Letters to the Editor for August 5

Here are today’s Letters to the Editors…

Submitted by Neshaminy School Board Member Stephen Pirritano of Lower Southampton:

In recent weeks there have been various opinions surrounding the recently announced Neshaminy Roadmap for Facilities Improvement and Consolidation.

Click to access Neshaminy%20-%20Build%20Futures%206-26-14.pdf

Some of this commentary unfortunately lacks a basis in history. The consolidation process is focused on areas which will allow for enhancing outcomes for all Neshaminy students, and financial stability for residents and taxpayers.

Opinions can be respected by all but the license to alter the facts and/or misrepresent the proceedings by this current board as well as prior boards is not in the best interest of all and the interest of finding solutions to carry our District into the future.

It is understood everyone will not agree but after years of exhaustive studies, research and commentary this issue has come to a head, this Board has found a consensus it can agree on and move the entire district forward with a respect to enhance our district educationally while maintaining fiscal responsibility. All Boards recognize debate is important to the process but we cannot or should not continue debate just for the act of doing so.

Following below is a synopsis on Neshaminy Consolidation.

No one neighborhood or community has or is being targeted. These recent proceedings, which began in January 2007 with the hiring of McKissick Associates have been examined in great detail as to the realities that the Neshaminy School District face; not Levittown, not Langhorne, not Lower South, etc. You can research board minutes as far back as the year 2000 to find board discussions and committees formed around population decline, school building condition, grade configuration, utilization, etc. Here is an example:

http://www.neshaminy.org/cms/lib6/PA01000466/Centricity/Domain/5/jan92001.htm

No contracted firm decided what buildings (schools) would be selected for closure. Originally, McKissick Associates presented a study that outlined various possible scenarios for how Neshaminy could proceed. Prior Boards and committees decided what building(s) would be suggested for closure.

Click to access School%20Closure%20Options.pdf

The original Ad Hoc Committee on Facilities was chaired by Mr. William O’Conner. When Mr. O’Conner left the Board the committee chair was then taken over by Mr. William Oettinger. It was during Mr. Oettinger’s tenure when the Citizens Committee on Consolidation was formed.

They deliberated for many months during 2012 to formulate a recommendation. This committee was made up of parents representing all areas of the district, teachers and district professionals; in conjunction with Board oversight from Mr. Shubin and support from McKissick Associates. The recommendation generated from that committee was never put in front of the full Board for a public vote.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/aq2xfb50qdn9a4n/Citizens%20Committe%20Presentation%20010813.pptx

That plan stalled even though that Board originally agreed to start the Plan Con process by unanimous votes; they decide to move forward with Pan Con A and B on a new elementary facility.

Click to access WS%209-11-12.pdf

Then after those votes were taken the funding model had started to change, it was deemed that funding for such a plan was not possible under a “no tax increase” scenario. In addition there were some members of that Board as well as the public that suggested McKissick’s original results pertaining to capacities was incorrect and that conclusions in the McKissick studies were flawed. In final conclusions those suggestion proved to be un-founded. The Citizens Panel recommendation was set aside and was never brought back in front of the full Board for a vote.

That Board did decide to perform another study selecting Spiezle Architectural Group and subsequently releasing McKissick Associates from District employment. As a side note, when the district released McKissick we lost access to all the GIS (population model) data because McKissick had performed that study free of charge and owned the results. Spiezle was awarded a contract to perform a facilities capacity assessment “only”, not the complete District wide evaluation that McKissick was originally awarded in 2007. Spiezle performed a study at both the elementary and middle school level. That report can be found here.

Click to access NeshaminySD%20ES-MS%20Capacity%20Assessment_Spiezle%202013_12_04.pdf

Details related to capacities reported between McKissick and Spiezle centered on utilization of building percentages. In conclusion McKissick used 100% capacity, which is the state recommend percentage for elementary schools, and Spiezle used 90%. When one factors in the differences in percent utilization, the results of McKissick and Spiezle are practically identical validating both firms’ methods of calculation.
One area that was revealed differently was middle school capacity. At the time McKissick performed its report the district still housed ninth grade in the middle schools. When the district completed renovations and rebuilding at the high school and moved ninth grade out of the middle school buildings the district never addressed middle school utilization or educational programming.

In October of 2013, I was appointed to fill the remaining term of Mr. Kim Koutsouradis, who resigned his seat. In January of 2014, I was named chair of the Ad Hoc Committee on Facilities, along with members Mr. Anthony Sposato and Mr. Ron Rudy. Our first meeting of this panel was January 23, 2014. At this meeting we introduced what were the goals of this committee.

Click to access ad%20hock%20goals.pdf

During this period and concluding with the June 24, 2014 meeting, our committee conducted a total of eight public meetings. This committee attempted to develop different scenarios to deal with those goals and the districts realities. One was a suggestion and subsequent recommendation to close one elementary school for the 2014-2015 school year. In order for a closing to take place we had a State mandated date in which we had to announce our intentions to the public. To make that date we worked within a condensed schedule without the benefit of having one piece of data “a population report” that later proved to be crucial. This data is known as a GIS study (I noted above that when McKissick was released we lost access to the data in the previous GIS study).

The Board that formed in December 2013 commissioned a new GIS study with Spiezle. That study was expected back by mid January 2014. We did not receive that study until mid February, subsequently not in time for the committee to consider it when making its recommendation. The committee recommended Miller Elementary to close and asked the Administration to perform its due diligence, they came to the conclusion in analyzing the Miller recommendation with the data retrieved from the new GIS study that our committee’s conclusions on population were incorrect and they could not support Miller as a valid proposal.

The Ad Hoc committee subsequently withdrew its recommendation. During the closure hearing that was previously scheduled, the full Board accepted the Ad Hoc committee’s withdrawal and voted not to proceed with a Miller hearing.

At the same time this Ad Hoc committee made a recommendation for a school closure, they also recommended that the administration do an evaluation of moving to a 5-8 middle school format for the upcoming 2014-2015 school year. The resulting difference in numbers between the original McKissick’s District Wide report and Spiezle’s capacity assessment report caused the Ad Hoc Committee to look at those differences and how best could we address the utilization of both our elementary schools and middle schools simultaneously while placing an emphasis on addressing educational programming at the middle school level.

The Administration provided its analysis for a Middle School 5-8 format and concluded while it was possible to change our middle school format for the 14-15 school year the Administration recommended against it and suggested allowing another year to consider and form a work study group known as the 5-8 Committee to examine what such a model would look like and how best it could be configured and structured. The committee agreed with the Administrations recommendation to form a 5-8 Committee for consideration of the new model. This evaluation is now under the guidance of Dr. Gloria Hancock.

There were also questions from members of the public about consideration for full day kindergarten as well as proposed future housing developments that could affect our population in the future. Mr. Copeland suggested and the board concluded a demographic study was warranted, the results can be found here:

Click to access Neshaminy%20Kindergarten%20and%20District%20Enrollment%20Report.pdf

A primary focus of the Ad Hoc Committee is centered on facilities. The original McKissick report established an estimated $74 million dollars would be required to fully renovate all Neshaminy facilities.

Several years after its release the sitting Board adapted a plan called the $40 Million Dollar Five Year Facilities Plan in an effort to identify the most needed repairs. That plan was derived from the $74 million dollar report and had often been referenced during the teacher impasse. In 2014, I asked the Administration to update that report. The revisions on that report came to a new conclusion that total District renovations could be as high as $91 million dollars. This report also removed Neshaminy Middle School and Eisenhower Elementary School from the original report due to the fact that they had been sold. The original report estimates were calculated in 2007, the new costs increased almost $31 million.

Click to access New%20deferred%20maint%20%202014.pdf

Continuing forward the Ad Hoc Committee was presented with a new idea of how to accomplish building facilities maintenance and renovations at a reduced cost and at a more accelerated rate than previously thought possible. This proposal was presented to the district by Reynolds Construction Managers and is known as the Act 39 GESA program. The Act 39 program allows for energy related upgrades and repairs to building facilities under specific conditions and controls.

This program is NOT for facilities that require total renovation. Some details can be found here:

Click to access NSD%20Using%20PA%20ACT%2039%20for%20Select%20School%20Renovations.pdf

In consideration of the Act 39 program possibilities and the overwhelming positive response I received from various Board members I asked the Administration to work with Spiezle, our architects, and Reynolds Construction to find a way we could achieve a GLOBAL solution to our facilities needs, address consolidation issues and achieve it in the most economic and least intrusive fashion as possible using a viable, responsive timeline. Working together they came up with what is our “Neshaminy Road Map for Facilities Improvement and Consolidation”. The Administration along with Spiezle and Reynolds presented this plan at our June 24th 2014 Ad Hoc Committee meeting.

The members present at the meeting were Mr. Rudy, Mr. Sposato and myself. A majority voted to recommend this plan to our full board for their consideration.

At the June 26th meeting the full sitting Board of the Neshaminy School Directors was introduced to a presentation of the Road Map and support commentary from Reynolds, Spiezle as well as Mr. Copeland, our superintendent. At this meeting two motions were presented for voting and both received a majority agreement from board members. One was to allow Reynolds to proceed with auditing “all” Neshaminy facilities and recommending what facilities would be best candidates for Act 39 GESA.

The second was a motion to allow Spiezle to start development planning for a new elementary facility on the Tawanka property and prepare for an ACT 34 hearing. Both these motions were required at that time to achieve the benchmarks outlined in the Road Map.

In late August 2014, Reynolds is expected to present its conclusions from their audit on what buildings meet the Act 39 criteria. At that time the Board will continue to make what necessary motions are required (as long as a majority agrees) to continue moving the project(s) forward in a responsible fashion to reach the conclusions required. The administration has built some fail-safes into their recommendations. One is regarding whether or not we conclude moving to a 5-8 middle school format is of benefit to the district and the students outcomes. Second is if Reynolds presents any conclusions for Act 39 on buildings other than what has been presented previously.

There is a wealth of additional information on the District’s Blog site as well as a forum to have parents and residents questions answered by the district or to just post a comment or concern. There are many previous questions posted and answered that may be worth reviewing before new posts are made. Click on the link below. If anyone has questions that they don’t see previously answered please post them. Thank you for taking the time and effort to be involved in your school district.

http://www.neshaminy.k12.pa.us/Page/21039

---

Submit Your Letter to the Editor

Do you have something you want to say about a town issue? Want to praise your community members for something they did? You can do that by writing a Letter to the Editor.

LevittownNow.com accepts Letters to the Editor on issues that are important to local residents.

Our editorial staff asks that your Letter to the Editor is free of spelling and grammatical errors, clear, and void of libelous statements. We also request that letters are kept under 500 words.

Here are some keys:

• Please include your first and last name, town and email address (so we can contact you back or verify your identity.) We will only publish your name and town.
• Feel free to type letters in response to other people’s opinions, but just be sure to reference the original letter. Why? So no one is confused.
• The choice of letters for publication is at the discretion of LevittownNow.com editors.

To submit your Letter to the Editor, submit it to tom@levittownnow.com with the subject “Letter to the Editor.”