May 14, 2016 By Harry Funk 3 min read

Mt. Lebanon commissioners by consensus have agreed to spend $56,500 on a comprehensive survey of the municipality’s public works facility.

At their May 10 discussion session, most of the commissioners – Steve McLean dissented – decided on the expenditure as the next step toward improving the department’s operational center, off Lindendale Drive and along Cedar Boulevard.

A 2014 master plan feasibility study for the site provides a cost estimate of more than $5 million for a multi-phased renovation and expansion project, including several new buildings.

The information gathered from further surveying, though, would provide for a better estimate, according to Dan Deiseroth of municipal engineering firm Gateway Engineers.

“We don’t have a good survey of the public works property at this point,” he said, explaining that such a study would address boundaries, topographic features and utility lines, among other items. It also would help pinpoint the location of an underground water-carrying culvert.

“There have been times when that culvert has overflowed into the public works yard,” Deiseroth said.

The survey has an extended shelf life, he told commissioners.

“Taking it forward, it’s data that, no matter how you decide to proceed in the future, it would be useful information,” he said. “The survey’s not going to change.”

Commissioner Dave Brumfield expressed strong support for the survey.

“Even doing this isn’t a commitment to doing the full project, because I think once we see the numbers, it’s going to guide a lot of discussion,” he said. “But we’re not going to be able to move it any further forward without these numbers.”

One component of the master plan that will be examined further is possible expansion of the site’s firing range, which is used by police and for some recreation department activities. A future use could be by the Mt. Lebanon High School rifle team, which lost its home range inside the school in its nearing-completion renovation project.

In the master plan, the “probable costs” of site construction and building construction of a new range are listed at $819,030, which would be in addition to the $5 million-plus.

“I thought that it’s important to taxpayers of the municipality that we at least do our due diligence and take a look to see if there’s a way to construct one facility to meet the needs of both entities, as opposed to having two separate facilities,” municipal manager Keith McGill said. “At the end of the day, if it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work.”

Also at the end of the day, he said, there is one priority:

“First and foremost, the facility needs to function as a public works facility, because that’s the primary function of that site.”