The Agenda for the May 11, 2015 School Board meeting includes:
Approval of 2015-2016 Budget – The final budget for the 2015-2016 School year will
be discussed with the Board. Final approval will be at the May 17, 2015 meeting.
Change orders for May 2015:
Update May 12, 2015 6:15 PM
Mt. Lebanon school board announces pact with teachers
Mt. Lebanon SB plans Monday vote on new teacher contract
Change Orders for High School Renovation Project – The change orders for this month total $97,020 from the contingency and $6,620 from insurance claims as follows:
a. GC-113-279 to Nello for $93,720 for masonry, steel, elevator issues, ceiling and duct work, walls, concrete and curbs,MLEA Contract Extension – The Board will discuss a proposed 3-year collective bargaining agreement with the Mt. Lebanon Education Association.
b. FP-07-280 to Simplex for $3,300 for sprinklers, and
c. IN-13-15 to Nello for $6,620 for weather damage repairs.
The superintendent recommends approval of these change orders
Update May 12, 2015 6:15 PM
Mt. Lebanon school board announces pact with teachers
The extension calls for salary increases to remain the same as in the current contract, with the exception of teachers at the top seniority step.
In addition to the already-negotiated increase, teachers will receive an extra $400 the first year, $700 the second year and $900 the third year.
The extension also calls for increased contributions for health care. Taking those into account, the net additional cost to the district is 3.179 percent, said Lawrence Lebowitz, school board president.
While the extension reduces the annual number of work days for teachers, from 197.5 to 195, the number of days with students does not change, he said.
Mt. Lebanon SB plans Monday vote on new teacher contract
With most of the language identical to the five-year agreement expiring June 30, the new contract with the Mt. Lebanon Education Association would not include any increases in salaries along the 16 and a half “steps” each teacher follows up the pay scale as he or she gains seniority, except for an increase at the top level of $400 the first year of the contract, $700 the second year and $900 the third year, said Board President Larry Lebowitz.Mt. Lebanon school board to OK budget, teacher contract
The Mt. Lebanon school board indicated at its May 11 discussion meeting that the board will likely approve a $91 million 2015-16 budget with a .40 millage increase, or $40 more in taxes for a property valued at $100,000. The board also indicated it would approve a new three-year teachers contract at its May 18 voting meeting.
19 comments:
Once again elevator issues! How much has been spent in elevator change orders?
If weather can damage new construction requiring 6k repairs, are those repairs really a yearly maintenance cost? Was the high school struck by lightening (yet)?
The total amount spent on change order issues involving elevators - either the systems themselves or ancillary problems which impinged upon elevator systems (such as duct work) - is $110,715. This amount is as of the end of March, 2015, and does NOT include the recently announced CO of $93,720. Remember, CO's are not official until the month after they are announced.
How many elevators are there? What was the cost of installing one without the change orders?
The problem with these change orders is that we never get a description of the cause of the change orders.
In this latest besides elevators masonry and steel are mentioned.
Could this be due to improper shimming of steel or that the Geofoam used to stabilize soil isn't working?
9:59 the original bid SHOULD HAVE HAD all the costs for the elevators, whether 1 or 100 already in it.
What we are talking about here are CHANGE ORDERS. $110,715 in changes just for the elevator(s), who planned this building- The Three Stooges?
Previous elevator change orders. How many changes have to be made to elevators before they get it right?
g. EL-47-178 to Farfield for $33,174 for elevator power modifications
d. EL-09-36 to Farfield to add power to elevator sump pumps in Buildings H and G $7,718,
e. PL-04-37 to Vrabel to add sump pumps in elevator shafts in Buildings H and G $7,892 ((everything I can find suggest sump pumps in the elevator shafts should have in the original design)
b. GC-93-201 to Nello for $11,105 for Athletic floor covering and elevator changes in F Building,
i. ME-19-208 to McKamish for $11,896 for vent and elevator room changes,
e. EL-54-204 to Farfield for $12,817 for power, motor and wiring revisions, [elevator????]
a. EL-09-36 to Farfield for $7,718 to add power to elevator sump pumps in Buildings H and G,
b. PL-04-37 to Vrabel for $6,100 to add sump pumps in elevator shafts in Buildings H and G,
k. ME-03-51 to McKamish for $23,192 to demolish and replace ductwork in conflict with elevator in F-building,,
Previous masonry and steel change orders:
7/21/14 GC-103-235 Nello Masonry, doors, steel,beams, window blocking, fire rating, building dimensional discrepency (sic), stairs, handrails, cooling towers, and slab changes, $152,400.00.
Funny thing is that we'll re-elect the school directors that spearheaded all this.
The following represents those change orders dealing with elevator issues:
2/18/13 EL-09-36 Farfield Add power to elevator sump pumps in Buildings H and G - $7,718.00
2/18/13 PL-04-37 Vrabel Add sump pumps in elevator shafts in Buildings H and G - $6,100.00
2/18/13 ME-03-51 McKamish Demolish and replace ductwork in conflict with elevator in F-building - $23,192.00
4/15/13 EL-21-78 Farfield Added card readers to elevator in H-building - $5,282.00
6/17/13 GC-56-121 Nello To provide masonry patching at existing wall in elevator shaft in F-building - $1,594.00
10/21/13 EL-47-178 Farfield Elevator Power modifications - $33,174.00
1/17/14 GC-93-201 Nello Athletic Floor covering ans (sic) elevator changes in F Building - $11,105.00
1/17/14 ME-19-208 McKamish Vent and elevator room changes - $11,896.00
8/13/14 EL‐64‐240 Farfield Power to fans, building circuits, elevator work, plaster, and fiber optic line - $10,654.00
To be as fair as possible to the MLSD, contractors, and Blog readers, the above list was compiled by searching my spreadsheet for any CO in which the word "elevator" appeared. But not all of the CO's related to "elevator" were spent exclusively on elevators. For example, "2/18/13 EL-09-36 Farfield Add power to elevator sump pumps in Buildings H and G" deals with elevators exclusively and cost $7,718.00. But in "8/13/14 EL‐64‐240 Farfield Power to fans, building circuits, elevator work, plaster, and fiber optic line," what part of the $10,654.00 paid to Farfield was applied to "elevator work" is unknown because it is not delineated. Thus the $110,715 spent through 31 March 2015 involved elevators, or ancillary problems involving elevators either directly or indirectly. I have to word it that way because the contractors themselves thought it was perforce important to include the word "elevator" in certain change orders.
Fair enough Richard, but are elevators installed catch-as-catch-can fashion.
I was led to believe for example the 2/18/13 ME-03-51 CO to demolish and replace duct work was needed because new renovation ducting was routed through the elevator shaft.
If true, that's a flaw in the drawings and shouldn't be charged to taxpayers.
are there any elevators working?
We know one thing for sure---- the school board members' elevators do not go to the top floor.
Just as I thought. I never heard from the trolls who write in; bored reading about deer and turf. You want me to write about the teachers' contract or the budget. You go off topic and complain about the teachers' union.
I hope you are going to the school board meeting tonight.
Elaine
Elaine @ 6:57. Maybe it is hard for the trolls to rip on teachers when the teachers are being asked to donate to the capital campaign.
7:38 PM, I don't think that is the case. It didn't stop them as recently as last week.
Elaine
North Allegheny gave 2.5% salary increases and raised the healthcare payment to 13.5% by 2020. How does the compare to the ML contract?
This may be your answer, 10:36, from The Almanc.
"School board president Lawrence Lebowitz said the school would see a net increase in costs of 3.17 percent after accounting for increased contributions for healthcare. The contract with the Mt. Lebanon Education Association, the teachers’ union, would reduce 2.5 workdays from the calendar to 195 days, but not time spent with students."
So the teacher days must have been cut by 2.5 workdays. 11:42.
12:11, that's what the article states, what is your point?
It also states that cost went up 3.17% "after" including increased teacher contributions to healthcare cost. I'm assuming that 3.17% refers to teachers pay increase.
What did the board give away by shortening the teachers' work year by 2.5 days.
According to the CAFR-Fiscal Year Ended 6/3014 there we had a teaching staff of 413.
Assuming all 413 were full-time and that number is true for this year the board gave up the equivalent of 1,032.5 teacher days.
1,032.5 teacher days divided by the old teacher required service year of 197.5 days, the board will give up the equivalent in time of 5.22 full-time teachers in the new contract.
How does this relate to the average working taxpayer? Try this little experiment. Go to your employer, whether it be UPMC, PNB, USX, Heinz or whomever and during your evaluation for a raise ask them for a 3% salary increase and 2.5 more vacation days.
Sure, you'll agree to work a few more minutes every work day to make up for those 2.5 extra vacation days as long as someone is clocking you in and out... Riiiiggghhhht.
Post a Comment