I have uploaded the June 8, 2009 school board business meeting on lebocitizens.com. Part 2 of the meeting can be heard at June 8, 2009 School Board Meeting, Part 2 As I wrote in the comments:
Discussion about adding a third gym, adding two lanes to the pool, and walkway while keeping it under the referendum/debt limit/borrowing limit.
Discussion about adding a third gym, adding two lanes to the pool, and walkway while keeping it under the referendum/debt limit/borrowing limit.
Mrs. Cappucci apologizes for “a lack of communication or misunderstanding on the part of the public and even people within the building...we will, after taking this vote, step up that communication between the groups.” (00:11:20) and “whatever we can add in to our borrowing limit, I think we need to do.” (00:12:50)
Former Superintendent Allison speaks about how the architects need a budget. Also, “it can more than adequately meet the instructional needs.” Mrs. Rose asks what his opinion is and Mr. Allison gives his parting comments about the high school renovation. It begins at 00:19:15.
I suggest listening to both parts of the meeting. Very revealing.
5 comments:
The board was at $115,500,000 at the June 2009 meeting.
Mrs. Cappucci said she wants to spend up to the referendum limit.
Mr. Allison gave the constraints the board faces with this project. I appreciate his candor and wisdom. The meeting is well worth hearing again. Thank you for posting it for the community.
Here is an article that goes along with Mr. Allison's comments from the June 2009 meeting. Wichita superintendent: Budget cuts will be even harder than last year
The caption on this post is very appropriate.
District representatives...Super & SB members...have denied in public meetings and been quoted in print media repeatedly that the HS budget was based on the debt limit and referendum requirements of state law. The post quotes from and refers to the record of a June 2009 SB meeting to the contrary. The referendum/debt limit emphasis in powerpoint presentations in early to mid-2009 at SB meetings also strongly suggest such intentional ties...these presentations are still available on the District website.
Further and absolute confirming proof that there was a direct tie can come or evolve from the answer to a question : can anyone correctly explain what the underlying reason(s) was(were) for the revision or amendment to the architects contract that followed shortly after the June 2009 SB meetings ?
Consider this a test on HS project transparency, Dave, intended for those who follow and question what is really going on...not those who are merely interested in going forward regardless of whatever means lead to an end.
Bill Lewis
Before anyone gets their propeller out of water, allow me to clarify the term "referendum" that applies to the HS project. PA laws cover two distinctly different bases for electoral referendums associated with such projects. They are :
1) what is known as the Local Government Unit Debt Act which governs the monetary limit of non-electoral debt a District can incur before an electoral referendum is required...this is the classification of referendum this post and comments refer to; and,
(2)an Act 34 electoral referendum, which is based on a PlanCon determined monetary limit of the maximum construction cost under a category of "New" that a project can incur before an electoral referendum is required. Based on comments I have made in other posts about the PlanCon process and bureaucrats, you will not be surprised to learn that there have seemingly been no recorded instances where an Act 34 electoral referendum has been mandated. A generous fixed number is determined by PlanCon, but then an 8% overage exemption is allowed on top of that before the referendum bell rings. It is also noteworthy that 1973 Act 34 Act is a/k/a the "Taj Mahal Act", so named after the 1970-1972 Lebo HS renovation/additions that created community upheaval.
Bill Lewis
Bill Lewis:
Could you answer this question for me since Mr. Kubit nor Ms. Rose would respond with an answer to my question regarding Ms. Rose's "Setting the Record Straight" Almanac letter on the high school project.
She wrote: "Readers should also note that, while Mr. Taylor asserts there is no budget, the project cost is indeed budgeted and, by law, no more than $113.2 million can be spent on this project. Act 34 documents set this limit on cost and, by law once again, referendum would have only been necessary if the cost was millions of dollars more."
Is she correct... BY LAW no more than $113.2 can be spent on this project?
As I read the Act 34 documents and as you write there is an 8% overage allowed before a referendum would kick in.
So Ms. Rose either is misinformed or doesn't have a record straightening handle on the process... right?
In one scenerio, if Ms. Rose and her 4 fellow board members were to lose their seats in the next election, the incoming board could easily take this project beyond the $113.2 limit without a referendum if they wised.
Maybe, the board could chime in here also and really "set the record straight" for their constituents.
Dean Spahr
Post a Comment