williamson report presented at the last meeting.  I would also like to verify if the 25-page document on the school website is the complete report, or if there are more pages to the report which can be posted.  There appears to be one or more references to other report pages which don’t seem to be on the website.

While I was at first surprised that the top-line numbers from T&W appeared to be very similar to the Kimball report, the Q&A period revealed that the same basic assumptions which drove the Kimball report were also provided to T&W.  I would suggest that there is AT LEAST some disagreement within the community (and perhaps the board) about the validity of some of those assumptions. I was disappointed that this point of view wasn’t recognized by the Thomas & Williamson report.  So the fact that the estimates from two separate studies end up being very similar is simply because the inputs to those studies were identical.

The major difference and benefit of the T&W report is the ability to pull it apart and address it piece by piece, as they promised.  There were several questions from board members and the public which tried to determine what a “light” renovation would look like, and what a “basic” renovation would look like, as opposed to the full-blown renovation and additions reflected in both reports.  While the “light” renovation numbers were estimated at about $8M per school, I don’t recall T&W being able to supply any numbers for the “basic” renovation of just the mechanicals (HVAC, plumbing, electric). I think it would make for a much more rounded discussion if you had a good estimate for a “basic” renovation at each school.  Based on their pledge back in December to work with you and provide a number of variations as needed, and the relative ease that this can be done, it should be a quick exercise by T&W.

Looking at the renovation options in three levels provides a much wider range of choices.  Using rounded numbers from the study, the three levels look like this:

* Full-Blown:  Complete renovations plus additions    $19M per school

* Light:  Complete renovations, no additions               $8M per school

* Basic:  Just upgrading mechanicals                        $3M per school (estimate)

Many district residents have older homes and may renovate or upgrade their homes from time to time, but it is extremely unusual for any home to have a complete renovation at one time – from top to bottom – due to the extensive cost involved.  More often, that homeowner will prioritize projects and complete the work over several years, as money permits.  The accumulation of substantial debt, and the large monthly interest payments which go along with such debt would be unthinkable to most of us; it shouldn’t be any different for our school district.

The current economic climate, coupled with troublesome events on the horizon, make 2011 an extremely dangerous time to start any significant project.  The elements that may work against our ability to pay for any project include:

* State Budget Deficit:  estimated at $5B

* Loss of $5B in federal stimulus money for education

* PSBA estimates districts funding will be cut 3-10%

* Pension crisis:   our contributions jumping from 5-6% to over 25%

* Updating/improvements needed for the High School (per Kimball’s report)

* Another looming housing bubble (now that stimulus incentives are gone)

* Rising energy costs (oil almost at $100/bl again)

* Carlynton residents already over-burdened;  according to the PA Dept Education website, we have the 12th-highest tax burden out of the roughly 500 districts in the state

If one or more of the above are combined with a large construction project and forces a tax increase, the results would be devastating to many taxpayers and may lead to many unintended consequences.

In light of all this, I would urge the board to consider a different way of approaching this project.  As Jon Thomas from T&W pointed out at the last meeting, both elementary schools are solid, well-built schools…   and we don’t have to do anything!   Lets start with that comforting thought, and slowly and methodically build up from there.  It would be helpful to have a list of possible improvements or upgrades, ranked in order of priority.  Lets engage the teachers, principles, and parents in a civilized public discussion of what is working well in our schools, and what needs improvement – and what of that can be affected by the facilities or its contents.  The educational excellence that we currently enjoy in both elementary schools is due to the wonderful efforts of the teachers and principles in partnership with the parents and community – NOT because of the age of the buildings. Lets focus on keeping the buildings in good shape and spending some money on quality teachers and the tools they need to teach – not on a new building that we don’t want and can’t afford.

Thanks as always for your efforts and your patience during this process -

Respectfully,

Jim Schriver

Carlynton residenis

———————————————————————————————————————————————–
Date: Wednesday, January 12, 2011, 8:25 PM
From: laura

Dear Carlynton School Board Members:

I am writing to you today in an appeal to strongly consider renovation to the existing two elementary schools instead of building a new building. If you could bear with me, I would like to give you a very brief story (I promise!) of how I came to be homeowner in Crafton.

I moved into the Crafton area over six years ago into a small apartment, at the recommendation of a co-worker, who loved the area. At the time I was a full-time administrative assistant and part-time student. I stayed in that apartment for two years, at which point my now-husband and I began looking for a house. We searched other areas, because at the time there were no houses we liked in our price range in the Crafton area. When we were just about to give up on Crafton, a house for sale was reduced in price just enough to be in our price range. Other than it being on a busy street, it had everything else we wanted. I was thrilled that I would get to stay here!

Fast forward to the present, I’ve finished my undergrad, and have a new job because of that. My husband has also received a promotion since. We are hard-working, educated, residents of Crafton. I am currently pregnant with my first child. I have always loved the small-town feel of the elementary school, and have heard very good things about it from a co-worker whose child attends. His son has ADHD, a very real possibility for my son as well, as it runs in the family. I was very happy to hear about the specialized care and attention his son has received at Crafton Elementary. His son was in another school district where he was not integrated with the other students, but here, he is now integrated with other students, and has even earned a spot on the honor roll.

I understand the pressure of being faced with a very big, important decision that will ultimately affect so many people. I urge you to consider maintaining and renovating the current Carnegie and Crafton elementary schools the best choice of all the options you are considering. I would be proud to someday walk my son to his first day of school at Crafton elementary. I know I am just one person, but I am sad to say that I would have to reconsider living in this area should these two buildings be abandoned. The personal, small-town environment is one of the reasons I moved here in the first place.

Respectfully,
Laura King
Crafton Resident

———————————————————————————————————————————————–
Sent: Tue, Dec 7, 2010 10:04 pm

From: Mike Magliocco

Subject: Background Checks and Clearances Required for Work on School Renovations and New Construction

Dear School Board,

A gentleman named Mark Popovich spoke at the November 18th school board meeting. He offered his professional opinion and personal preference for a new combined elementary school in Crafton and a community events/sports complex where Carnegie Elementary is. He implied construction workers are criminals who will endanger our children so the safest option would be to build a new school. He said, “I don’t know that background checks are going to be done on construction personnel. They may have pasts that I don’t want exposed to my children so you as a school board the simplest thing that would make you sleep easier at night would be to build a new school.”

I would like to tell you about my experience on school job sites and the various background checks and clearances I am required to have.

I am a bricklayer with Bricklayers and Allied Craft workers Local 9PA. I have worked on the elementary school renovations in Brentwood, Mt. Lebanon and North Allegheny school districts. I have worked on junior high school additions in Seneca Valley and Abridge school districts and I have worked on Pine-Richland’s stadium. Currently, I am working on the new Grove City Middle School. All the school job sites I have worked on, with or without children present, have REQUIRED me to have extensive background checks and clearances. My fingerprints are even on file with the FBI so I can work on schools.

From my experience and understanding the school district hires a general contractor that ensures background checks and clearances are obtained and current. These checks consist of criminal history, child abuse, and federal criminal clearances. The criminal background check and child abuse clearances are only valid for one year so I must get them renewed annually to be eligible to work on current and future school projects. Specifically, I have been required to obtain and keep current Act 34, 114 and 151 clearances.

• Act 34 – Criminal Record Check
• Act 114 – Federal Criminal History Record
• Act151 – Child Abuse History Clearance

When deciding between a new school and renovations, please make your decision based on facts and accurate knowledge and not implied or assumed lack of moral character of construction workers.

Sincerely,

Michael Magliocco, Jr.
Crafton

P.S. In addition to being a construction worker, I am a father, Tee ball coach and hockey coach who is trusted by parents in Carlynton as well as other school districts.

———————————————————————————————————————————————–

Nov. 28, 2010

My letter is in response to the Nov. 21 Forum commentary “Start Cutting Here, Gov. Corbett.” The article references the monumental decision facing the Carlynton School District’s board: renovate or replace its two elementary schools.

PlanCon indeed encourages overspending and unnecessary new construction. According to the piece, architects are paid a percentage of total construction costs; therefore, they have a financial incentive to make projects as extensive as possible rather than promote cost-effective solutions. I have seen this firsthand in Carlynton. The cost-effective option of updating mechanicals, wiring, lighting, windows, security systems, etc., in our structurally sound elementary schools was not given by the architects.

Our schools are not failing schools. Consider that PSSA scores’ evidence that 91.6 percent of Carnegie Elementary fourth-grade students are proficient or advanced in math and 95.5 percent of Crafton Elementary fourth-grade students are proficient or advanced at math. In comparison, only 84.9 percent of fourth-grade students across Pennsylvania are proficient or advanced in math. These are schools worth keeping.

Carnegie, Rosslyn Farms and Crafton are covered with yard signs urging the school board to save the neighborhood schools. I have attended numerous school board meetings where residents urge the board to consider a cost-effective renovation option. To date, the school board has refused to seek such an option.

If eliminating the school construction subsidy program, titled PlanCon, will get school districts to pursue cost-effective options that benefit the taxpayers and preserve educational excellence, then please, Gov.-elect Corbett, start cutting here.

APRIL WEITZEL

Crafton Borough Council

Crafton

———————————————————————————————————————————————–
11/19/2010

Dear Sirs and Madams,

Thanks very much for taking the time to respond to my question at the School Board meeting yesterday evening. Please recall that I asked about certain members of the board meeting with our elected state representatives.

Something about the answer I received still troubles me, though. Director Schrippa pointed out that only those school board members who live in areas represented by Mr. Deasy and Mr. Smith were invited to join them on the tour. However, Director Brown was on the Crafton Elementary tour even though he lives outside of the legislative districts of both Mr. Smith and Mr. Deasy. It disturbs me that at least one director stated that he never received an invitation to join the tour. Since we don’t elect school board members by ward or neighborhood you are all, in effect, at-large members of the school board and therefore represent all of the citizens of our communities.

So why wasn’t Director Walkowiak invited?

Further, while I appreciate that Director Brown took time out of his day to meet with Representative Kotik, it does not sit well with me that one school board member and the superintendent would do that without other board members being given at least the opportunity to attend. It may be that Representative Kotik extended the invitation only to Mr. Brown and Dr. Panza, but if affairs of our school district are being discussed then it only seems right that others are given equal opportunity to voice their thoughts.

I understand and accept Director Brown’s answer that no decisions were made during these gatherings, but I must emphasize my strong belief that information, opinions, and discussion must be open and shared widely amongst the board and the public it represents. When certain members are not included in important meetings with members of a state governing body then that spirit of openness and sharing of information is severely diminished.

Finally, since Director Walkowiak’s email address was not available on the district website I would appreciate it if either Dr. Panza or a board member would share this with him.

Yours,
Joseph C. Appel

———————————————————————————————————————————————–
10/29/2010

State Representatives Dan Deasy & Matt Smith have written a letter on behalf of the Carlynton School District residents requesting the school board creates a community task force to allow residents to be part of the process.

Click here to read the letter.

———————————————————————————————————————————————–

Oct 26, 2010

Dear School Board Members:

At the last school board meeting, Dr. Panza stated, when questioned by a board member, that he was in favor of consolidating the two elementary schools. Dr. Panza is a paid employee of the Carlynton School District. He will not have to live in the district with the potential for increased taxes and debt resulting from the huge cost of consolidation and the building of a new elementary school.

At this same meeting Dr. Panza spoke about a program run by a local organization that provides coats to underprivileged children in the Crafton elementary school, as well as approximately 20 kids in the Carnegie elementary school. As pointed out in a letter from Dr. Bowen, the pastor of the Crafton United Presbyterian Church, Dr. Panza grossly misrepresented the actions of this organization. I am appalled that he would resort to lies about a respected organization to influence the school board. In a March 2004 Education Policy and Leadership Center Report, Strengthening the Work of School Boards in Pennsylvania, it states that the Superintendent, “should be responsible for maintaining positive relationships with community stakeholders and developing partnerships with other community providers of services for children.” In this instance he clearly does not meet that responsibility.

I remember the first school board meeting I ever attended, long before any talk of a feasibility study. I walked out of the meeting uncomfortable with comments made by Dr. Panza. I remember him speaking in generalities, with a phrase such as, “many members of the community have spoken to me.” At the time it struck me as odd that he never put a name to those “members.” Based on the output of emotion being seen as a result of this project, it seems odd to believe that anyone would want to be anonymous about issues relating to their children. After this incident with Dr. Bowen I believe I understand why he will not give specifics. Thankfully Dr. Bowen was at the meeting to make Dr. Panza admit that his general “one organization” comment had in fact been about the program provided by the United Presbyterian Church. I am left to wonder if his general nonspecific comments are his method of misleading the school board and the community to achieve his desired goals.

I have heard Dr. Panza state that there are classes in the elementary schools being held in closets. However, he has never said which school. I know this is not true in Crafton. To be specific, room 201 is an empty classroom. In addition, I think it is wonderful that there is enough room in Crafton for the GATE program to have its own classroom, albeit not a full size room. If we really do have a space problem, how can this program have its own dedicated space in addition to there still being at least one empty classroom? As it is obviously not an issue in Crafton, I am left to assume that Dr. Panza must be speaking of Carnegie Elementary.

However, after the incident with Dr. Bowen, I am left wondering about the validity of his statements. In my opinion, Dr. Panza over-stepped his job duties in his statements about the church and should be held accountable for his actions. At the very least, I would urge the school board and community to push for specific examples when Dr. Panza speaks. It would appear that he is using generalities, and in this instance outright lies, to mislead the board and community in order to further his stated goals. You, the school board, have heard from community members for months regarding our wishes for the schools. I urge you to pay close attention to the input you have received from those people who elected you rather than just from one person with no vested interest in the long term effects of your decisions. All of us, most importantly the children, have to live with the results. Dr. Panza does not live in school district. If he so chooses, he has the option to leave this problem behind and seek a position in another school district.

And when it comes down to it, new does not always mean better. In my job, my department was moved into a newly constructed building in 2006. We were all very excited to move to a new, clean, up-to-date building. We were looking forward to leaving behind the problems with the “old” building. After we were moved out, the space we vacated was renovated, and a new group moved in. I can honestly say, after four years, I wish I had had the option to have the renovated space. There are still ongoing electrical, plumbing, and structural issues in the “new” building. A new building in no way guarantees no problems!

My husband and I started our marriage in an apartment in Crafton. We bought a house here, and stayed because of the reputation of the small community school. Through all of this there has been significant attention given to what our schools lack. How about what they already have! Our oldest child was in Kindergarten when Mrs. Maslyk was hired as the Crafton Principal. At the very first meeting she held with parents, she stated her goal was to learn every student’s name, which she did. This is a credit to Mrs. Maslyk’s work ethic, but in this case I am using it as an example of the wonderful nature of a small school. In a school of less than 400 students this is an admirable accomplishment. In a school of 800 this would be nearly impossible. Does the principal knowing each child’s name guarantee the quality of their education? Of course not, but I wish it was that simple. However, it is a perfect example of how to not lose those kids in the middle. It is my true belief that in a large school the majority of kids noticed are the stars and the trouble makers. The quiet ones slide through with no attention. Problems go unnoticed. Potential stars are not found. Aren’t the kids what this is all supposed to be about?

Thank you for your time and attention to my concerns.

Sincerely,

Nicole MacMurdo

———————————————————————————————————————————————–

Subj: Competitive Bidding Information

10/16/2010 5:52:02 P.M. Eastern

Subj: Competitive Bidding Information

To Carlynton School Board:

Although Carlynton School Board did not violate any state laws when they voted 6 to 3 to select Kimball as Architect of Record and did not follow the recommendations of Pennsylvania State’s “Purchasing Handbook” guidelines by refusing to use competitive bidding in this process. In the section of the “Purchasing Handbook” under “Goals of the Local Government Purchasing Process” it clearly states “Competitive purchasing should be used as much as possible”. See attachment. Furthermore, it states “local officials should be very cautious on claiming one of the exemptions from competitive bidding” and goes on to say “Competitive bidding requirements are a public policy established to prevent fraud and favoritism and to protect public funds”.

It was argued during several school board meetings by the residents of the community that the next phase of the architectural work should be only given out through “competitive bidding”. But the board through a vote of 6 to 3 ignored those pleas and gave a non competitive bid to Kimball Associates. This contract which may be worth in excess of a million dollars will probably cost the taxpayers of Carlynton School District tens of thousands of dollars more than it should. Once again the board is hurrying the process. The board has selected Kimball as architect by a vote of 6 to 3 without a clear plan of what Kimball is to design. When this contract is signed the meter will start running and the taxpayers will have to start paying for architectural services that are not clearly defined. At this time there is no selected “Option” for Kimball to start on; the public is nearly 100% opposed to consolidation; some board members appear to be confused with the process; and the leadership of the board marches on regardless. In this process despite pleas from the public there has been no “minimum cost Option” for renovating the schools to address the immediate concerns to keep the schools viable. A “minimum cost Option” would save the taxpayers of Carlynton millions of dollars, keep the schools in the neighborhood and make the residents of Carlynton school district happy.

Michael Kozy Sr.

Crafton Pa

———————————————————————————————————————————————–

October 8, 2010

Dear Dr. Panza and School Board members,

After attending the school board meeting on the night of October 7, 2010 I left with the understanding that a decision was made to hire L.R. Kimball as the Architect of Record and that they would be responsible for advising the board on issues relating to deciding between the construction of a new school or the renovation of our existing schools, with the intent to use this firm if one of these options is chosen. Since a decision has not been made by the school board on the choices represented by the feasibility study, I find it at worst unethical and at best a conflict of interest to illicit their perspective at this stage of the decision-making process. L.R. Kimball is not charged with representing our communities and our elected school board is not charged with representing the interest of one architectural firm. The school board is charged with representing the community that elected it. I believe it is delusional to believe that Kimball could possibly advise the board in an unbiased manner concerning any of these choices especially when one of the options being considered is to not construct or reconstruct anything.

As a member of the Crafton community, I find the step taken to hire an architectural firm disheartening when we haven’t seen evidence showing that the board has even considered obtaining an impact study to present to the communities that would evaluate the consequences these choices could have upon the communities that comprise the Carlynton district. This, in my view, seems be the next logical step in the decision making process. We – as the individuals who reside here, support this district, and elect the board members to serve as our representative voices – have a right to know how these choices will affect our communities. If it is the school board’s decision to make, it is only fair that each community understand what the consequences may be. If the impact of these choices is not considered or evaluated thoroughly and presented to the communities, then any decision made would be an uneducated one.

Sincerely,

David and LeeAnne O’Brien

———————————————————————————————————————————————–

Oct 7, 2010

Dear School Board Directors:

In February 1996, Brentwood School District hired Obrien & Kreitzburg to do a feasibility study for PlanCon A. They did NOT award the next phase of the project to them. Instead, they hired Landmarks Design Associates (LDA) and DRS Architects. LDA has extensive historic building experience and DRS has larger, institutional experience.

Renovations Included:

• Complete upgrades to code (ADA, BOCA and Labor & Industry)
• Complete gutting, removal of sub-code existing conditions
• Installation of two new elevators
• All new mechanicals, wiring, HVAC, computer networks
• Construction of two additional classrooms in one of the schools
• Landscaping and site lighting
• Computer labs and expanded libraries

After construction and soft-costs, it ran a little under $2.5 million ($3,478,521 in today’s dollars) per school for renovations to about 95,000 total square feet.

Architects Demolish & Build New: REJECTED

COST in 1996	COST In Today’s Dollars
$11,293.000	$15,713,177

Architects Renovation Plan: REJECTED

COST in 1996	COST In Today’s Dollars
$8,611,000	$11,981,419

School Board’s Variation of Architect’s Plan Based on Curriculum Need

COST in 1996	COST In Today’s Dollars
$ 4,581,000	$6,374,043

TOTAL PROJECT COST After Construction & Soft Costs – 95,000 sq ft renovated

COST in 1996	COST In Today’s Dollars
$5,000,000	$6,957,043

In summary, the Brentwood School District’s board created their own plan and saved their tax payers between $5,024,376 and $8,756,134. Landmarks Design Associates is the Pittsburgh-based preservation and rehabilitation company who offered our school district a FREE assessment of our elementary buildings in December 2009. To date, the offer hasn’t been pursued.

In the spirit of your proven fiscal responsibility, I urge you to explore options that DO NOT require the school district to go into DEBT. Our $10 million budget surplus is more than enough to renovate our neighborhood schools. I ask that you thoughtfully consider renovation options.

Sincerely,

April Weitzel

———————————————————————————————————————————————–

10/6/2010 8:34:26 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time

Subj: Letter to Carlynton School Board

To School Board Members:

Please read the attached letter I received from Rob Pillar of Burt Hill. Burt Hill is an architectural firm with offices around the world including Pittsburgh and Butler. Rob Pillar works in the Butler office and was involved in the Mt. Lebanon School District Renovation projects. I have spoken to him on the phone a few times and was impressed with his knowledge of school projects.

In the 3rd paragraph of his letter he mentions Act 77 (Guaranteed Energy Savings Act) which is a state reimbursement plan for renovation projects that invest in energy saving equipment. Apparently, this is a recent government policy change and can save a district like Carlynton substantial up front costs in a renovation project. I have attached additional information regarding Act 77 for your reference. Once again, Kimball has failed Carlynton by not providing information to the district on a potentially important cost saving option. The cost saving potential in Act 77 is simply based on contractors providing the energy efficient equipment free of charge and the institution pays the contractor the difference in energy savings realized every year. The contract is based on a time period generally between 20 and 30 years.

In the 4th paragraph of his letter Rob Pillar discusses architectural fees and the dangers of not clearly defining the scope of services associated with those fees. He ends that paragraph with a confident statement that Burt Hill can provide these services for a very competitive fee. We need to go out for competitive bidding.

Burt Hill has been designing educational facilities since 1936 and somehow Carlynton school district was not able to get a quote from them for this project?

Once again, I feel this process is being rush and due diligence is not being served. Cost saving opportunities are going to be lost if we continue to rush the process.

Mike Kozy

Crafton Pa

2 Attachments:

BurtHillLetter

Act77EnergySavingsAct

———————————————————————————————————————————————–
Sent: 10/5/2010 10:44:19 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time

Subj: Open Letter to the School Board

School Board Members:

On the agenda for the Board of Education meeting for October 7th, 2010 is the motion to approve L.R. Kimball as the Architect of Record for the elementary building project and to begin the Plan Con process. As a resident of Carlynton School District who has followed this issue closely for the past 6 months I highly urge board members to reject L.R. Kimball as the Architect of Record for the elementary building project at this time. As I have repeatedly brought to the attention of the board, the feasibility study conducted by L.R. Kimball is full of errors and inaccuracies and they do not deserve to be awarded a contract for the next phase of this work. In addition, any vote approving them as Architect of Record would be a costly disservice to the taxpayers of Carnegie, Crafton and Rosslyn Farms.

How will hiring L.R. Kimball as Architect of Record be a costly disservice to the taxpayers of Carnegie, Crafton and Rosslyn Farms? It is evident from reading the report in detail that Kimball is bias towards new construction since that is where they will make the most money. New construction without a doubt will be more costly than renovation and their fee is based on a percentage of the total. This is not an idle statement. I have talked to other architects and they all say that renovation is less expensive. Kimball has skewed the numbers to make renovation more costly than it should be. How did they do it? Kimball did it by juggling the square foot areas of the options. The costs for the options are based on a $/sq ft, $120/sq ft for renovation and $145/sq ft for new construction. The discrepancy in area between new construction (110,000 sq ft) and renovation (147,000 sq ft) is ridiculously high no matter how it is justified. If by chance the square foot numbers are correct, Carlynton would essentially be downsizing their schools if the new construction option was selected.

I have repeatedly argued against giving Kimball the next phase of this work without going out for competitive bidding. The architectural contract for the next phase can be as high as $2,000,000. Kimball’s fee is 5.75%. I have spoken with another architectural firm who stated to me that fees today can be as low as 5.00%. Without competitive bidding the taxpayers of Carlynton school district will never know if they got the lowest price or not! Even Kimball in their report states this is a buyers market. Use it!

The people of Carlynton at this time have no idea what they would be purchasing for the 5.75% fee. Kimball has not submitted any documents stating what services are included in the 5.75% fee. Without competitive bidding, there is no way to know whether the public is overpaying or not. In addition, we will be subjected to costly change orders for any work outside their scope of work. Any deviation to Kimball’s contract will be billed extra as “time & material”.

To give a contract to an architect without a design plan is not the best way to conduct this process. Upon hiring an architect a design plan should be in place to instruct the architect as to what is expected. Just saying to an architect, “Renovate my school or build me a new one” without any design specifications, is just not smart business. From my research, I have found school districts that are going through the same process. They have formed “Educational Committees” to meet, brainstorm and then decide what is best for the school prior to talking with an architect. The “Educational Committees” are made up of a diversity of people including teachers, students, administration members, community members, business leaders and even board members. It is meant to objectively put the decisions in the hands of the entire educational community and not in the hands of architects who are basically businessmen. I propose we follow the examples of these other school districts and form an “Educational Committee” to decide what is truly best for the school district.

Finally, during this period of attending school board meetings to follow the progression of this school project, I have watched as resident after resident pleaded with the board to keep the schools as they are. The board has listened but may not have believed that they represented the true pulse of the community. Well, they do and to think otherwise would be a disservice to the community. I have seen no voices at the board meetings asking for a new school. The voices have all been for renovation only. The board was voted in to represent the people and to deny them what they are asking for goes against what a true democracy is all about.

Michael Kozy Sr

Crafton Pa
———————————————————————————————————————————————–
Date: October 5, 2010 9:58:53 AM EDT

Subject: Crafton Elementary School

Dear Dr. Panza and Carlynton School Board Members,

Glaser’s was an integral part of the Crafton school system since they opened in 1903. Our grandfather hosted football dinners and our father coached the tennis teams, for many years. Our Aunt Reba Campbell was principal of the First Ward School in the 50’s and 60’s. She influenced all of the family as to how important education was, and how lucky we were that we all had such a good fundamental education in the Crafton School District.

My brother, Dr. Alan Glaser, has attended many of the school board meetings.

As a matter of record, someone did ask about using our property in the renovation plans of the Crafton Elementary School. They understood that we would be contacted.

My phone listing is on the door of the store, but I have not been called.

We feel that our property could be utilized in several ways, to allow for the renovation of the Crafton school off of the newer addition. With almost an acre of land to work with, parking could be made available for teachers, parents and visitors. If you needed a utility building for equipment such as snow plows, that would be possible. And with the right planning, buses could possibly use the area as a turn-a-round. Our appraiser said that with moderate grading, these would be logical uses for the land. Drainage would not be a problem as the land slopes down from the street . A safety/security fence could be erected around the perimeter of our property where it meets the Chartiers Nature Conservancy.

In reviewing the tax millage rates in Allegheny County from 2010, Carlynton rates are on the higher end of the scale. I live in an area where a new elementary school was recently built, and I know how any process like this can increase taxes. Considering this, I would think that the renovation of both elementary schools would be a more prudent approach. It would also be an approach appreciated by the tax payers.

When the last of the core Glaser clan passed away, the remaining family had a meeting to discuss the plans for the Glaser property. One point was strongly brought up by our brother, Dr. Roger Glaser. The property would have to benefit the community of Crafton. This site meant a great deal to a great number of people. It is a place of memories. Ours, as well as Crafton students for over half a century.

Because we still hope to achieve this goal, I am contacting you.

Our property is zoned as LNC (Local Neighborhood Commercial).

Property as a whole, is still a sound investment. If our land was owned by the Carlynton Schools, it would help preserve a legacy of excellent education that the Glaser’s were proud to be part of, in a community that we all deeply care about.

Thank you for your consideration,

Joyce Glaser Domyancic

Dr. Alan Glaser

———————————————————————————————————————————————–
Sent: 9/10/2010 10:51:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time

Subj: Feasibility study

Good Morning,

First, let me thank you for the opportunity to address the board at the last meeting and for your kind attention to my letter and comments.

I wanted to follow-up and see if you have been able to make any progress looking into the option of purchasing the property across the street, using it for teacher parking and re-purposing that land for the school expansion. While I understand it may not be the most obvious option, I would like to urge your continued consideration and action to explore this as a viable option. Indeed, I am hopeful that you have directed effort to that exploration already. As several community members before me have brought this to the board’s attention previously, it appears that others too feel it is worth a legitimate exploration as an alternative option.

Thank you again for your hard work in dealing with these many challenging issues, and your support. I would appreciate it if you can let me know what actions have been taken or what your next steps are.

Many thanks and best regards,

Alice J. Pescuric

———————————————————————————————————————————————–

September 29, 2010

Dear School Directors,

I am writing to express my plea that you listen to the people who handed you the power you now hold over our children’s futures. I am the parent of a child who attends and loves Crafton elementary. In addition to that, I am currently a long-time renter in Crafton, and am considering purchasing property in the district. The decision of this board will make or break my family’s decision to invest in this community. If you close Crafton elementary, we will not buy a home in this district, and I am certain that we are not the only ones. Crafton will lose money and tax payers will move out of the district to take their families to better (and smaller!) schools.

I hold degrees in Special Education, Deaf Education and am employed as a Child Development Specialist. Children thrive in close-knit, family-like environments with small group attention and individualized education. They benefit greatly from neighborhood and community support, both formal and informal. The growth and opportunities for learning during the walk down the street with your parents, neighbors and classmates in the morning to get to school are boundless. It is a fact that students learn better and perform with more confidence with lower incidence of drug and violence issues in smaller schools. They develop social skills and secure, stable attachments to consistent and familiar adults in smaller schools. There is no replacement for a child being greeted at the front door by a principal, aide, teacher or cafeteria worker by name! This does not happen in a school with 600+ children.

It is appalling to me that you have placed the education and future of the learning environment for hundreds of children in the hands of a for-profit company who have already invested a great deal of work and money into the project. This is not a decision to be made by architects or contractors, or even by a school board alone. It is a decision to be finalized by a school board with the hands on knowledge and experiential information provided by principals and teachers with the guidance of families and students.

Please do not take away the great potential that is in my child’s future. His name is Colin, and I ask you to think of Colin and all of his schoolmates, not about Kimball or the superficial draw of shiny new facilities, when you consider tearing down the place he loves and thrives in. Please do not betray the trust we placed in you when we chose you to represent our voices.

Feel free to contact me with any questions.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely Yours,

Monica Dugan

———————————————————————————————————————————————–

September 16, 2010

President Brown and Members of the Board:

My husband and I did not grow up in Crafton or even in this area; we moved to Crafton 5 years ago after a search for just the right place to make our home and raise a family. Having a school within walking distance was a major factor in our decision to live in Crafton. We consider ourselves fortunate to find a close-knit, safe community with great homes, great people, and a grade school that children can walk to. Now, as a parent of two young children, one being ready for school in 2 years, I am very concerned for our children and Crafton’s future if we lose our grade school because taking the elementary school out of Crafton will decrease the value of our community.

I appreciate that this school board has acted responsibly in making the impact on amount of taxes we must pay a priority in the decision making process. However, the impact on taxes is not simply based on the cost of the project.

We all know that the recession has already had an impact on property values. The decision to take the elementary school out of Crafton would have an additional unfavorable impact on our property values and hence our tax base. According to a study in the Journal of Urban Economics, closing a neighborhood school cuts home values by 10%. (Bogart, William T. and Brian A. Cromwell. 2000. “How Much Is a Neighborhood School Worth?” Journal of Urban Economics 47(2): 280-305. ). Families leave, owners become landlords, the neighborhood deteriorates, and the tax base declines. Younger people with children move elsewhere; we want to keep them, they are the lifeline of a community.

I urge the members of this board to ensure the stability of the property values in our school district by retaining an elementary school in Crafton.

Depending upon the project adopted by this Board, we all may have to deal with vacant property. I have these questions.

1. What’s the plan in that eventuality?

2. Is this vacant building to continue as a burden to the taxpayer?

3. Has this impact on the community been evaluated? If so, what is the evaluation?

4. What happens when our neighborhood has no school and the building is vacant and being vandalized?

I understand that the decision to close a school is among the most momentous a school board can make. It affects not only the children, parents and teachers of the facility; it can ripple through the surrounding community.

While my first choice would be renovation of Crafton Elementary, I believe that schools are a critical piece to ensure the viability of our community and I fully support any outcome that allows a school to remain in Crafton Borough.

I thank you for your time

Sincerely,

Lorianne Holt

Crafton Borough Resident

———————————————————————————————————————————————–

Sent: 9/8/2010 9:08:05 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time

Subj: Letter to the Board

To School Board Members

Errors in Kimball’s Report

During the school board meeting of September 2 it was discussed and pointed out to the school board members that the Kimball Feasibility Study Report appears to contain errors and inconsistencies. In the board meeting I passed out a spreadsheet summarizing the data shown in the Kimball options. The spreadsheet shows huge variations in the total square footage and the number of general classrooms for each option. Since the costing for each option is based on square footage area, it is imperative that Kimball be accurate on these numbers. The same can be said for the correct number of classrooms given per option. The number of general classrooms should be the same across the board whether renovation or new construction. I would think for the sake of comparisons that the square footage for each option and the number of classrooms should be the same.

The feasibility study needs to be deemed incomplete until the perceived inaccuracies of the data in the report are corrected. Why Kimball failed to supply this information is a matter of major concern and questions their commitment to the project.

In summary, I think this heightens the need to go out for competitive bidding for the next phase of this project.

Thank you

Mike Kozy Sr.

Crafton

———————————————————————————————————————————————–