The new number that Pursuant Ketchum presented tonight is... Drumroll, please... $6 million. For the low, low price of $840,000 which is 14% of $6 million, PK can raise $3 million in endowment and $3 million in capital. I hear that Dan Remely actually gets it. Dan said that if we pursue this, after PK gets their cut plus whatever we spend, plus the money won't arrive for five or six years, it's a wash. This was after we spent $44,000 ($10,000 from MLFE and $10,000 MLCE.) Don't forget, we have to create a full-time position dedicated solely to fundraising, only to raise $6 million that won't come in until three years after the high school project is complete and won't be applied to its original intent which was to prevent floating another bond. No colors were mentioned- no green light, yellow light, or red light.
On another note, Peterson has instructed the Board to litigate $63,148 (cost of repaving Morgan Drive) with the Municipality after the project is completed.
It was nice to hear that more people were in attendance this evening.
24 comments:
Mr. Elliott Oshry has been a fund raising consultant since 1974 when he joined Ketchum, Inc. He is now Executive Counsel to Pursuant Ketchum,
I first met Mr. Oshry in 1978 during the start-up phase of a very small charity. Mr. Oshry helped the organization grow from a service area of Allegheny County to a service area of Western and Central Pennsylvania. The services of the charity were dramatically expanded over the last decades. In my opinion, the District hired the very highest quality fundraiser as a consultant.
In addition, I believe a $6.000.000 goal is an appropriate goal for a first fundraising effort. $3,000,000 for a capital campaign and $3,000,000 for endowment gives a broad spectrum of donors the opportunity to donate their funds where their heart tells them to donate. When this goal is achieved I believe we will build on our experience with this first success and go on to bigger fundraising efforts in the future.
In the meantime there is a learning curve here for the District, including the Board that needs to be supported by the Community. I hope you will all be tolerant of the efforts being put fourth by our Administrators, Board, Employees, Donors and Volunteer Leaders. Congratulations to Dr. Steinhauer and all those who have the courage to participate in this new effort.
Respectfully,
John Ewing
Wonder how much of that underwhelming amount is conditioned or tied to naming rights ? And for what ?
Will the report be posted on the District website ?
Well, lets see. The result suggests achievement of only 20% of the original goal. And I think the average actual collection of promised, not contractural, pledges in fundraising is only something like 80% or so.
What has P-K's accuracy rate been on fundraising projections ?
Oshry said there wasn't much interest in naming rights.
David Huston
Personally, I'll take any fundraising as a positive. I watched in amazement last week as the Commission all but approved spending over $100,000 to light two more tennis courts despite never hearing one resident suggest there is a need. At the same time, they all but approved spending close to $200,000 to re-sod and irrigate Brafferton field despite hearing from the sports associations that the money would be better spent elsewhere. Not to mention another $143,000 to improve a parking problem on Cedar that n one can really even define. Over $425,000 is being thrown at things that no one is asking for . . . In the blink of an eye, that's almost 8% of what the fundraising effort hopes to pull in over several years.
I agree with Lebo Fields who says, "Personally, I'll take any fundraising as a positive."
Fundraising has benefited our Library, Public Safety Building, and Veteran's Memorial as well as our Schools. The PTA has been a positive force in fundraising for years and the MLFE has benefited our children by funding innovative educational programing since it was formed. The Dennis Theater could be another example of positive fundraising if it succeeds in the long run.
Thank you for your comment Lebo Fields.
Hey Lebo Fields, hear you're Dir. of Fundraising for the Football Assoc. Tell us how much you have raised in contributions for school district and municipal athletic fields for capital improvements. Hear you also haven't paid your dues to the YSA for years for the JMA. And you don't pay usage fees for the fields either.
Are you some kind of a freeloading community deadbeat ? You never put up and you never shut up.
Since my sleepless nights have started over the thought of another deer culling, I might as well submit something on the blog.
Dave, over $113 million is being thrown at things that thousands are not asking for! Try to keep up, Dave.
Elaine
I, for one, want lighted tennis courts. It will mean more people sign up to play at the tennis center in the summer months so that they can play after they get home from work.
Just because YOU didn't personally hear anyone asking for lights, doesn't mean nobody asked for them.
I personally had people laugh when I told them there was someone looking to put turf at Middle/Wildcat fields. They were incredulous.
Plus, maybe you forgot the meeting where residents of Cedar Blvd came to a commission meeting opposing turf partly because of the parking issues they constantly had to deal with.
Let's not all get short term memory loss here.
While I am not shocked at all about the outcome of the study (there are just no big donors that want to come forward and put their name on this thing), I am ok with the idea to set up the plan.
Mt. Lebanon has been lagging behind the times as there are a number of districts across the state who have something similar. Not the small potatoes that the MLFE does each year that inserts programs into the curriculum that the district later needs to find funding for, but the big dollar capital fundraising efforts.
To some degree I agree with Mr. Ewing in suggesting this is but the first step. It is. I don't know how much better it will get than the current goals, however.
The District did the right thing in pursuing this. They waited FAR too long to get started (not many people wait until after a shovel is in the ground to start a capital campaign for a building project) but in the end, it was finally the right thing to do- even with the extremely disappointing result.
I am not going to congratulate them too much since they didn't do this to be forward thinking. They did it to save their own a**es from an Act 1 referendum on the second set of bonds. With this new lowering of expectations below what the already lowered expectations were, it looks like that second float of bonds will be delayed as long as possible in order to make people forget what actually happened.
I tend to agree in principle with Mr. Ewing and Mr. Franklin, both of whom allude to the fact that $6 million is a "positive"; of course, any amount that nets out to a reduction in inevitable increase in property taxes is desirable - if the District does indeed use the money for that purpose.
But remember; this was originally adverted as a $30 million plan. And "there's yer problem...". The District now has a minor PR problem, given all the news stories about how much money it intended to raise. Given the results of the study, the Board looks a little silly.
In business there is a philosophy called "under promise, over deliver." When you "over promise and under deliver" you end up looking foolish - and you lose customers. I would have thought at least one MLSB member, being a businessman, would have known that. Of course, the District doesn't have to worry about "customers" - yet, anyway.
I thought the SB contracted with PK to determine the amount of donations that could be raised? And I believe they did exactly what they were asked to do.
A goal is set AFTER the study is completed, not before.
8:27, no, Pursuant Ketchum did not do what it was contracted to do.
The firm was also contracted to provide the District with the color of traffic light. Red, yellow or green.
They did not provide any color whatsoever.
Since Pursuant Ketchum only did half the job, the District should only pay them half.
The half that MLFE and MLCE paid for.
So the vendor makes the final go/no go decision?
I agree with Anon. 8:27 who says, “A goal is set AFTER the study is completed, not before.”
Mount Lebanon has a “green light” for a $6,000,000 goal. That is a good starting point for a first major fundraising effort. When this effort is successful I expect larger successful fundraising goals will follow.
Additionally, this fundraising doesn’t have has to stop at $6,000,000. I know of several fundraisers that have exceeded their goal and a fundraiser that raised an extra $20,000,000 and replaced an old Fine Arts building with a better new better building.
Being in sales for a big part of my life, I have learned to recognize buying signals. School Board, I think you need to contact Mr. Ewing.
Elaine
So I have one group calling to sell me pizza coupons for sports activities. I have another at my front door trying to sell me magazine subscriptions (I seriously didn't think anyone read printed magazines anymore.) I have the scouts trying to sell me popcorn and cookies. I've got all of the other parents at my workplace trying to sell items for their kid's school districts and activities.
I'm sorry folks, I'm tapped out.
I have a feeling Rolliers is going to have a run on "No Solicitation" signs.
Ouch! I just got this emailed to me by my commissioner. I had asked Steve Feller a question about this and copied the Commission.
"Ms. Gillen,
I have spoken with numerous officials at the SD today about this rumor, and NONE of them told me that the SD plans to sue the
municipality. Mr. Remely, when discussing the change order, asked
their solicitor how they, if they were to choose to do so, would go
about seeking funds from someone other than the SD to pay for the
re-paved road. The solicitor did not "advise litigation" as you
suggest. He did tell them that such a process was an option. The
change order vote passed, and it was decided that the SD would speak
with the other parties (architect, contractor, Muni., etc) to discuss
the issue further.
In addition, Mr. Feller and Dr. Steinhauer are in contact often, as
affirmed by Mr. Feller today. At this time, there is no reason to
respond to a false rumor or misinterpretation. Talks are ingoing
bewteen our staffs, as always.
I hope this clarifies any confusion you may have had about the SD's discussion.
Kristen Linfante
Commissioner, Ward 3"
The only comfusion I have now is why is my commissioner answering for Steve Feller?
Elaine
For the same reason Posti answers for Steinhauer, whatever that is.
Let's be clear here...anyone can go back to the podcast and make no mistake that both Dan and JoPo were throwing the municipal engineer under the bus.
The idea that now Kristen comes back and says there will be no lawsuit is a little early in the process I think. No doubt the school district will keep all options on the table until this is resolved.
I wonder if the municipality responded to the school board meeting from last week or not. I am sure they heard the comments from Dan and Jo. And I am also sure that if I was them, I would not appreciate one of my employees being thrown to the wolves for doing his job just so the board could blame someone else for its change order.
Dan and Jo took no responsibility for the change order related to a sewage line that had to be connected to the new sports multimillion-plex.
Guys, you put a brand new building there. You both voted for it. Guess what, if don't want your football team playing in six inches of raw sewage, you just might need a sewage line run to the new building.
And yeah, when you dig up the road you might find something you didn't expect (how many change orders last week were related to digging and finding something you didn't expect? Half?).
Own the mistake and move on. Don't blame someone else all the time.
Her tone is absolutely ugly. I can barely listen to your podcasts and hear her talk. She fights with the residents during citizen comments (and not just you Elaine) and always has to have the last word. She was arguing about something with the Commissioners awhile ago and they just all let her yell. Who wants to talk to a Commissioner that is constantly talking down to people?
During her rant at the last meeting concerning the joint discussion sessions, Kelly was looking up at the ceiling, Dave and Matt were sitting back in their chairs, and I missed what John was doing. Kristen would say, "And that is all I am going to say." Silence. Then she would rant some more and end with, "and that is all I am going to say." More silence. Kristen would start up again. I almost burst out laughing. She tells us that as a professional musician, you have to listen. She hasn't been listening too much. Where is the communication, collaboration, and the listening? I am not hearing "true harmony" at the commission meetings. Someone is playing out of tune.
Elaine
Post a Comment