THE SCHOOL DISTRICT CONTINUES TO SLOW WALK THE RELEASE OF A MICHAEL BAKER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT THAT IS LIKELY CRITICAL OF THE SELECTION OF THE LEET SITE AND THE APPROACH TO DEVELOPING IT ("BALANCED SITE"). ONE THAT WOULD CREATE GREAT RISK TO DOWNHILL NEIGHBORS AND THE TAXPAYERS WHO MAY HAVE TO FUND LITIGATION IF THE HILLSIDE COMES DOWN. AS ONE COLLEAGUE HAS SAID: "IT'S LIKE BUILDING ON JELLO!"

Please click on and review these links. The first is the newly released Preliminary Site Plan for the proposed high school in Leet. The second is an Open Letter to Leet, QVSD and Leetsdale regarding risk management and insurance written by a resident with an extensive background in the subject.

QVSD owes us some answers. The slopes shown on the plan are too steep for responsible development of the Leet site no matter the intended risk mitigation. Grading plans submitted by a highly reputable engineering consultant indicate extensive areas of historic and/or landslide prone areas. Example: the lower driveway, the path for utilities and storm water management are all located in an area of historic landslides, confirmed as well in the Allegheny Landslide Portal map.

1. Preliminary Site Plan
2. Open Letter to Leet, QVSD & Leetsdale *

* The author of the letter has been invited to address the October 26th meeting of the Leet Planning Commission.

DRAWINGS:

These are the detailed drawings prepared by the architect. They are very large files, best viewed on a larger screen, with the ability to enlarge and scroll around the .pdf images. What's missing are the soils report and grading plans. These drawings do not mean the site is buildable. It's simply the architects view of how the building and other structures could fit onto the site. There are many engineering, geotechnical issues that need to be addressed. You'll note there are several areas where the slopes equal or exceed 25 degrees. Also, proposed benching on a 1:1 basis which leaves very steep slopes below the various structures. The drawings confirm the challenges of building on the Leet site. That is, doing so safely and on a cost-effective basis.

1. Central Portion - Parking/Building; PDF1815-01.pdf; Matchline: C202, C204
2. Far East/Edgeworth - Building/Open Space; PDF1815-02.pdf; Matchline: C202
3. Overview (Entire Site), PDF1815-03.pdf
4. Lower Driveway - Stormwater/Sidewalk/Beaver St.; PDF1815-04-.pdf; Matchline: C201
5. Upper Driveway - Entrance/Athletic Field; PDF1815-05.pdf; Matchline: C202, C204

First impressions (validated by LSSE, the Leet engineer):

• Submitted by an architect, not an engineer
• No soils report, grading plans or confirmation the site is buildable
• Test borings remain to be done on Camp Meeting right-of-way
• Steep slopes, many >25 degrees below lower driveway, parking, building
• Proposed 1:1 benching exceeds max 34 degrees for Type C soils (OASHA)
• Obvious need for expensive retaining walls throughout the plan
• "Balanced site" (no bad soil removed, no good soil imported) = very high risk 
• Lower driveway vulnerable to wash out, need separate access from the East
• Fewer than promised 500 parking spaces will result from expected plan changes
• Building situated far distant from Camp Meeting access
• Emergency response subject to multiple choke points & time delays
• No evidence of an "encroachment permit" for building next to a wetland*
• Cost to develop the site safely is PROHIBITIVE (see below)

* A permit from DEP requires approval of a Chapter 105 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS, meaning QVSD will have to prove the high school could not have been built somewhere else, other than within a wetland, connected by a stream to a creek in a protected watershed (Big Sewickley Creek).

There is circumstantial evidence to suggest QVSD has selected a LOWER COST, HIGH RISK development option in order to support the CHOICE OF A FLAWED SITE AND AVOID A REFERENDUM.

QVSD admits the cost is at least $30 million higher than redeveloping the existing site. The Act 34 BUILDING cost or TOTAL PROJECT cost estimates are not credible. They are based on the limited experience of our project manager, who has no history of dealing with new school projects or projects of our size, complexity and geotechnical challenges (see below).

CONTEXT

QVSD entertained a proposal from Michael Baker International ("MBI") in 2017 to provide Leet site development options and expected costing. We appear to be missing a key document, despite persistent Right-to-Know requests, that could be critical of QVSD's choice of a "HIGH RISK" site development plan. 

FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE WILLING TO DIG DEEPER

Take a look at the MBI proposal.

MBI Engineering Services - Part 1

MBI Engineering Services - Part 2

What QVSD appears to be withholding from public view is the Geotechnical Engineer Report ("GER") that contains MBI's evaluation and recommendations concerning three site development options. However, MBI's assessments can be inferred, at least in part, from the grading plans shown below.

In the preamble to their proposal, MBI said:

"Geotechnically, this site is very complex related to stratigraphic setting positioned within the Conemaugh Group, Glenshaw and Casselman Formations and specifically redbed claystone units associated with these formations. These formations have a documented history and recognition for land sliding and other stability events."

Further into the proposal it says:

"Important to understand in this geologic setting [LEET/TULL SITE] and these river and glacial lake influenced slopes is the fact that landslides are not just only initiated or found within the soil zone, but although not as common, they also occur as deep seated failures as large slump blocks well within bedrock. We are aware of two such failure mechanisms in the project vicinity and the subsurface investigation for this site needs to be managed to assess this potential occurrence."

This means the Leet site could be like building on "JELLO." 

MBI Conceptual Grading Plan - Option 1 (Lesser Risk) *

MBI Conceptual Grading Plan - Option 1B (Moderate Risk)

MBI Conceptual Grading Plan - Option 2 (High Risk) **

* This is the one referenced in the graphic above, least risk but highest (PROHIBITIVE) cost.

** This is the "balanced site" approach chosen by QVSD and its team of engineers, the highest risk

Purpose of the missing GER:

"The GER will include a review of pros, cons, and preliminary opinions of cost (order of magnitude) for the proposed grading plans developed. It should be understood that at this point of project development, the evaluations above will be a conceptual design level and are not suitable for final design. They will however set the basis for any follow-on evaluations should the QVSD move forward with this site."

Geoff Phillips, our civil engineer who advised QVSD not to take the Leet ("TULL") site even if offered as a gift, is the one now pitching the idea of a "balanced site." This means mixing colluvial soil (what is loose or has slid down a slope) with other soils on site -- kind of like in a blender -- to fill in areas that require leveling. This on top of red bed (clay) that becomes extremely slippery, with no shear strength, when wet. Essentially, cost savings are achieved by retaining all the existing soils, none imported or exported. Just re-combined to form the basis of our building site. MBI characterized this approach as "HIGH RISK." 

You don't have to be an expert to gain some appreciation of the challenges of the landslide prone soils at the Leet (TULL) site. The findings of core borings are portrayed in an easy to read graphic. Click on the the following link.

MBI TULL Geologic Profile

MBI told QVSD the safest grading option (Option 1) would be to cut out 1.651 million cubic yards of existing soils, add back a little for leveling and remove a total of 1.646 million cubic yards from the site. In addition to all the trucks tearing up Camp Meeting Road and landslide inducing vibration from using heavy graders on the hilltop, the cost to find a dumpsite for our dirt and convey it away could be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. THE SAFEST OPTION WOULD HAVE BEEN COST PROHIBITIVE.

REASONABLE CONCLUSION: the Leet site is not suitable for the location of a new high school without assuming a high risk of failure, with possible catastrophic consequences. 

Try Googling:

Geoffrey Phillips

Principal at Phillips & Associates, Inc.

1122 Mosside Boulevard

Wilmerding, Pennsylvania, United States

All you get is a LinkedIn page. No website. Sole proprietor? If so, how much substance is there if things go bad? What are his qualifications to be the lead engineer on a complex, risky $100+ million high school project on unstable soils? Was he chosen because he would support a pre-determined choice of location?  QVSD owes us some answers.

Planned tax increases to pay for the new high school and increases in other expenses may need to be revised upward. All the more reason to be more prudent in where and how much to spend on a new high school.

• Borrowing costs up 70 bps since the Sept Financing Plan & trending higher
• Federal borrowing exploding, possibly crowding out municipal bond placements or driving up the yield expectations
• Teachers settlement with QVSD that may exceed the 4.3% p.a. budgeted assumption
• Inflation likely to remain stubbornly high, increasing our operating costs beyond expectations

For an example of what can happen, click on: Couple sues after Kilbuck landslide damages their unfinished home. 

My opponent is out in the community telling people there is landslide insurance. That I am lying. I urge each of you to call your insurance agent, or the offices of PA Representative, Valerie Gaydos (REP) at 412-262-3780 or Emily Kinkead (DEM) at 412-321-5523; the co-sponsors of H.B. 589 establishing the COAL AND CLAY MINE SUBSIDENCE AND LANDSLIDE INSURANCE AND ASSISTANCE PROGRAM. Reason: homeowners cannot buy landslide insurance.

The school district and all parties to the proposed high school project can purchase general liability insurance for their negligence but the coverage is subject to finite limits (generally much lower than warranted), self-insured retentions and restrictions that may exclude the very activities (blasting, underground, explosion, collapse, subsidence, pollution) of concern to all third parties. Further, injured or damaged parties must hire a lawyer and sue, a process that is expensive and uncertain. People without means could become destitute and homeless while the process plays out.

To the extent third party liability insurance is procured, either by QVSD, its construction manager or any other parties to the work [high school project], all of the downhill neighbors must be added as ADDITIONAL INSUREDS.

SORRY, BUT YOU HAVE TO QUESTION THE COMPETENCY AND THE MOTIVES OF EVERYONE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT. Insurance will cover mistakes and stupidity but not intentional tort.

Plan B just keeps rising to the top. It deserves serious consideration instead of being ignored by the current school board. This will be the default, "go to" when the Leet site proves to be too expensive, too risky and the school board grants us the referendum promised five years ago.

Plan B is not an original idea. It was recommended to QVSD thirteen (13) years ago. Why have we paid for and ignored the advice of professional architects and engineers? Did someone just fall in love with a piece of land and seek out advice that ratified a pre-determined choice? Once I get elected, I am going to do a lot of digging into what really happened. Like why we don't already have a new, fully-functioning, modern high school at a lower cost on the current site.

Many thanks to whoever posted the picture of the 1993 flood on FACEBOOK. It proves our point that it is much safer, less costly to build in a flood plain than on a hillside prone to landslide. Water recedes, dirt doesn't. There has been no lasting damage from the occasional flood; plus, these events are not caused by negligent acts of MAN. Our PLAN B could easily accommodate a repeat of earlier floods, just like the new ESMARK building. The new high school would be built above ground level parking, far removed from the effects of water.

It's 17 years later and Kilbuck is still a "dog park." Walmart has over $60 million sunk in stabilizing the hillside.  If this happens to QVSD, our school district would be in financial ruin. There is no engineered solution.

The key lesson learned at the Oct 2nd candidate forum was the absolute myopia exhibited by supporters of the proposed, new high school in Leet. They can’t seem to grasp that, if the hillside comes down, there will be no high school, no school district, no vaunted curriculum, no special ed, no athletics. Only financial ruin.

The school board will say: “it’s just unwarranted hysteria.” Maybe? But maybe not. How do you know?

Why do smart people seem to leave their brain behind and defer unquestionably to “the experts.” In this case, the hired guns (“engineers”) who think they have learned from the Kilbuck landslide and can engineer a solution to soils that are inherently unstable for a large structure. Understand there will be no guarantees. Just pledges of “best efforts” following standard industry practice.

Well. Ask Boeing about that. They are arguably the most highly engineered company in the world; yet continue having trouble with the 737 MAX. Design engineers, workers on the assembly line and/or their suppliers can and do make mistakes. If it happens to Boeing, why couldn't it happen to us? Boeing has the resources and insurance protection to deal with catastrophic loss. QVSD does not. (https://youtu.be/pZGW_Fd6zGg?si=hN8geSXW7nlu4RNS)

Homeowners below the Leet site cannot buy landslide insurance. All we need is one slide, during or after development. Even if it doesn’t engulf a home or kill someone, the real estate values in the neighborhood will be impaired. Anything happens and everyone – school district, municipalities, engineers, contractors, etc. – will be sued. It will be a field day for lawyers. A large settlement could bankrupt us and/or create a demand on taxpayers to fund the settlement. No-one wants this.

So-called “BLACK SWAN” events happen all the time. No responsible fiduciary, in the public or private sector, would invest $100+ million to build on a hilltop with geology like Kilbuck, especially when the current site could be redeveloped at a lower cost. A CEO in the private sector would get fired for putting his company at such risk.

Think about it, fifteen (15) years later Kilbuck is still a dog park. Walmart has sunk $60+ million into site stabilization. It would have been developed by now if there was an engineered solution. It's still moving.

Click on: Quaker Valley Middle School goes $3 million over budget for a link to the article. The pattern: create bid specs with minimal finishings/materials, then come back later for an upgrade. This could be happening with the high school project. The school board has not explained why the building cost is currently estimated at ~$8 million under the Act 34 cap. Something that seems to good to be true. If we go 15% over budget on a $100+ million project, that's $15-20 million. Money that could be used for other purposes or simply given back to the taxpayers.

Whenever you see calculations that prove a point, you need to question the assumptions. The last time QVSD engaged their financial consultants to prove the high school project was affordable was in June 2020.

At that time the total project costs were estimated to be in the range of $85 to $95 million.  A new set of financial calculations was rolled out at the September 12th board meeting. The current total project cost is now about $105 million.  Just like the 2020 calculations, there is no data or evidence to support the cost numbers. My Right-to-Know ("RTK") request came back with a completed worksheet but no supporting information. Who knows what was included, excluded or overlooked?

When you do some simple math, the original estimates have grown to $109 to $122 million, respectively. What makes us think the $105 million number is any more credible? Inflation has plateaued for a while but is once again heading back up. Even if the $105 number was accurate, it will soon become obsolete. Are we destined to be like Hempfield School District, where the bids came in millions of dollars over estimates? See: "Hempfield considers 'owners rep' to navigate stalled high school project."

No surprises.  At the September 19th meeting, the school board approved a resolution providing Act 34 estimates as follows:

• Maximum Building Construction Cost (“MBCC”) = $72,129,518
• Maximum Project Cost (“MPC”) = $105,049,347

This compares with a MBCC of $80,017,030 and MPC in the range of $108 million discussed recently by QVSD with, and agreed by, a representative of the PA Department of Education. The MBCC calculation was derived from the building's floor plan, projected student enrollment and standard construction costs used in the industry. If building costs are truly $7.9 million less than what was discussed, the total cost number implies site development costs have been revised upward by about $12.6 million. This number will likely increase even further as implied by an Allegheny County requirement for QVSD to conduct additional test borings within the Camp Meeting Road right-of-way. We always knew costs for site development and road work were going to be the most volatile and difficult to estimate with any precision. They will undoubtedly go even higher during the plan review process with the various regulatory bodies.

So, what gives on the building? What did they cut out (design, materials, finishings, etc.) to drive down the building's cost by 10%? Or, is it simply an arbitrary accounting adjustment to offset an unexpected increase in site development costs? Is this part of a purposeful strategy to stay within their borrowing limit? To avoid a referendum? The revised numbers lend credence to the suspicion QVSD just wants to break ground, run out of spending/borrowing authority, and appeal to the taxpayers for a bailout. We must stay vigilant and not let this happen.

We have also become aware that our construction manager, Thomas & Williamson LLC of Ross Township, has become embroiled in a dispute with Chartiers Valley School District arising out of core borings related to a stadium renovation project. “Soil borings” are the key to the design and construction of a new QVSD high school on the Leet site. It’s probably the most critical aspect. Get that wrong and the whole project fails. See: "Chartiers Valley board rejects $158,500 change order in stadium renovation project." The dispute speaks to the competency of our construction manager. Exactly how did they get hired by QVSD and why? They appear to have no new school construction management experience. Particularly with the geotechnical challenges we face.

DOES THIS INSPIRE CONFIDENCE?

This project has always been about MONEY, POWER & WISDOM. QVSD has money and power in abundance. What they seem to be lacking is "wisdom." If costs are somehow contained, they can probably make this project happen. Like I have said it is 50/50. Based on a recent financing plan, they could theoretically incur costs and spend up to $122 million in borrowed money. That would be in addition to the roughly $10 million already sunk in land acquisition, consulting and preliminary engineering costs. So, we could be spending well in excess of $130 million (all-in) to house a declining population of kids, now in the range of 600.  How is that wise? See below for details.

We know the site is inherently flawed. It's unsafe for everyone and more expensive to develop than re-purposing the existing site (Plan B). QVSD has acknowledged a difference of $20 to $30 million. We suspect it will turn out to be significantly higher (our current estimate is $40 million), with the difference in total cost adding as much as a half to a million dollars per year in debt service expense (and related taxes).

The proposed high school is virtually surrounded by wetlands. To obtain a so-called "Encroachment Permit," QVSD will have to prove the project could not have been built somewhere else (aka, like at the existing site). This will be difficult. A permit is not a sure thing. Makes you wonder why has QVSD has spent close to $12 million so far and waited so long to vet the likelihood of a DEP permit? Denial of a permit will end the project. The DEP permit process, even if approved, could delay the project for up to a year. It's just another example of failure to exercise wisdom. We need a new school board, one that does not have so much "ego" invested in the outcome of a flawed high school project.

For the high school project.

Sept19 - approval of initial building cost estimate (Act 34) at a regularly scheduled board meeting at 7p.

Act 34 estimates adopted as expected.

Sept 20 - public meeting at the high school from 6-9p to discuss the high school project

Several of us in opposition were personally invited by the board member who inspired the meeting on the pretext there would be an open discussion. It was a JOKE! The meeting was highly scripted. The audience stocked by QVStrong supporters.. Dissent was throttled. A total waste of time. Like I said below, a gathering of "CHEERLEADERS." See my article published in the e-edition of the Sewickley Herald: Sept 20th New High School Briefing.

Oct 10 - Oral arguments in the zoning appeal at 1p in the Commonwealth Court, Supreme Court Room on the 8th Floor of the Pittsburgh City County Building, open  to the public. Please attend.

QVSD is deathly afraid of losing the appeal. Their case is weak and the Common Pleas judge has a history of his rulings being overturned in a higher court. We argued convincingly that, although the Leet zoning ordinance permits a club, church or school, the proposed QVSD high school constituted "abnormal" use, detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community, given the known traffic and geotechnical hazards of building on a hilltop with unstable soils. If zoning is upheld, we asked that it be subject to the ten conditions the Leet Zoning Hearing Board would have required. All are related to safety of occupants, kids in cars/buses on a dangerous road and the downhill residents exposed to landslide. We don't expect the court's decision until early next year.

Oct 26 - Act 34 Hearing at 7p in the high school auditorium to explain, document and justify the intended high school project, followed by a 30-day period for public comment and questions.

Here is a link to the Act 34 Booklet that will be referenced at the hearing. It appears to satisfy the requirements of PA law. Again, the validity of statements in this document depends entirely on the veracity of the costs estimates. Many of us think the estimates are much too optimistic. We fully expect total project costs will escalate to the point where QVSD will breach either or both of its spending and borrowing caps. If so, there will be another Act 34 Hearing and likely a referendum. Please don't view the upcoming meeting as a victory. It's just a step in the process.

Oct 24/26; respectively - Application considered for project approval to the Leetsdale/Leet planning commissions, a process that could take several months to complete (up to 90 days for preliminary approval, up to 60 days for final)

Nov 7th - Election of new school directors, who can change or influence the outcome of the high school project.

Anyone who has followed my campaign will know that approval of an initial building cost number is (was) fully-expected. It's not a victory per se. Just the first step in the process. There is still a long way to go before there are "shovels in the ground." See my article in e-edition of the Sewickley Herald: "Quaker Valley High School Project - Long Way to Go." The school board possesses enormous authority to borrow and spend. They will not admit their mistake. We must hold them accountable at each step in the process. Much uncertainty remains. There is still only a 50/50 chance this project ever gets built. WATCH THE VIDEOS BELOW.

I sense a little confusion about the process, especially since the school district has scheduled a PR briefing on September 20th. Here's how the Act 34 process works.

Meeting #1 - the school board approves the Maximum Building Construction Cost ("MBCC"). If this number exceeds the number allowed based on a PA standard cost per pupil, there will be a referendum. If not, no referendum and the process goes on. The worksheet used to derive a MBCC also includes a total project cost estimate, including site and road work.

Meeting #2 - no sooner than 20 days later, there is a formal Act 34 Hearing including publication of a written booklet detailing all aspects of the project, its justification and costs [now scheduled for October 26th].

Meeting #3 - no sooner than 30 days after Meeting #2 to allow for public comment. It's the earliest the board could agree to solicit construction bids. But, they won't be ready to do so until next year. Remember, too, if the building construction bids come in at 8% or more of the MBCC calculation, there will be another Act 34 hearing and it could trigger a referendum. Click on: "Hempfield Area officially rejects bids on high school project, plans to revise scope" for a recent example of bids being too high relative to initial estimates.

Overlaying the Act 34 process, is the requirement to submit engineering plans to various regulatory bodies for their agreement and approval. Also, the results of our appeal of zoning. The outcome may not have too much impact on the MBCC but it will definitely affect total project costs and the school board's ability to finance the project within the confines of how much they can borrow without seeking taxpayer approval -- that is, a referendum. 

The meeting on September 20th is solely a PR event. Expect the CHEERLEADERS to be out in full force. 

There is reason to believe we may witness renewed calls for mask mandates and lockdowns, especially with the approach of the 2024 general election. This cannot happen again. We know with absolute certainty that vaccines, masks and lockdowns do not work to control or limit the effects of the SARS-CoV-2 pathogen or any of its variants. If imposed on students in the in QVSD, it will be catastrophic to the learning experience. Our kids will be harmed again. We cannot let this happen!

The school board will do everything possible to avoid a taxpayer referendum. However, to succeed in denying us a say in the outcome of the proposed high school project, they must clear several regulatory hurdles. The most imminent, as respects a referendum, is Act 34 which governs the maximum the school district can spend on a building. The next is LGUDA which limits how much they can borrow.

Act 34 Building Cost Estimate -- the so-called "Taj Mahal" Act

There is a complex formula based on the number of rooms, their size and use and expected enrollment. Current estimates are in the low $80 millions. The final number will be gamed by scaling down the building and compromising on materials and finishings. It's likely the district will meet this test. The school board is expected to approve the initial building cost estimate for purposes of Act 34 at a September meeting. It will be followed by a public hearing in October, then a 30-day pause for public comment. However, the real test will occur once bids are received. If they equal or exceed the initial Act 34 estimate by eight (8) percent, there will be a second hearing and a taxpayer referendum.

LGUDA -- Borrowing Authority

"LGUDA' is short hand for the Local Government Unified Debt Act. It contains a formula, using historical revenues, to calculate how much debt a public entity like a school district, can incur at any one time. Projections done by QVSD indicate it could be as high as $114 million in 2027.  When the school district does its Act 34 estimate for the building cost, they are also required to show an estimate for TOTAL PROJECT COST. If this number is greater than the sum of available cash + borrowing authority, it will trigger a referendum. Again, the hurdle can be gamed. It is done by phasing in a project, along with the borrowings required to pay for each phase. If the school district runs out of borrowing authority, they would simply be forced to seek a taxpayer referendum for the balance required to complete the project. The problem at that point: how can taxpayers say "no" once site/road work has commenced and tens of millions of dollars have already been sunk in the project?

With cash from a previous bond offering, the school district could possibly spend up to about $122 million without needing a taxpayer referendum. All in, taxpayers could be looking at between $125 to $130 million, including land acquisition of $9.4 million, for a new high school. This is an unconscionable number for 600+ students and will have profound future affects on district finances. To say it is irresponsible is an understatement.

WE CAN DO BETTER. That is the purpose of "Plan B." Please realize that any vote for an incumbent school board candidate in the upcoming election is like having a bonfire with your money!

Sure there could be cost overruns. That is to be expected, either for unknowns or as part of the gaming process. There could also be significant added costs during the plan review process, like a requirement for an Emergency Only Road (EOR) to be used by first responders. But what could really bankrupt our school district is what economists call "BLACK SWAN EVENTS." These are the rare, unexpected but very real costs associated with unintended consequences. Well out on the "Bell Curve" so to speak. The proposed high school project has many of these, as indicated by the Contingent Costs summarized below. All are unquantifiable until the happen. Then they can be huge, create first or third party liability for the school district and are likely uninsurable.

In its announcement of March 12, 2019; the school board was almost giddy in describing the terms of a four year agreement with the QVSD teachers' union (QVEA). Essentially, the teachers agreed to subsidize the expected costs of a new high school. One that has still not been built and may never be built -- as, where and how planned. That agreement has now expired. So, what does that mean? A new agreement that makes the teachers whole? The loss of teachers who can easily find replacement jobs elsewhere? A strike? Everyone is mum.

Click on: "Quaker Valley School District Reaches Contract Agreement with Teacher's Union" for a copy of the referenced announcement.

Our highest priority is quality instruction. Would we be having this problem if the school board was not so obsessed with a new high school project that is $20 to $40 million more expensive and much less safe than re-purposing the existing site? I think our tax dollars are better spent in the classroom, a priority often expressed but not followed by my opponent in the upcoming General Election. The budget for the current school year calls for a salary/benefits increase of 4.37%. Will that be adequate? Is it fair? A one time bump would not make up for lost purchasing power.

It should be TEACHERS OVER A BUILDING! Why should the teachers continue to sacrifice?

1 - Site Selection

Last month, Mr. Thomas conceded a landslide on the property is possible. Various sources show the entire Leet site is subject to landslide activity, especially in one area -- critical to the lower driveway, storm water management and utilities -- where there is a history of landslides. You are about to approve 91 additional test borings. I infer this means the landslide risk is still not completely understood.

1st QUESTION: Why at this late stage, after owning this property for six years and having spent about $11 million, are we still trying to verify that the property is buildable?

2 - Financial Risk

Anyone reading the report of the landslide in 2006 will find many similarities between the Kilbuck and Leet properties. The geology, topography, history of landslides, actual or expected site disturbance, and the presence of both underground and surface water. Six years ago, Geoff Phillips sent a letter to the district, saying: “Based on our observations, we contacted QVSD and indicated that this particular site may not be workable from a typical budget perspective even if the site was effectively "gifted" or donated to QVSD."

2nd QUESTION: Why did we ignore this warning, in fact pay $9.4 million for the land, and undertake such a costly, risky project; knowing -- no matter how much is spent -- it could still fail and not be completed? How is the reward worth the risk?

3 - Plan B

The building has been downsized; the stadium and district office will not be re-located; the development, traffic and site safety risk is significantly less in Leetsdale; which is accessible for walkers and to public transportation; and the newly constructed Esmark building proves a school could be built in a flood plain, with parking under the structure. So, a lot has changed since you last considered a new high school at the current site.

3rd QUESTION: Why not hire a firm like IKM, at a cost not to exceed $25,000; to prepare an updated conceptual study for a new high school in Leetsdale, if for no other reason than to silence your critics and have a backup plan in case the Leet site does not work out?

ALL THREE QUESTIONS SPEAK TO YOUR DUTY AS A FIDUCIARY.

This was the anemic reply and my rebuttal. QVSD ANSWER

My name is Bill Jasper. I am running to become a SCHOOL DIRECTOR in Quaker Valley's Region I -- Bell Acres, Leet and Leetsdale. We have a lot of challenges in our future. Difficult but solvable. PLEASE CLICK ON MY STATEMENT FOR A BRIEF EXPLANATION OF THE ISSUES AND REASONS FOR MY CANDIDACY.

I got involved in this project when the school board decided to develop a "greenfield" site in Leet for a new high school. At the time, the expected cost was about $35 million higher than re-developing the existing site in Leetsdale. There were also potential, hard to quantify human and property loss costs, as the site is unsafe for intended occupants, commuters, and the 25 homes immediately downhill from the site.

Let's be clear. The school board has approved construction of a new high school on the Leet site. However, this is a conditional approval. There are strict limitations on the board's authority to spend, borrow and increase our taxes. Until contractor bids are received and financing is arranged, there is no certainty the board can proceed without taxpayer (voter) approval. In fact, it may be the school board's strategy to get started on the project, discover they don't have enough spending/borrowing/taxing authority, then come to the taxpayers for a bailout.  We can stop this madness but there has to be a strong, clear message from the voters. There is a safer, lower cost/tax, equally modern option. We need to elect candidates who favor an open, transparent review of all options and a likely change of course. See my "HIGH SCHOOL PROJECT" page details.

"Plan B" has been further refined. The basic option is a standalone building constructed behind the current building. A hybrid would be to retain and remodel the classrooms in the front and add additional space extending to the rear. The school board will say these options were considered before. In fact, they were not. Earlier versions were based on a significantly larger building and creation of building pads (vs. floating on top of pilings) -- this has all changed. "Plan B" has been re-sized to conform with the current schematic design intended for the Leet site. It is now "like-for-like" and could be constructed at a significantly lower cost. It would also avoid the added traffic safety risk on Camp Meeting Road; the risk of landslide and the added response time for first responders inherent to the Leet site. The "flood plain" issue is totally bogus, as has been proven by the recent construction of the Esmark building.

Compared to earlier options, what the school board actually intends to deliver to the community is significantly different from what was promised. For full disclosure (details), click on the BUTTONS below.

Here's a summary:

• A much smaller building: 162,877 vs. 222,000 GSF (gross square feet)
  
• A much smaller useable area: 25 acres vs. 49 acres recommended by PDE
• No transfer of the District Administration Office (DAO)
• No allowance for walkers or users of public transport
• No thought given to the need/cost for additional school buses; their storage and drivers
• No on-site athletic stadium; plus added cost and inconvenience of shuttling between two campuses
• No inclusion of the $9.4 million site acquisition cost in the estimated numbers
• No added cost of road work ($TBD) at Camp Meeting and Beaver in the assumptions
• No consideration or cost anticipated for a dedicated emergency access road
• Geotechnical risk that is much more difficult/expensive to mitigate (unstable soils vs. flood plain)
• Transit risk (kids in cars/buses) shifted to a steep, curvy road that is treacherous in the winter
• Occupancy risk at a remote, isolated site; much more distant from first responders in an emergency
• Operational risk reliant upon the structural integrity of a building, driveways, storm water detention facility, etc. built on soils that might fail during and after construction
• Completion risk rated as highly uncertain

As the project's scope evolved, the building has been downsized to the point where a new high school could easily be constructed at the existing site. It would be safer, cheaper, more accessible and have a much higher certainty of completion. Further, the cost pressure of meeting Act 34 could mean the use of lower quality of materials and finishings at the Leet site. One developer has said: "expect to see 'prison' finishes." The appearance and feel of the finished high school, if it is ever built, is likely to be underwhelming when compared to the glossy school district presentations. Prepare to be disappointed.

At this juncture, the school board has a fiduciary duty to pause and consider "Plan B" before plunging ahead with a project that is inherently flawed and fraught with "tail risk" (low frequency, high severity financial cost). They had the whole summer to do so.

It never happened. Lot's of false premises. False promises. Why should we now believe anything we are told about the high school project? The TRUTH is, we need to shake up the board and get new leadership. One that will do what they promise. Taxpayers need to be involved. We are owed what was promised: a referendum.

Anyone wishing to see the full text of the document passed out in January of 2018 is welcome to click on the button below. Please understand, QVSD decided to buy the land, then made a totally disingenuous promise to be fair and impartial about the location of a new high school; while at the same time, disqualifying the option of building at the current site. Do they really think we're that stupid? The choice of the Leet site was a foregone conclusion. 

Much of the preliminary building design work (# of rooms, size, layout, etc.) could be re-purposed and used at Beaver. The Leet site could be sold and the proceeds used to offset the expenses of construction of "Plan B." We overpaid for the property, so there will be a financial loss. However, the loss on the sale of the property will be offset by overall savings on the change of location to the Beaver (Leetsdale) site.

I encourage everyone to watch the following  video. It was distributed by the school district on May 1st. I question the wisdom of the planned project -- not the school district's authority to spend, borrow and tax as represented in the video. In fact, I concede the district may, just barely, have sufficient authority to fund this project without taxpayer approval, assuming cost/revenue estimates hold and borrowings are timed with the progression of construction. However, that's a big "IF" and remains to be seen.

To reiterate: the ultimate cost of this project is unknown until bids are obtained. The bidding process will involve at least three phases: 1.) site preparation, 2.) road work at the bottom of Camp Meeting Road and 3.) construction of the high school. None of this can happen until the plans have been reviewed and approved by the respective planning commissions in Leet, primarily, but also in Leetsdale. And for the road work, by Allegheny County and PennDOT. The technical review process could add cost ("budget creep"), like the requirement of an emergency only road (EOR). It will also take time and inflation, although moderating, will continue and drive costs higher than originally expected.

Perhaps the most volatile and difficult to predict is the cost of site work. The district is drilling additional test borings, going from 30 to well over 100,  to attain greater certainty of soils quality and the work required to stabilize a hillside that is continually moving. At a recent school board meeting, our construction manager admitted there could be landslide risk but said any adverse event would be confined to "on-property." Meaning, it could affect structures like the building, the two access roads (driveways) and the storm water management system. The findings of soil testing will be crucial to the accuracy of highly suspect cost assumptions, currently just under $100 million. 

Other considerations:

1. Even if we could, why borrow/spend more than needed, making us vulnerable to future financial shocks -- essentially "maxing out our credit card?" These are uncertain economic times, credit markets are tightening and we may have other, unforeseen needs for immediate cash.
2. Like a home mortgage, the difference in the periodic payment might not be that much but over time, incurring more debt (spending) than needed, would be much more costly. Why would a responsible, public entity -- funded by taxpayers -- do that?
3. The full impact on taxes does not happen until after 2027. That is, in the years following the millage projections provided in the five year plan. In essence, we appear to be containing future tax increases but, in reality, we are just kicking-the-can over the horizon. It will catch up to us at some point.
4. The video also totally ignores the potential indirect costs -- that is, the possible adverse impact on the 25 homes below the hillside; the drivers on Camp Meeting Road coping with an additional 1,800 vehicle trips on a typical school day; and the occupants of a school who could experience a delayed response in an emergency.
5. Last, what if the high school project becomes just another "black hole" like the Walmart project Kilbuck? The geology is the same. Walmart has +$60 million sunk so far on a site that is unusable for its intended purpose. What if this happens to the school district?

Get some popcorn. Enjoy the film. It proves my point: the school board operating in a bubble. The message is simple: "Trust us, there's a process; what you are hearing is misinformation." 

Here's another, more recent example (video) of the charm offensive. It's equally specious and misleading. The message this time is: "Trust us, we'll have a safety plan."  Of course they will. But, that's not the point. What Ms. Andreyko should be saying is: "We will be making the best of a bad situation." Because, that's what it is.

The Leet site is inherently flawed from a human safety point of view. It is far more distant -- up to a mile -- from first responders and the hospital. Added time could equal lives lost. The school will be uphill, remote and present a difficult tactical challenge for the extraction of someone intending harm to others or themselves. There are only two access roads (aka driveways), each being constructed on unstable soils, that are susceptible to wash out like our other hillside roadways. The final positioning of the school has been shifted further away from Camp Meeting, making it even more remote.  During a large-scale casualty event, there will likely be mass chaos, with multiple choke points -- the clash of first responders/parents trying to get in and faculty/students trying to get out. These are the real safety issues and they arise solely from poor site selection.

Even more ludicrous is the lip service given to an emergency only road (EOR). It would be laughable, if not so serious. That is, during the zoning hearing process, the district floated the idea of a dual-purpose EOR/pedestrian walkway, connecting from Beaver to the lower driveway. So, when first responders are charging uphill, kids are fleeing downhill, right into the path of incoming fire trucks, police cars, swat teams, etc. Not a very safe mix, do you think? The subject of an EOR is likely to be re-visited during the planning commission process. It could add significant cost and/or even be a deal killer. Again, the real safety issue is poor site selection.

For the school board members who have ridiculed the comparison of what could happen at the hilltop site with the landslide that occurred nearby in 2006; I suggest they read the investigative report -- Kilbuck Landslide Final Report. There are many similarities (geology, intended site disturbance, use of explosives, a mix of storm and underground water, etc.). There was also a history of landslides. Dixmont was compromised. This risk was engineered. It survived the plan review process. THEN: THE SITE FAILED!

Engineers can mitigate the landslide hazard to some extent, under certain conditions and at a higher cost, but the risk cannot be eliminated. Considering the high cost of possible site failure, "avoidance" is the best risk management choice. Once again, the real safety issue is poor site selection.

There is further evidence. Here is a concise summary of safety risks submitted during the Leet zoning hearings. It rebuts the school district's expert testimony: SAFETY MEMO LEET SITE. There is also the ENGINEER'S DUE DILIGENCE letter. Note the statement it contains:

"Based on our observations, we contacted QVSD and indicated that this particular site may not be workable from a typical budget perspective even if the site was effectively "gifted" or donated to QVSD."

Bottom line, it's all about money. Throw enough money at virtually any problem and you can affect the risk profile. That's what the school board is doing. However, in the case of landslide, traffic and site security; it only lessens the risk, it does not eliminate it. Why would we gamble with your money on such a risky bet?

To dig even deeper, here are the CITATIONS/TESTIMONY from the zoning hearings. It contains 153 pages of reports, Q&A and commentary from citizens, real estate developers and the school district's experts on the subjects of geotechnical, shooter and traffic risks. The first few pages are the citations, an easy read and insightful. The rest will require more effort but illuminates the scope of concern and risks associated with this project. They are real. Not "misinformation."

"When you can't make a fact-based argument, call your opponent's argument "misinformation." Anon. 

As an example, here is a spoon-fed article in the June 1st Sewickley Herald: "Design for new high school approved." When you read it, ask yourself whatever happened to investigative reporting? There was no attempt to seek contrary input. No push-back, no questions asked. Just blind parroting of a narrative spouted by an interested party. The reporting by the Herald on the high school project has been consistently biased and one-sided. Question everything they print on this subject. It is not journalism.

In truth, there is a mountain of evidence (facts) to show the site selection was highly flawed. It is literally a disaster waiting to happen. If the school district truly values our (your) safety; they would admit their mistake, cut our losses and re-focus on the existing site. That is the purpose of "Plan B." 

This is where your tax dollars are going. It is an exhibit from the R Strategy consulting agreement. The cost to the school district, determined from a Right to Know request, is approximately $144,000. Do you think we needed to be brainwashed [and pay for it] into accepting the wasteful spending on the planned high school project?

Most recently, the school district has entered into another consulting agreement with a lobbying group, Summit Strategies. The purpose is to securing high school project funding from state and federal sources. The reason, reportedly, is to offset the apparent opposition in the community to the high cost of the planned high school. The price tag is $120,000 per year. 

Explain this! QVSD's cost structure is the highest in Western PA. The school board will tell us our millage (tax) is less than our peers. That may be true but it's the wrong measure. It's better to ask how other school districts, with similar demographics, seem to be more efficient and deliver a better result. Our school rankings have declined relative to other districts in Western PA. It's time to dig into our finances, discover the facts and put the issues before parents and taxpayers.