Woowhoo!

According to the Trib, the Act 1 Exemptions passed yesterday.

Later Wednesday night the House by a 99-98 margin approved an amendment from Rep. Seth Grove, R-York County, to tighten existing language in state law covering referenda. "It is designed to prevent property tax increases," said House Majority Leader Mike Turzai, R-Bradford Woods.

What this means to Mt. Lebanon is that we cannot afford the High School Renovation without going to referendum. The School Board is stuck with the $75 million already borrowed + half the fund balance of $5 million + $5-10 million more borrowed without having to raise taxes over and above Act 1 limits, totaling $85-90 million.  The School Board needs to do some serious fundraising for those bike racks!!!  OR the School Board needs to come up with that $75 million plan almost 4,000 people asked for.  Somebody needs to tell the architect.

Read more: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_744554.html

Update July 2, 2011 Final 2011-12 Budget Printout

Full Disclosure

The following letter was sent to the School Board by resident, Steve Diaz. His letters continue to be ignored.

Members of the School Board:  As you revisit your options and plans for the future of the school district, there is one important matter as to which your silence is not helpful:  the pension funding obligation.  While you rearrange the drawings for an aspirational $113 million face-lift for the high school campus, while you spend thousands on glossy brochures extolling the wisdom and benefits of bonding us up as much as you think the law will tolerate without giving the people a chance to vote on incurring such debt, you plan in a vacuum, as if there were no other pressing financial obligation constraining your work.  The game plan is transparent:  you will bond us up as much as you can without a vote, then come back saying there is no legal choice and force us to vote for yet more debt to fund the pension obligation.  A nice trick, but one that will earn you the scorn of the community and a place in history as the most conniving, profligate and foolish school board in our history.

It has been quite a while now since the obligation to fund the pension plan shortfall has been known.  It is quite likely that while the precise number on the cost may not yet be established, the scope may even exceed the amount you want to spend on grand bricks-and-mortar projects even while our academic reputation continues to decline seriously.  Yet, you plan your vanity spending as if it were the only major expense we have to accommodate.  It is neither responsible nor practical to continue to ignore the pension funding matter, either alone for its own merit or in the context of your larger bonding and spending plans (including the "renovation" project).  It is your obligation, morally, politically and legally to provide us all of the information, and your best estimates, as to the size and nature of the looming pension debt and how you plan to pay for it.  This is especially important given the $113 million in debt you want to lay down before turning to the pensions.  It is time to stop ignoring the looming fiscal crisis---it is your public duty to tell us what you know, completely and candidly (just pretend that you trust us, your neighbors and constituents).

The people have a right to know the entire picture, not just the piece on which you want us to focus until you have your way.  I call upon you to tell us, if not in the same glossy brochure format by which you sell your pet project, at least in some reasonable, widely and easily accessible format, exactly what you do know about the pension funding matter and how you plan to pay for it---if you have any such plans yet.  If you don't have such a plan you may wish to consider what impact such fact might have on the thinking of any prudent person vis-a-vis the "remodeling".  What impact will the pension funding obligation -- on top of the "renovation"-- have on the school budget, the bonding capacity and needs of the district, as well as on the taxes you impose on this community?  How will all this affect the "livability" of Mt. Lebanon?  In the end, how does any of this fit with a desperately needed academic reform of our failing schools (yes, we are not as good today as yesterday, and we are getting worse not just in the absolute but certainly relative to our "competitor" districts).

I cannot say what motivated any of you to undertake the difficult task of getting elected to public office or the rigors of service that accompany being selected.  I can say, however, that the standard by which you will be judged is quite objective:  did you achieve our goal of the best education for our children or did you get lost in the glamor and power of office?  What are you achieving and what will you leave behind?  If the community has a lower standard of living because of unduly burdensome taxes and uselessly extravagant facilities that produce less well educated students (have you seen "Waiting for Superman" yet?), you will have failed not only in the eyes of your neighbors and constituents, but also, one should imagine, in your own private self-evaluation.

Respectfully.  Steve Diaz

Update June30, 2011 10:15 AM

Mr. Ostergaard:  Thank you for your reply, copy below, as I have grown accustomed to receiving either no reply from the school board, or merely a perfunctory one.  Unfortunately, the information to which you refer me only underscores your failure to answer the questions I have posed.  The projected budget numbers you offer are as dense as a tax return, and, like most tax returns, are designed to conceal more than they reveal.  The gross numbers and broad categories stated on the board's website offer little useful detail and provide no insight into the coordination of major expenses such as the pension and renovation budgets.  I know you did not assume I would not actually read the budget document to which you have referred me, but you also cannot believe I would find answers to my questions there.  Your reply demonstrates the bureaucratic and condescending approach taken by the board to solving problems that require in-depth analysis, creativity and true responsibility---not to mention the candor essential to secure public trust.

I have asked the board several direct questions to which your reply does not respond:  (1) what are your best estimates as to the likely cost for the pension underfunding? (2) on what information are such estimates based? (3) what are your plans as to funding the pension shortfall relative to borrowing or taxation?  (4) how has the board put the "renovation" cost in the context of the pension costs?  None of these questions (all direct summaries of the substance of my last email) finds an answer in the information you provided to me yesterday.  Moreover, inasmuch as many of the "essential" elements of the board's "renovation" plan, items which the board previously held unalterable, are now proclaimed by the school board as dispensable, the board's current policy seems confused, even disoriented.  I seem to recall Mr. Remely screaming at me in Town Commission chambers that the community demanded a third gym and that we could not live without the proposed pool enlargement, just as I recall the overwhelming rhetoric at various public meetings and hearings that you also incorporated into your glossy sales brochure advocating the "new building" on the subjects of LEEDS standards, new traffic patterns, gleaming towers and bridges, new everything, including an anachronistically "21st century" hard-wired computer network (why not wireless requiring no construction cost or architectural reconfiguration?), etc, etc.  Surely you must see what damage such posturing does to the credibility of a board that brooked no possibility of such views during the entire Act 34 process and beyond.

The board seems intent on not telling the public about the scale of the coming tsunami in pension costs.  I can understand why you do this as it reveals the over-grand "renovation" plans you have as unrealistic and unaffordable.  I cannot understand why you refuse to disclose the full picture as to the impact of BOTH major spending "needs" together, so the public can be advised of the complete scope of the "grim" money picture, as you yourself put it. People want to know, before they go and buy over a hundred million dollars of new bricks and mortar, what other major expenditures are before us:  not information on one or the other at a time, not the obligatory one only after the discretionary one is approved.  The school board is playing a very ugly game of information keep away.  By keeping the public in the dark on the "grim" figures you will not reveal, you are misleading us in an effort to get us to spend money we would not consider prudently laid out for new school amenities if all of the "grim" facts were on the table.  How very cynical and how very irresponsible.  

I, as a lowly voter and taxpayer, would like to make a suggestion.  Stop trying to build a new school until our finances are in order.  Deal first with the immovable object of the pension obligation, perhaps even using the roughly $70 million you have already borrowed (ironically to fund a building you cannot seem to find a way to actually build), and use that money on which we are already paying interest (for no apparent reason--and at rates we could have bested in the time since you prematurely borrowed it) as a source of liquid funds to address the decades of deferred maintenance for which the school board is responsible and to meet the pension burden?  That way, first things first, we take care of the property that has been entrusted to the to-date negligent care of the school board, and we take care of our binding legal obligation for teacher pension benefits, before we decide what else we can afford by way of amenities.  Why don't we try addressing the truly "necessary" (as in mandatory) fiscal obligations of the district first, then seeing what we can actually afford in aspirational - but discretionary - spending.  Why is it to you somehow not "21st century" thoughtfulness to be prudent and responsible in spending other people's money?

I am glad to have your reply, but I yet await an answer to the questions I have posed to the board.

Respectfully.  Steve Diaz.

--- DOstergaard@mtlsd.net wrote:

From: Dale Ostergaard <DOstergaard@mtlsd.net>
To: Steve Diaz, School Board Email list <SchoolBoardEmaillist@mtlsd.net>, Lawrence Lebowitz <LLebowitz@mtlsd.net>
Subject: RE: Full Disclosure
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 21:34:21 +0000

Mr. Diaz.
Thank-you for your inquiry.

I can assure you Mr. Diaz that the Board is very cognizant of the pension funding issue and the impact it may have on our community and every community in the state. We are tracking very closely every communique from the state legistlature on the pension funding and actively communicating with our state representatives on this issue. The pension fund rate is set yearly, and the future projections look quite grim. We are not assured of what direction the state will take. Lately they have backed off from implementing the recommend funding levels and pushed out the larger anticipated rate increases needed to fund the pension at the appropriate level. Nevertheless, we know the rate will not go down and will only increase.  We have to be prepared for that.

In preparation for future pension increases, reduction in block grants from the state, and other budget obligations, the Board has been actively engaged for almost a year now in systematically reviewing our operations to find cost savings and revenue generating opportunities.  This process has been very visible to the community and will continue to do so for the next several years.  We are looking at every opportunity to find efficiencies that we can safely make without affecting the quality of education in our classrooms. We are being very proactive here in anticipation of require future cuts to stave off tax increases to meet state funding obligations. We have already made good on a key reduction through the elimination of the curriculum supervisors positions after much research and deliberation.  I am sure you will see future deliberation on other items that come up from the review teams recommendations. The Board is committed to a systematic process of review, study, deliberation, and action to ensure the best decisions are made for our children and our taxpayers. (We too are taxpayers Steve!).

The current forecast has been made public since January and you can find it at the location below.  We will update this over the summer as we prepare other budget documents. But I caution you that these are only estimates, and based on data that is subject to significant fluctuation (pension funding costs to be specific). I can say unequivocally that this Board is cognizant of the funding issues that lie before us, is considering every possible option to counter the looming increases, and is diligently researching viable options to enact if and when necessary.

http://www.mtlsd.org/district/budget/stuff/1.4.11forecastestimatedpdf.pdf

You ask about what motivates us as Board members. What motivates us as Board members is a desire to serve this community and in particular the children and their education. There is no glamor in our work, there is no political motivation, there are no rewards other than the satisfaction of seeing the children of this community receiving and appreciating the education they obtain. We can only do our best and hope the community feels that we are giving our best.
These are very difficult times; unparalleled in recent history. School districts are making massive cuts, some may fold. We are doing our best to preserve this District that has been entrusted to us as Board members. I am pleased to serve with each and every board member currently serving. They all bring unique skills and backgrounds that collectively will allow us to make the best informed decisions possible.

Regards,
Dale Ostergaard

New Storm Water Fee for Mt. Lebanon

Tonight, the Mt. Lebanon Commissioners introduced Ordinance (Bill No. 11-11) establishing a fee for storm water collection and management.   The Mt. Lebanon Commission has included the establishment of a storm water fee in its 2011 budget with anticipated adoption of the required ordinance and billing beginning by the September 1st of 2011. A public hearing on this matter will be held on July 12, 2011.  

The presentation as well as a set of Frequently Asked Questions is available by clicking on the links below:

Presentation
Frequently Asked Questions

Additional Questions can be directed to stormwater@mtlebanon.org 


Read more: http://www.mtlebanon.org/index.aspx?nid=2036

Pittsburgh Business Times results vs. Lebo Citizens results

Would you support a bill to ban teachers strike statewide?

Yes, teachers shouldn't go out on strike  55%

Yes, with mandatory arbitration 26%

No, it would harm bargaining power 10%

No, union rights shouldn't be limited 9%

Votes Cast: 624 (Pittsburgh Business Times)

*******

Yes, teachers shouldn't go out on strike  26 (72%)

Yes, with mandatory arbitration 2 (5%)

No, it would harm bargaining power 4 (11%)

No, union rights shouldn't be limited 4 (11%)

VOTES CAST: 36 (Lebo Citizens)

THANKS TO ALL WHO VOTED!  

Deadline extended for Property Tax/Rent Rebate

Deadline extended for Property Tax/Rent Rebate

 
I write to let you know that the deadline for filing your 2010 Property Tax/Rent Rebate application (PTRR) has been extended to Dec. 31, 2011.

This program provides a rebate of up to $650 on property taxes or rent paid in 2010 to income-eligible residents who are 65 or older, 50 or older and widowed, or 18 or older with a permanent disability.

I caution you that there have been some businesses offering to assist you with your PTRR application for a fee.

You do not have to pay for assistance with your PTRR applications; my office is happy to help you for free. Just call us at 412-571-2169 or contact the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue toll free at 1-888-222-9190.

My office also has PTRR application forms available. 

For individuals who have already filed your PTRR, checks begin going out July 1st on a first-come basis. You can check the status of a rebate claim by visiting the program website or by calling 1-888-PATAXES. We can also help you apply and check on the status of your rebate once you file. (Please allow 8-10 weeks for processing).

Please feel free to pass this information on to anyone you know who may find it useful.
 
Best regards, 

Bike Racks

The following letter was written by reader, Richard Gideon and is reprinted with his permission.

27 June 2011

 

Board Members:

 

I listened to the Architect's Update of 20 June 2011 (courtesy of Elaine Gillen's “Lebo Citizens” web site) and was taken aback by the discussion concerning the role of bike racks at the proposed new high school edifice. For the record, my wife and I are avid cyclists. Cycling is great exercise and an excellent way to get around – under the proper circumstances. I understand that bike racks are a component of LEED Certification.  However, the requirements of LEED Certification aside, encouraging high school students, who are by definition (with a few exceptions) minors, to ride bicycles to the high school - during rush hour – on major traffic routes with no bike lanes – on hills with steep grades – mixing in with arriving and departing school traffic - is ill advised at best.

 

Dr. Steinhauer may cycle to school as he pleases because he is an adult, knows the risks, and accepts them. That he does so is classic individualism and I applaud it. But in tacitly agreeing with Mr. Lebowitz that other people's children should be encouraged to take the same kind of risk he is asking for a gigantic lawsuit should, God forbid, a kid be killed whilst cycling to school. 

 

Mr. Remely's observations on the subject are correct; and if I may be permitted to add, as a youngster moves through adolescence the thrill of a bicycle gives way very quickly to the anticipation of a driver's license, making the point of bike racks somewhat moot.

 

Sincerely,

 

Richard Gideon

"And then there's us."

For whatever reason, the Almanac is delivered to the opposite side of my street. I have to rely on friends to email me articles from the Almanac.  I appreciate receiving these links as well as links to other newspapers. In my inbox yesterday, I received two articles that pretty much sum up what is happening in school districts across the state.
From the Philadelphia Inquirer:

'Interim' school budget adopted

Full-day kindergarten and most transportation in Phila. were cut in the $2.8 billion plan. A union move drew fire.

June 01, 2011|By Kristen A. Graham, Inquirer Staff Writer

The Philadelphia School Reform Commission adopted a $2.8 billion "interim" budget Tuesday night, formally endorsing deep cuts, but signaling that it hopes it can roll back the most painful ones.

"Many of the critical building blocks of the school district's budget are still uncertain," chief financial officer Michael Masch told the SRC at a dramatic special meeting.
But unless talks in City Hall and Harrisburg yield new funding, full-day kindergarten is gone, as is most transportation. There will be 3,409 fewer positions next year, including 1,158 fewer teachers, and cuts to early-childhood education, individual school budgets, nurses, counselors, the arts, and more.

And then there's us.  Mt. Lebanon does not have a full day kindergarten program or school buses to cut.  What we ARE doing is:

Mt. Lebanon board greenlights school redesign Mt. Lebanon's school board gave the go-ahead June 20 for architect Tom Celli to begin drawing up plans for the district's redesigned high school renovation project. He will move forward pending a few final clarifications regarding the layout of rooms and corridors in the gym areas. The goal is to re-bid the project in September. http://www.thealmanac.net/alm/story10/06-22-2011-Lebo-school-board (Article saved in Google Documents.)

We can't keep going at this pace.  When do the furloughs start? How will we be able to afford the last year of the Teachers' Contract?

What's the same and what has changed?

Mt. Lebanon School District has prepared a High School Project Update and was presented at the Architect's Update by Dr. Steinhauer.  This 22 page update includes changes made to Buildings B, G, and the Athletic Building.  Next steps include reviewing potential changes with the Municipality.  Does this mean the Zoning Hearing Board and Planning Board again? And what about the Shared Parking Agreement?  I hope these reviews come before January, if the biggest proponent of the high school project gets elected in Ward 3. http://www.postgazette.com/pg/09041/948123-100.stm

If you build it, they won't come

$105m high-tech school with robotics lab sits empty as there's no money for any staff

Hillcrest High School in Riverside, California, just spent $105 million on a high-tech school but there is no money left for staff.

  Superintendent Wendel Tucker said the decision to build the school was made when the economy was faring much better around five years ago.
But the building project could not stop once it had begun, he said.
He believes the state has cut $25million of funding in the last three years in his district, which has around 20,000 students.
‘It's extremely frustrating,' Hillcrest board member Greg Kraft said. 'We made a promise to the community, and I think we need to keep it.'

The bids coming back too high may be a blessing in disguise for Mt. Lebanon.  Jon Delano reported today that Pittsburgh Public Schools had to furlough or lay off 147 employees. http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2011/06/22/pittsburgh-public-schools-lays-off-more-than-100-employees/

Why is this happening all around us, but not to us?  Was it because the School Board gouged us with a 10.5% tax increase last year?

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1392791/105m-high-tech-California-school-robotics-lab-sits-theres-money-staff.html#ixzz1Q2ntEHNM

Newsweek's Best Public High Schools in America

Newsweek came out with their list of top ranking high schools in the US, as they have for over ten years. Spoiler alert: Mt. Lebanon didn't make the cut, but neither did Upper St. Clair.

These are challenging times for secondary education. Cash-strapped school districts are cutting back; No Child Left Behind mandates test results; parents and students stress unabated. NEWSWEEK, which has been ranking the top public high schools in America for more than a decade, revamped its methodology this year in hopes of highlighting solutions. We enlisted a panel of experts—Wendy Kopp of Teach For America, Tom Vander Ark of Open Education Solutions (formerly executive director for education at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation), and Linda Darling-Hammond, Stanford professor of education and founder of the School Redesign Network—to develop a yardstick that fully reflects a school’s success turning out college-ready (and life-ready) students. To this end, each school’s score is comprised of six components: graduation rate (25%), college matriculation rate (25%), AP tests taken per graduate (25%), average SAT/ACT scores (10%), average AP/IB/AICE scores (10%), and AP courses offered (5%). (For more information on how these rankings were tabulated, see our Full Methodology.)

Read more: Newsweek's America's Best High Schools 2011 to see which Pittsburgh Schools made the list.

Athletic Boosters?

The following letter was sent to the School Board by resident, Steve Diaz. Perhaps he will be acknowledged by the School Board this time.

Members:  This is just a note from a proud Blue Devil parent about our magnificent boys' lacrosse season this year, winning WIPIAL and with a finish at the PA State (PIAA) Semi-Finals at Penn State in State College.  Since you have accused those of us who have questioned your now failed "renovation" plan, in part, of not supporting the athletic program, I thought it worthy of note that not a single one of you attended the Semi-Finals, nor did any of you even bother to go to the Quarter-Finals that were played right nearby in Hampton.  This, of course, is another issue that is not about money, just about where your hearts and minds may be. Next time you claim the high ground, please be sure you are actually standing on it as hypocrisy is rarely an effective platform.

On the issue of your renovation, I urge you to watch the documentary "Waiting for Superman" (available through Netflix).  It is a thorough review of what reform is needed in American education, but has particular relevance for Mt. Lebanon as to its review of the wealthy, but troubled, Woodside High School in Redwood City, CA.  The campus of Woodside is resplendent with all of the "modern" facilities you dream of buying for Mt. Lebo, but the documentary points out how these facilities are a mask for a very troubled academic program.  While the documentary covers other situations that are not pertinent to our community, the Woodside segment is very significant to us as we, too, have a very troubled and declining academic program while you go off on diversions seeking to spend all you can for glamorous bricks-and-mortar that may be pretty but are not the stuff of an excellent education, and do so without obtaining the approval of those of us who pay the bills, if we can.  You should see this piece, it might move you as you consider whether your mission is to educate or bankrupt this community.

Respectfully,  Steve Diaz

Bonnie VanKirk will replace Raja in Ward 1

After listening to the four interviews, the Mt. Lebanon Commissioners did the right thing and eliminated the two candidates running in the November election.  At the start of his interview, John Bendel, Democratic candidate for Ward 1, withdrew his name since he said that there were two candidates who came forward and are not running in the November election.
The Commissioners narrowed the selection to Frank Horrigan from Arden Road, and Bonnie VanKirk from Osage Road.  The vote was 3-0 (Commissioner DeIuliis was absent) to appoint Bonnie VanKirk to fill the unexpired term as Commissioner of the First Ward of Mt. Lebanon.

Should teachers be allowed to strike?

Pittsburgh Business Times is asking readers this question.  I was curious how that would be answered here, so I am asking you.  The poll will be up for one week.  I will compare the results with how PBT readers voted.  I realize it won't be a scientific sampling, but I thought it would be something different.  Depending on the interest, I may do this every so often. 

It is a case of laryngitis

Mt. Lebanon has lost its VOICE. As the Mt. Lebanon School Board members try to lower the cost of the high school renovation project, I can’t help to wonder what happened to these folks.  Where did they go? Why aren’t they trying to work with the School Board to try to reduce the cost of the project?  From the beginning of the project, members of the community have spent hundreds of hours poring over the plans trying to reduce costs.  A Woodland Drive resident went as far as calling it minutiae.  The Almanac printed this Mt. Lebanon board reviews renovation costs 

Mt. Lebanon's school board spent a good portion of the June 13 meeting scrutinizing the minutiae of its high school renovation project.

I have reprinted letters to the editor, comments from Real Lebo, a link to the April 19, 2010 School Board meeting podcast, and the now MIA FAQ from Ed Kubit.  Where are these proponents to the high school renovation now?

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

High School Renovation Information--Full Text

The full text of School Board President Ed Kubit's recent FAQ (a Frequently Asked Questions letter) regarding the high school renovation project is reprinted below.  In his letter, Mr. Kubit clears up misinformation recently circulating over emails and in the local media about this vital project.  I urge you to read the letter, inform yourself and contact the School Board with further questions or concerns.

Please feel free to forward this link to other community members, or simply copy and paste the full text of Mr. Kubit's letter in a correspondence of your own.  Help move this conversation forward in a positive direction.  Thanks!  --Elaine Labalme and Kristen Linfante


January 26, 2010

Dear Mt. Lebanon Residents,

Over the past week, I’ve heard from many community members who have raised questions about the cost of the High School project and the impact this will have on taxes this year and in subsequent years.  Many of these questions have come in the wake of the January 18 School Board vote to approve the Act 34 document that sets a maximum total High School project cost of $113,274,765. In an effort to provide clarification, I’d like to address some of the most frequently asked questions that have been raised by residents.

Are taxes really going up 50% in the next few years?

NO
 
Taxes could go up because of three factors:

1. Debt on the High School Project:  The increase in debt due to the High School project, minus lower operating costs from the new building, is estimated to increase taxes between 8% and 13% over the next five years.  This is based on our current millage rate of 24.11 mills. Actual increases will depend on the final project cost, which cannot exceed $113,274,765. The millage rate for debt for this project could cost between 2.25 mills to 3.4 mills.  Savings on operations, including lower utilities and fewer staff, could reduce millage by .35 mills. While the largest increase in millage for this project will be in the 2010-2011 budget, some smaller increases may follow in subsequent years. The School Board and administration will continue to identity potential cost savings throughout the coming years to lessen the impact on tax increases.

2. Pennsylvania State Employee Retirement System (PSERS-State mandated retirement program for District staff):  ALL school districts in Pennsylvania will have the identical retirement rate increases and will see proportionately large increases in their millage rates. Increases in the State retirement rate this year is anticipated to cost our community about .35 mills or a 1.5% increase in taxes.  Over the next two years, the increase could be higher, but the rates projected for the PSERS change regularly.  Any increase will occur incrementally over the next five years and will change for the better as the investment environment improves or as legislation changes the impact of the rate.   If the worst possible PSERS projection is correct, our District’s millage increase – just for this rate change – could be as much as 3.45 mills or 14%.  Legislation is currently being discussed in the State Senate to address this issue.

3. Cost of our education program:  Being fiscally frugal, the Board has limited tax increases to 1% in each of the past two years and 0% the year before while maintaining the high quality of our educational programs.

When you combine all three of these factors the assumption that our taxes will increase 50% in the next few years is not accurate.

Is the High School Project going to cost each Mt. Lebanon resident $10,000?

NO

The calculation of this number used the maximum cost of the project divided by about 10,000 single family dwelling units. There are approximately 14,000 single dwelling residences in Mt. Lebanon.  The calculation presumes that only those homeowners pay tax in our community and that they will each get a bill for an equal share of the project.  This assumption is NOT true. No large rental units were included in this calculation as were no commercial properties, yet they both pay substantial taxes in our community.


No one property owner will receive one single bill for the cost of this project. Taxes for the High School project will be billed annually to all residential and commercial property owners for any bonds the District issues for this project over the next 25-30 years.  The new taxes for a homeowner who has a home assessed at $100,000 will be between $225 and $340 a year depending on the size of the project when the bids are completed and the amount of bonds the District must issue.


What is the cost of the project?

The cost of the project is still fluid.  The maximum it could cost would be $113, 274,765. However, this includes contingencies of about $8 million for unknowns and does not take into account that bids on recent school construction projects came in at 17% to 25% below their original estimates.  Additionally, we are working with our architects and construction managers to find ways to further reduce the cost through value engineering.  The School Board is committed to find ways to reduce the cost of the project so the final cost will be less than $113,274,765.

What is the cost of a “renovation only” of the High School compared to the current design estimated at $113,274,765?

According to the estimates provided by our construction manager, PJ Dick, the cost of a renovation only of the existing buildings would be $103 million. That would translate into approximately 3.18 mills or $318 per year, per home assessed at $100,000, compared to $340 a year for $113 million project.  This is a reduction of $22 per year. A renovation only option would mean maintaining the existing 545,255 square feet; the replacement of the mechanical, electrical, plumbing and fire protection systems (MEP/FP); asbestos abatement; code required improvements; roofing replacement; interior finishes due to the work just mentioned. There would be minimal site repairs, minimal sustainability, and minimal energy savings. There would be no change in layout of the High School to support 21st Century teaching and learning; no change for fine and performing arts spaces; no change for physical education and athletic spaces and no change for classroom size.  This would require us to continue to adapt existing spaces to fit our required program. Such an option would require multiple construction phases during a 3-5 year project and includes student displacement, impacting the High School learning environment. Click here for more information about the current High School design.

Will we need to borrow more money for the project?

The Board approved borrowing $69 million in bonds in October of 2009.  Due to the favorable bond market for premium bonds, the District netted approximately $75 million for the project. The first bond payments for that issue will be due in the 2010-2011budget.  Additionally, funds have been set aside to pay directly for the cost of some asbestos removal in the building without the need to borrow money.  If we are able to achieve lower bids from contractors, it is possible we might not need to issue many more bonds.  Act 34 requires that we present to the community the cost in millage as if ALL of the maximum cost of the project is borrowed through issuance of bonds.  That makes the millage estimates we are now using the highest they are likely to be.


Are taxes going up 14% in 2010-2011?

NO

Current State law requires schools to publish preliminary budgets in January before they have important information in key areas such as student course selections, enrollments in kindergarten, staffing needs, staff retirements, heath care rates and utility rates for the upcoming school year.  Since we are required by law to present a budget this early in the year, there are major gaps in information that will not be known until later in the spring. Our current early projected budget reflects a 14% increase, however, accurate projections of cost begin in the early spring and an actual proposed millage rate is presented to the community in April.  Final millage increases in the past three years have not approached the preliminary millage increases projected in early January each year.

How do our costs for the High School project compare with school construction projects in neighboring school districts?

Construction managers, PJ Dick compiled a cost comparison between our project and the high school project in Baldwin and the middle school project in Upper St. Clair. There are two areas in particular that set our project apart from other area school construction projects. They are: 1) site and 2) asbestos abatement. These two areas represent significant cost differences between our project and those of other schools. It is also very difficult to compare projects because of programmatic differences between schools. Click here for a cost comparison provided by PJ Dick. 

Are the District enrollment numbers going down?

Enrollment numbers have decreased at a very slow rate in recent years.  Our total enrollment four years ago was 5,454 students.  This year our enrollment is 5,302 students.  This is a reduction of about 12 students per grade level over four years.  For the next four years we are projecting enrollment to decrease less than 66 students, or 5 students per grade level, over those four years.   The new High School design takes into account enrollment projections over the next 20 years.

Are taxes higher in Mt. Lebanon than other Districts?

Mt. Lebanon School District taxes are ranked 12th in Allegheny County for 2009-10 according to data from the Allegheny Intermediate Unit.  Eleven school districts have higher tax rates than Mt. Lebanon and 30 have lower tax rates.  The average tax rate in the county is 22.7 mills.  Our rate is 24.11 mills.


Why do we need this project?

In July 2001 a Facility Assessment of the High School was conducted by the architectural firm of Valentour English, Bodnar and Howell. To quote the report, “This assessment has found that even with good maintenance, many of the systems have, or are approaching the end of their useful life.  Impending lack of availability of parts in some cases dictates their replacement in the near future.” Infrastructure and MEP/FP equipment have exceeded their life expectancy, are costly to repair, and negatively impact the educational process.  The building is asbestos-laden and the exterior veneer is failing.  Roof structures need extensive replacement.


Since the last renovation in 1972, there have been many programmatic changes to the way education is delivered, including the extensive use, availability, and integration of technology in the classroom and the need for flexible space for student and faculty collaboration.   The physical space of the High School is not designed to accommodate 21st century teaching and learning requirements:

• Classroom size is too small to be used for learning activities beyond direct instruction.
• Resource areas such as the library do not serve today’s needs.
• Common areas are needed to provide for learning activities outside of the classroom.
• The building layout is complex and inefficient; it has evolved based on additions in the 1930’s, 1950’s and 1970’s,     with each addition being a reaction to the problems of the time and without a comprehensive plan.
• There is a lack of ADA accessibility in the current building.
• The infrastructure, including building systems such as heat, electricity,  HVAC, boilers, and windows, while supported and well maintained beyond life expectancy, is seriously aging, constantly failing, and in need of total replacement
• Science classrooms and labs are inadequate for our program.
• Classrooms and common areas do not possess needed technology infrastructure to support collaborative learning and complex problem-solving skills development.
• Fine Arts spaces are inadequate for our program.
• The pool and athletic areas do not meet the school and community needs.

Why do we need to begin this project now? Can’t we wait?

Local school districts that have recently approved construction projects were able to take advantage of seriously reduced construction rates leading to building costs between 17% and 25% below their estimates.  We are trying to take advantage of this excellent bidding environment for our project.  A reduction in our construction costs by 20% could reduce our need to borrow money by $18 million.  We do not know how long this favorable bidding environment will continue, so by bringing this project to bid we can save money for the residents of our community.


Additionally, further delays in needed infrastructure repairs will continue to negatively impact the conditions in the building for students and staff. As mentioned earlier, the assessment performed by Valentour English, Bodnar and Howell, stated that many of the critical systems were at, or were approaching the end of their useful life nearly 10 years ago.  Significant updates have been not made since that time.


Why has the building square footage increased by 30,000 square feet?

The current building square footage is approximately 545,255 square feet.  The new high school design is approximately 479,845 square feet, an approximate 14% decrease in space.  Early schematic design goals were to establish the square footage at about 440,000 square feet. Since that time, the design has evolved.  Some of the changes include adding two more lanes to the pool to make it eight lanes and adding a third auxiliary gym. The space under the current pool, which was not originally intended to be used, is now being converted to a storage area.  The new academic wing is now being turned to rejoin the building at the fine arts area.  Early space estimates in the DeJong Space Utilization Study did not include all space in the current buildings to be renovated. Our science curriculum was reorganized which requires additional space, space for the District maintenance facilities were not included, the driver education program, including the space for the driver simulator, was not included as well as space required in the kitchen for the addition of the elementary lunch program. Square footage may change slightly as the design is refined.

Who is making the decisions about the High School project?

The School Board makes all decisions about this project with input from the Superintendent, administration, teachers, architects, construction manager, consultants, Master Design Team and community. The Board has discussed and held public votes on key milestones throughout the process which has moved this project forward since it began in 2006.


What are the next steps?

The next step for the project is to hold an Act 34 hearing on February 22 at 7:00 pm in the High School Fine Arts Theatre.  After the hearing, the community will have at least 30 days to submit comments to the District about the project. In April, the Board will vote to approve and submit PlanCon D which will include the minutes from the Act 34 Hearing, any written public comments sent to the District, the proof of advertisement and the Act 34 booklet. PlanCon D will then be submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Education.  The District will continue through the process which includes seeking zoning and planning approval for the project while preparing construction documents for bid. Questions concerning single prime bid vs. multiple prime bid and the hiring of an owner’s representative must also be addressed and approved by the Board this year. Our goal is to begin construction in the winter of 2010-2011.

We will continue to add to this list of questions which will be posted on the High School Renovation FAQ page on our website at www.mtlsd.org.

Thank you for taking the time to become informed about the High School project. I know we are all committed to doing what is best for our school and community. Please feel free to contact the School Board at schoolboard@mtlsd.net. Your feedback is always welcome.

Sincerely,
Ed Kubit
President, Mt. Lebanon School Board

http://www.reallebo.com/2010/01/high-school-renovation-information-full.html

1/27/2010

Residents should be willing to pay for education

To the editor:
Mark Twain once said there are three types of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics. That about sums up the misinformation campaign being waged in Mt. Lebanon against the high school project. It's truly disheartening that a director of our own school board would be responsible for circulating inflated statistics about the renovation project in an apparent effort to discredit the leadership and professionals who have done a yeoman's job of keeping this project on track and within cost. If our taxes go up by more than 13 percent, it won't be because we are building a new high school. Taxes attached to the high school are projected to rise by 8 to 13 percent over the next five years by the district's estimates. That's equal to $340 per home assessed at $100,000 on a $113 million project. Look at it this way: Either we are forced to spend $103 million to fix the pressing problems with the existing building, and there's a boatload, or we spend a little more, $113.2 million at the most, and give our community a facility that will serve our children well into this century. We aren't building the Lincoln Center or the Taj Mahal. In fact, from Cochran Road the school will preserve the Art Deco architecture that many cherish. Even more, a renovated high school will continue our community's unbroken legacy of providing students with an exceptional education. Education is Mt. Lebanon's only industry. It's the one thing that those of us who live here should be willing to pay for and fight to preserve.

Deb Smit
Mt. Lebanon

Reading Real Lebo’ archives, I found some interesting comments. The bulk of them came from this thread.

http://www.reallebo.com/2010/02/school-district-budget-numbers-mocked.html

School District Budget Numbers Mocked, Misrepresented

An email from fellow Lebo resident John Ewing (a former School Board member who resigned prior to completing his term) landed in my In Box today.  The Subject line read "Klein to Board: 45% Real Estate Tax Increase in Mt. Lebanon by 2015-16 School Year."  I opened the attachment that went with Mr. Ewing's email to find School District budget projections issued by the District's Finance Director, Jan Klein, within the last week along with a nifty bit of editorializing inserted into the projections, to wit:


"Director Fraasch was right - Real Estate Taxes are going up 45.3%
Kubit, Rose, Remely, Cappucci, Posti and Birks are full of prunes !"


I'm certain Ms. Klein, a circumspect individual if there ever was one, did not say anyone was full of prunes.  Mr. Ewing's churlish rejoinder to the budget projections does not serve the serious conversation going on in our community right now around School District budgets and taxes.


A couple of things to consider:


1.  Projections are just that -- a gaze into the future.  In this case, a look into the future seven years from our most recent audited figures.  My experience in 2+ years in Mt. Lebanon is that the annual School District budget projections are a starting point.  Much reconciliation and conversation takes place over a period of months and the final number invariably comes in LOWER than the initial projections.  That's not to say that taxes don't go up -- they do.  But my experience of the process is that they do not go up anywhere near the initial projected figure.


2.  If Ms. Klein, Mr. Fraasch, Mr. Ewing or anyone else in this community has a crystal ball that is telling them what WILL happen in 2015, I want in!  The statement "Director Fraasch was right - Real Estate Taxes are going up 45.3%" is absolutely ridiculous and, in my opinion, only serves to frighten community members.  Do these same folks also know if the Steelers will win the Super Bowl in 2015 based on the current roster? what the Dow Jones Industrial average will be in 2015 based on current economic indicators? if Iraq or Afghanistan will be the greatest threat to global peace in 2015 based on the current quagmires?


Here's hoping we can tamp down the rhetoric on School District matters and continue to work collectively toward positive outcomes.

February 1, 2010 5:53 PM   (This is my personal favorite.)

Dave Franklin said...

Elaine [Labalme]:

I apologize for the tone. I'm sure most would agree I'm not an angry person. I would defy you to find a more proud supporter of this community and its schools. However, on this issue I am very frustrated. I too would like to think that we could bring this project in $18-23 million below estimates, but think about that! Does anyone think that is remotely possible? Many people have told me to trust the experts, but if the experts are truly off by that much, how good are they? And if the Board is so convinced that they can do better than these estimates why approve a max cost that is so much higher? These are things that make no sense to me. And what happens when the municipality brings its next big ticket item to the taxpayers in the next 3-5 years? How do we pay for that? I realize that thoughts like this are interepreted by some as fearmongering, but I view them as good governance and responsible management.

I'm also frustrated because no one seemed to be asking these hard questions until Mr. Fraasch circulated his report. Sure, there were a few, but let's face it, he got people thinking about this project in ways that no one else could. Mr. Fraasch was the same person who suggested that we should put together a plan and approach the project in phases as we saved some of the money. Ironically, had Mr. Fraasch been around 10 years ago with that proposal he would have been lauded as a forward thinker and perhaps the greatest champion of the high school project. Unfortunately, since Mr. Fraasch is on the Board during the "build it now" era, his concerns and plans are seen as disruptive and anti-Lebo. Think about that . . .

In my opinion, since the new high school will have a useful life for generations to come (and not just my kids), why not plan it out so that it doesn't bury us financially? After all, what's the easier task - phasing this project so that we can afford it or trying to squeeze $20 million of savings out of the current estimates?

February 3, 2010 1:20 AM

Kristen Linfante said...

I stand by my words. I have been involved every step of the way and feel that appropriate steps have been taken and that every effort will be made to keep costs as low as possible while still trying to provide everything that the teachers, staff and community have asked for. I am also excited by the cost-savings that will be seen by having a more energy efficient building. The LEED certification is wonderful as well.

February 3, 2010 8:56 AM

Dave Franklin said...

Yesterday I received a copy of a letter circulated by Mary Birks, in which she labeled Mr. Fraasch as "unethical" and basically a liar who has left a "mass of wreckage behind" him. I am troubled by this in many respects.

First and foremost, I am troubled because I chose to support Mary during her campaign and listened closely as she explained to me about she should would work to set aside differences and build consensus.

I am further troubled because regardless of whether you like Mr. Fraasch's point of view or not, he did not lie to anyone, nor did his report contain a single personal attack.

I am still further troubled by the fact that prior to the Jan 22 meeting, Mary informed her supporters and other residents that the proper forum for discussion was at the Board meetings and not in off the record emails, blogs or letter writing campaigns. Somewhere she changed her mind.

But lastly, I'm especially troubled because letters like this, regardless of their author or their position, erode the credibility of the entire Board and the District. Theses off the record letter undoubtedly frustrate the progress of this project and make our whole community look incredibly dysfunctional in the eyes of those looking closely at us.

Frankly, I am officially tapped out. I can no longer expend my energy trying to hear the substance over the static . . . from all sides. Sadly, I am left to only hope that leadership emerges from somewhere and we get this whole thing right.

February 12, 2010 5:21 PM

Rob Papke said...

When my pleas to you for help in finding ways to help lower costs went unanswered, yes I questioned Your ability and willingness. After all, War is easier than Peace...or is it? I would like to think that it is the other way around and hope that you do as well. I look forward to your solutions, Tom and to your willingness to engage your readers in helping to find ways to help lower costs such as Grant Writing and P/P Partnerships.

February 14, 2010 1:23 PM

Dave Franklin said...

Rob, I've not met anyone in Mt. Lebanon who is AGAINST the Project. I have met plenty who are against the $113 million price tag. I am extremely concerned by those who believe that the SB will be able to take the studied, professional estimates of our hired experts and cut them by $15-20 million. Regardless of timing and the cost of materials, if the strong advocates of this project believe this is an easy task, you may all have lucrative careers as owner's reps. I won't make many promises about this project, but I'm comfortable promising you this - getting this job (as currently proposed) down to the $90 million figure that everyone is tossing around will be very, very difficult.

"One final comment - to all of those people out there who want a $75M cap...exactly whom would decide what to ax from the current project to get down to that #??? The fact is, every brick and detail of the current project was put there for a reason - based on countless hours of study and conferencing with key people. Don't think we need an 8-lane pool? - ask the swimmers or coaches - I guarantee they will disagree. Don't think we need tennis courts ?- ask the tennis people - I guarantee they will disagree. Don't think we need as much arts space ?- ask the arts people, and the list goes on. Anyone who has the guts to think that they have all the "right" answers about what the school "really" needs should take a reality check. This plan was developed over years of detailed study. To overlook that and belittle it is downright wrong. Kristen Linfante March 4, 2010 3:05 PM

Another one from Real Lebo:

http://www.reallebo.com/2010/04/my-mother-toaught-me-never-to-lie.html

Last night I urged the board not to be intimidated by the people in this community who are willing to do anything to derail this project – the very same people who yell and scream and show great disrespect for their fellow neighbors at these board meetings. The kicker at last night's board meeting was when a member of the opposed citizens to the high school renovation got up and flat out LIED on local television - stating (in response to me and the letter that I read from the resident who wanted her name removed from the petition) that they have never stated to anyone that taxes would go up 50%! How ludicrous! These very same people have even stated that number in board meetings in the past! It's a little late to back-pedal now wouldn't you say!!?!?!! Their disingenuous, [Isn't that what Joe DeIuliis called me the other night?] underhanded approach is not only amoral but inexcusable. As their credibility crumbles, I encourage the board to remain focused on this extremely important project. As always, I thank them for their tireless efforts.

Get the real facts, folks. There are people out there who will literally say and do ANYTHING to derail this project. Be very cautious about what you hear on the street. There are two things that I just can't tolerate - mean people and liars. The people who call themselves the "Concerned Citizens of Mt. Lebanon" have got both of those covered! I'm am so happy that residents are finally getting the real facts and are rethinking their allegiance to this fringe group.

Posted by Kristen Linfante at 10:42 PM

Listen to the yelling and screaming here. http://www.lebocitizens.com/Lebo_Citizens/Podcasts/Entries/2010/4/19_School_Board_Business_Meeting.html      (About 3/4 of the way through)

Welcome to VOICE of Mt. Lebanon

Posted Tue, 04/27/2010 - 11:09 by rob gardner

Everyone in Mt Lebanon agrees: SOMETHING has to be done to fix our dilapidated high school.

 

We at VOICE of Mt. Lebanon believe that rather than address the school's issues with band aids and half measures, it's time to do SOMETHING A LITTLE MORE.  We believe it's time to address the school's needs, as well as the community's needs, in a way that insures we won't need to have this debate again in our lifetimes.  We believe the $18 per month difference to the average Mt. Lebanon taxpayer between the plan that exists today and a $75 million plan some suggest should be adopted is a small monthly incremental investment to protect our rich heritage of educational excellence.  That's all that separates the two sides in this debate:  $18 per month.

 

Having discussed this project for over four years, it's easy for facts to get lost or distorted.  Please consider this website your resource for updates regarding the high school renovation, as well as an archive of past discussions.

 [Website hasn't been updated since February 14, 2011]

This renovation will be the single largest capital project in Mt. Lebanon's history.  Join the discussion.  Get the facts.

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

VOICE of Mt. Lebanon http://www.reallebo.com/2010/04/voice-of-mt-lebanon_28.html

I encourage everyone to check out a newly launched website - www.voiceofmtlebanon.org

The website is dedicated to giving the true facts about our town's impending high school renovation. The members of VOICE support the renovation and are dedicated to making it happen. Check it out! While you're there, click on the upper left section called "Your Voice". There you can, with one easy click, send a letter of support to the school board and commission. It's worth a look!

Posted by Kristen Linfante at 1:18 PM

I hope this once quite vocal group can come forward with - using Rob Papke's own words -"finding ways to help lower costs."