High School Project

We need a new high school. However, what is being proposed is not affordable nor is it safe for everyone in the school district, including its intended occupants. There is a better choice. It is not too late. WE CAN DO BETTER.

The Leetsdale option is highly credible. It is a safer, less costly alternative to the school board's current chosen option. Start to finish, it could be completed in two years. Price tag about $86.8 million (saving $20 to $40 million). Much less risk of delays and cost overruns. Much greater certainty of completion. It would include a dedicated, emergency only road ("EOR"). The cost could be further reduced by salvaging most of the sunk cost (~$11 million) in the Leet site. Much of the preliminary design and engineering already paid for could be applied to the Leetsdale option. 

If you agree we should be offered a choice, support my candidacy and voice your opinion to the current school board. Otherwise, we could find ourselves steamrolled into a catastrophic mistake -- one that may never be completed.

The above option was not fairly vetted. The process was skewed to the selection of the Leet site, favoring a one-level vs. multi-level building. The excuse of not being able to build in a flood plain was a "red herring." If the planners of the Esmark building were biased in the same way, it never would have been built. Same for the Quaker Valley Shopping Center. The only aspect of the new building subject to flooding would be the first level parking. Like the Mon Wharf in downtown Pittsburgh, if there is a flood (rarely happens), the school would close and no-one would park in the garage. Since it would be covered parking, students and faculty would also not be subject to inclement weather. What's not to like about something that is cheaper, less risky and more convenient? Also available in less time and easier to evacuate during an emergency.

The following details the shortcomings of the Leet site.

The school board's current estimated cost range of $95 to $105 million is suspect. What could have been built in 2020 for $85 to $95 million -- the school board's prior cost range -- has grown to $111 to $124 million, respectively,  up over 30%. This is based on simple math, using a government index for new school construction. Financing costs are up 437%. What we are being told by the school board is not credible. There is no data to support the numbers. More likely, the number of $105 million, the highest in the new  cost range, equals the maximum amount the school board can borrow without a taxpayer referendum. They must show us the calculations.

The school board recently (April 18) updated its forecast of borrowing capacity. If their estimates of cost, when updated this summer, remain within the current range, they may have sufficient authority to go forward with the high school project, since they could phase in the debt. However, that is a big "IF." And like any projection, it is dependent on the growth of revenues -- both real estate and earned income tax. We know real estate prices are cooling and incomes, net of inflation, are declining. Further, why would the district want to "max out its credit card," borrowing the most permitted under the law for the new high school, and not have a safety margin for other borrowing if needed to deal with some other unexpected, unfunded capital expenditure? It is not financially prudent to borrow as much as you can at any one time.

If building and financing cost numbers are suspect, how can school tax estimates be CREDIBLE? They are not. Recently updated estimates (March 2023) indicate tax rates will go up 2.9% next year; then 3.4% each year for two years; then decline to 2.9% for the following two years. How is it plausible that taxes would plateau and then decline during a period when we have just borrowed over $100 million? It is not. Nor is inflation likely to subside, given current federal government policies. The Federal Reserve's inflation target of 2% is now a fantasy. None of what the school board is telling us makes sense. The tax projections are NOT CREDIBLE. They seem to be kicking-the-can to outlying years, not included in the projections. And, like borrowing capacity, the projections are totally dependent on assumptions about the growth in real estate and earned income taxes.

Estimates of soils to be cut and filled, as provided during the zoning hearings, ranged from 0.575 to 3 million yards, a massive amount of earth movement. The hilltop would be lowered up to 60 feet in places, with the average being 10-15 feet. Blasting is required for sandstone and rock outcrops. The use of heavy equipment will cause vibration of unstable soils. Here's a sampling of comments made by qualified people during the zoning hearings:

• It's the equivalent of digging out and lowering CHUCK KNOX STADIUM by ~85 feet
• Footprint on the hilltop will equal 2 times the building area of the Quaker Village Shopping Center
• Even if Tull donates it, you may not want it as there is evidence of continuing landslide activity
• Large over-excavations may impact neighboring properties or require shoring
• If landslide deposits are too thick, the project can't absorb the economic impact of additional earthwork
• Current "safety factor" = 1.0, on the edge of continuing failure; requires costly remediation to achieve a goal of 1.5
• Area is meta-stable or borderline stable due to weathering, gravity and surface groundwater over geologic time 
• It is cheaper, less risky to build in a "flood plain" like at the existing school site

The risk level of this site is rated as "Very High/Severe." There is a good chance of it being started but not completed or not without significant cost overruns. Understand, too, the very same engineer who cautioned the school district about taking this site ("TULL" property), even if it was donated as a gift, is being paid to say it is buildable. How is this CREDIBLE? 

Where are the environmentalists? This project will involve chopping down 37 acres of trees, disturb about 60 ares of undeveloped land and encroach on wetlands in the Little Sewickley Creek watershed.

There are many flashing danger signals. People are at risk below and at the site, and while in transit to and from the site. It may be possible to mitigate risk but with uncertain result and high cost. Insurance is not the answer. Downhill homeowners can't buy coverage for storm water or landslide damage. Insurance for the negligence of architects, engineers, contractors and the school district will be subject to limitations and exclusions. It will be inadequate to deal with a catastrophic event. It could bankrupt the school district.

A new schematic design was approved by the school board in February. It shifts the proposed school building further to the right, solving one of the CHOKE POINT issues in the above diagram. However, like many things -- solve one problem but create another. Now the school building is even more distant from first responders. Yet we know that distance and time is critical to saving lives during a catastrophic event (fire, tornado, landslide, shooter, etc.). What was unsafe before is now even more so. Why would we create such a dangerous situation?

Zoning is about permissible land use. The judge's decision -- overturning the Leet Zoning Hearing Board's denial -- held that the Applicant (QVSD) simply had to "address" but not "prove" certain health, safety and welfare provisions of the Leet ordinance. The land was zoned "AAA" which permits construction of schools, churches and clubs. The judge's ruling is disputed on its merits and currently under appeal to a higher court. Leet declined to participate in the appeal, deciding it was more cost effective to "kick-the-can" to the Planning Commission. FAIR DISCLOSURE: I am one of two appellants of the judge's ruling, and with good reason. The decision was wrong. Our opening brief is scheduled to be filed on April 24th.

As evidenced, the high school project is highly flawed. It has been mismanaged for over 5 years. A credible option at the current site, not involving the high/risky development costs of the Leet site, was dismissed without serious vetting. Had we not become so obsessed with a school on a hilltop owned by a former celebrity, we could have had a shiny new high school by now.  One that could have been equally impressive -- designed to attract and retain families with school age children -- just not with the added cost of views of the Ohio River.

For now, the district intends to keep the athletic stadium in Leetsdale. Initial cost estimates were in the range of $18.3 to $20.5 million (2019 dollars) to relocate it and the district offices to the Leet site. Reasons to keep the stadium in Leetsdale: 1.) the added cost to relocate it would have likely tipped the scale, precipitating a taxpayer referendum and 2.) it's relocation could have complicated the zoning approval process. The result, however, is to create duplicate cost (i.e., maintenance of two campuses). This needs to be quantified for the expected duration of keeping two campuses, discounted to its present value and included in project costs.

It's time to face facts. We need a new high school. We just need more than one option and taxpayer involvement in the decision, given the $100+ million investment and its expected useful life. My recommendation is we: 1.) pause further spending on the proposed Leet site, 2.) quantify two options (Leet & at the existing site in Leetsdale), 3.) conduct a cost/benefit analysis of each option, 4.) publish the results and 5.) hold a public referendum. Let the taxpayers choose one of the two options. And if they choose a more costly option, so be it. The decision would reflect an overall consensus of the community -- not solely the arbitrary decision of the school board. 

I expect the school board will do everything possible to save face and try to push this project through. There are ample opportunities for manipulation of the bidding and award process. Worst case, they do all the site work, then discover they don't have the debt and taxing authority to complete the project and come to the taxpayers for a bailout. We must keep them honest. If purposeful, this kind of manipulation could be a breach of fiduciary duty. The board could be sued and we might lose our favored bond rating. That would increase our costs and may kill the project entirely. I will publicly request the board not engage in this kind of manipulative conduct.

Notice this project has been delayed for three years. Likely this adds to the frustration of parents who endured false expectations created by the school board. It's time to deliver a safer, less costly option that will be available for occupancy up to two years sooner.

It's interesting that 3 out of 5 incumbent SCHOOL DIRECTORS have chosen not to run for re-election. One is the current TREASURER, the person responsible for updating high school project cost estimates, financing strategy and tax calculations. Purely speculation but Is this like a vote of no confidence? Do the incumbents not want to be associated with an expensive mistake? There is roughly $10.7 million so far sunk in the high school project. What do they know that we don't? Maybe someone will tell us: "What's going on?"

Once again the school board has raised false expectations. See: Letter to the Community of March 2023. Until final engineering drawings and bids have been obtained, the proponents of this project have no way of quantifying project costs, knowing the availability and cost of financing and can calculate with certainty the tax increases required to pay for the high school project. This information is critical to determining whether or not the school board has the sole authority under the law to go forward on its own or will require prior approval from the taxpayers of Quaker Valley. The worst case is they get started, run out of money and then have to turn to the voters for a bailout.

This is the school board’s latest “puff piece.” Is it a nature preserve, a senior living center or a high school? When you are writing that check for the next school or earned income tax bill, just remind yourself about these views. They will be wonderful! It will take all the sting out of those larger than needed tax payments. I used to think the school board was sequestered in a bubble. Now I know they are even more removed from the interests of their constituents. No more charm offensives; let’s deal with reality. This project is not safe, it’s too expensive and may never be completed. It's time for serious consideration of "Plan B" and a public referendum, letting the taxpayers have a choice. Pay more or pay less.

Simply, you, the voters (taxpayers), need to be heard. Vote for me and other candidates like me and you will have the choice of a lower cost, equally modern option. Otherwise, get ready for the consequences. One that could bankrupt the school district and drive our merger with nearby school districts. Vote with your "EYES WIDE OPEN!"