Before the School District rebids the High School Renovation in September, shouldn't they go back to the Planning Board? The June 2010 Planning Board minutes show that the School District has made some significant changes since then. No more LEED certification and changing the loading dock are just a few redesigns.
Is this another example of the School District getting special treatment, such as getting a 20% discount on the stormwater fee for adding water quality to their curriculum or trying to get lower inspection fees?
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Thursday, July 28, 2011
We will never see this on the Center Court blog.
It seems the Wisconsin governor was right. Governor Scott's bill to curtail collective bargaining of some public employees is working. In fact, people are calling it a godsend.
Drumroll, please for the 3 Allegheny County teacher of the year finalists...
Sorry, nobody from Mt. Lebanon.
Buildings B and C: Collaborative Partners
Dan Rothschild has a great post on his new blog, lebodesign.net. In his post, Buildings B and C: Collaborative Partners , Dan writes how the CAC was inspired by Dr. Davis' 45 minute lecture where he said that by arranging departments side-by-side, the opportunity for interdepartmental collaboration increases.
The CAC was energized by this talk, and how it meshed with earlier discussions by high school staff, that a great amount of learning in high school happens outside of the classroom. Using this information, the CAC proposed a paradigm shift in the design that suggested moving the classrooms located in the new Building G to the existing Building C. This not only placed all of the academic departments side-by-side, as discussed in Dr. Davis’ talk, but allowed the development of a collaborative zone in between the two buildings in the bridges that currently connect Building B to Building C twice on each floor.It is unfortunate that the School Board will not revisit Building C. Larry Lebowitz was quoted as saying, "We need to obtain as much public input as we can." Dan Rothschild wants to revisit Building C. The CAC wanted to keep Building C. We have talked about it here on Lebo Citizens. Keeping Building C has been discussed on Blog-Lebo. We have pleaded at School Board meetings to keep Building C. Are you getting enough public input, Mr. Lebowitz, or are you on public input overload? What WILL the School Board do with all this public input? We all know the answer to that question.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Single vs. Multiple Prime Poll
Anybody have any idea what happened to the poll? Last time I checked, there were seven votes supporting the seven SB members' votes and thirty-one votes going to single-prime. Now it is showing sixteen for single-prime and three supporting the SB's decision.
Update July 28, 2011 12:20 am The poll is now closed. The final count is:
Update July 28, 2011 12:20 am The poll is now closed. The final count is:
Using a single-prime contractor is the only way to go. | 34 (79%) |
I support the School Board's decision to go with multiple-prime contracts. | 9 (20%) |
Total votes: 43
Poll closed
Poll closed
Tabled until August 9
The Commission had made some amendments to the storm water fee Ordinance including additional credits to homeowners, but were not attached to the online Ordinance. Since it was not available to the public, the Commissioners tabled the vote until August 9. Thank you, Bill Lewis, for catching that. And thanks, Dan Miller, for verifying that on your laptop during the meeting.
Because of that action, the consideration of a three-year contract (at a cost of 2% of gross collections, with an adjustment for any future postage increases) with Jordan Tax Service for billing and collection of the storm water fee was also tabled until August 9.
Update 11:28 a.m. The Municipality has updated their website to include the amendments to the Ordinance. They may also be viewed here. This is a 23 page document and takes time to open.
Because of that action, the consideration of a three-year contract (at a cost of 2% of gross collections, with an adjustment for any future postage increases) with Jordan Tax Service for billing and collection of the storm water fee was also tabled until August 9.
Update 11:28 a.m. The Municipality has updated their website to include the amendments to the Ordinance. They may also be viewed here. This is a 23 page document and takes time to open.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Fees, fees, and more fees
Tonight, the Commissioners will be voting to enact the ordinance for a storm water fee beginning September 1. Thanks to a resident, I was directed to the long list of fees that are being charged already in Mt. Lebanon. 2011 Comprehensive Fee Schedule Notice how there are no fees for using ball fields. Why is that?
After tonight's meeting, the Commissioners will be discussing, in a public session, the possibility of a recreation bond. (I can't remember if it is a $7 or $9 million bond.) How about fixing up what we have? Why are tax increases related to sports in this town? The Mt. Lebanon Municipal server was down over the weekend. Updating the website was voted down last year. The roads are a mess. We have to be charged a fee to fix our storm sewers. What is going on here?
After tonight's meeting, the Commissioners will be discussing, in a public session, the possibility of a recreation bond. (I can't remember if it is a $7 or $9 million bond.) How about fixing up what we have? Why are tax increases related to sports in this town? The Mt. Lebanon Municipal server was down over the weekend. Updating the website was voted down last year. The roads are a mess. We have to be charged a fee to fix our storm sewers. What is going on here?
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Rover ate my homework.
The following letter from Bill Matthews was sent to Dr. Steinhauer and the School Board today. Thanks for sharing this, Bill.
Bill Matthew's 7 24 11 Letter to Dr. Steinhauer
Bill Matthew's 7 24 11 Letter to Dr. Steinhauer
Saturday, July 23, 2011
This is pretty interesting.
Josephine Posti writes about the Pocono Mountain School District on her blog, Center Court: Governor Corbett is Blowing Smoke, Say Pocono School Officials . What she fails to include is this article: Pocono Mountain school board plans for 118 lay offs dated February 17, 2011, months before Corbett's budget passed.
The*, which is looking to plug an $8.7 million budget deficit, has seen a 13 percent decrease in the number of students attending its schools over the past four years. Pocono Mountain School District
In addition to the 87 teaching positions, another 25 staff support and six administrative positions are also slated for the chopping block.
In addition, here is the Auditor General's report dated December 2010.
On page 7 of the audit:
The current down-turn in the U.S Economy has had a direct impact upon the School District's local revenue stream. Two major revenue items have decreased significantly and caused an additional burden on the District's financial resources. With an economic decline, lagging payments in property taxes and lower earned income tax collections due to job losses has also added to the negative impact on local revenue sources.
Remember, this audit was performed in December 2010 while Rendell was still governor.
So why blame Gov. Corbett?
*Spans 305 square miles and serves a population of approximately 55,000 within seven municipalities and one borough in Monroe County including the Borough of Mount Pocono, and the Townships of Barrett, Coolbaugh, Jackson , Paradise , Pocono, Tobyhanna and Tunkhannock.
Want to cut the grass just once a month?
Did you hear about the sustainable grass seed movement? I found an article about some great grass seed at this blog. Sustainable grass seed It is low maintenance. It requires less watering and fertilizing and you only cut it once a month. Sounds too good to be true. Anyone use
Friday, July 22, 2011
"But to put an exact number on it is a hard thing to do."
I am reprinting this article in its entirety since the Almanac does not archive their articles. It's a keeper.
Mt. Lebanon school board meeting July 18 was largely a tale of two bid structures, with discussion of whether the district's high school renovation should be rebid to a single general or multiple prime contractors. The project--for which bids came in some $15 million over budget in April--was previously bid to general prime contractors. Construction manager PJ Dick and architecture firm Celli-Flynn Brennan recommended the district make the switch to cut costs.
"The advantage with multiple primes is that the subcontracting community will generally give a school district a lower bid than they will a general prime contractor," said PJ Dick's John Taormina. "One reason is that dealing with a district they're closer to the money. They know they're going to get paid every 30 days."
PJ Dick estimated the district could save $1 million by shifting to multiple prime contractors. Celli-Flynn's estimate is even higher--architect Bill Brennan said some subcontractors mark their bids up as much as 3 to 5 percent when bidding to a single general contractor.
ML will rebid high school project to multiple contractors
By Nick Lewandowski For The Almanac writer@thealmanac.net
Mt. Lebanon school board meeting July 18 was largely a tale of two bid structures, with discussion of whether the district's high school renovation should be rebid to a single general or multiple prime contractors. The project--for which bids came in some $15 million over budget in April--was previously bid to general prime contractors. Construction manager PJ Dick and architecture firm Celli-Flynn Brennan recommended the district make the switch to cut costs.
"The advantage with multiple primes is that the subcontracting community will generally give a school district a lower bid than they will a general prime contractor," said PJ Dick's John Taormina. "One reason is that dealing with a district they're closer to the money. They know they're going to get paid every 30 days."
PJ Dick estimated the district could save $1 million by shifting to multiple prime contractors. Celli-Flynn's estimate is even higher--architect Bill Brennan said some subcontractors mark their bids up as much as 3 to 5 percent when bidding to a single general contractor.
"But to put an exact number on it is a hard thing to do," Taormina
Board member Elaine Cappucci questioned why the possibility of such significant savings had not been brought to the board's attention before the project initially went out to bid. "With everything we've been through on the project cost savings has come up every other sentence. Why do you suddenly recommend switching?" she asked. "The project was on budget then," Brennan replied.
Using multiple prime contractors may provide cost savings, but also presents risks in terms of coordination and scheduling, officials said. Board members were quick to recall the pain associated with managing the district's elementary school renovations, which were bid to multiple prime contractors. Under multiple primes the onus would be on the district and PJ Dick to manage the project. In the words of board member Dan Remely, there would be no "single neck to choke."
"Multiple primes is going to give us a lot of headaches," said board member Susan Rose, participating by phone. "But I'm willing to handle these to help save taxpayer money."
Ultimately the majority of the board adopted Rose's position, with the exceptions of Dale Ostergaard and Faith Stipanovich. Both Ostergaard and Stipanovich expressed concerns that the risks outweighed the potential savings. "I am not convinced there is a savings that makes me want to jump on with multiple primes," Stipanovich said.
Board member Elaine Cappucci questioned why the possibility of such significant savings had not been brought to the board's attention before the project initially went out to bid. "With everything we've been through on the project cost savings has come up every other sentence. Why do you suddenly recommend switching?" she asked. "The project was on budget then," Brennan replied.
Using multiple prime contractors may provide cost savings, but also presents risks in terms of coordination and scheduling, officials said. Board members were quick to recall the pain associated with managing the district's elementary school renovations, which were bid to multiple prime contractors. Under multiple primes the onus would be on the district and PJ Dick to manage the project. In the words of board member Dan Remely, there would be no "single neck to choke."
"Multiple primes is going to give us a lot of headaches," said board member Susan Rose, participating by phone. "But I'm willing to handle these to help save taxpayer money."
Ultimately the majority of the board adopted Rose's position, with the exceptions of Dale Ostergaard and Faith Stipanovich. Both Ostergaard and Stipanovich expressed concerns that the risks outweighed the potential savings. "I am not convinced there is a savings that makes me want to jump on with multiple primes," Stipanovich said.
1 comments Rebid? : 7/20/2011
There is no need to rebid anything. All the school board needs to do is put the question of whether or not to build what they want on the ballot. It's called a "referendum". Something that most states require and allows the community to decide. Local school boards do not want you to know this because they think they know better than you. I think it's because they are power hungry.
Charles Hanson Jr.
John Taormina said it is a hard thing to do? How did Baldwin do it? Baldwin-Whitehall Cost Comparison
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Trib correction in order?
This appears on the District website:
Trib Article Reports Inaccurate Information About High School ProjectAren't the tennis courts supposed to be gone for four or five years? The Mt. Lebanon athletic director asked Scott Township to use their tennis courts for 3-5 years in this letter. (We got turned down.) This is a perfect example as to why Dan Rothschild and many others have asked to see "The List." If the School District would publish "The List," corrections in the newspaper would not be necessary
In a July 21, 2011 article in the Tribune Review written by Matthew Santoni, it was inaccurately reported that the School Board had approved the removal of the auxiliary gym and tennis courts from the High School plans. The incorrect quote reads, “So far, the board has given Celli the go-ahead to…remove an auxiliary gym and tennis courts…” The correct information is that the auxiliary gym and tennis courts remain in the plans for the High School project. A correction will appear in the Trib.
Newsflash: The School Board needs as much public input as possible.
The Trib wrote an article this morning about Dan Rothschild's new blog, lebodesign.net.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
It's not sitting well with us, members of the School Board.
Letters, documents, and articles are coming my way at a fast pace this morning. (Not complaining, keep 'em coming!!!) They support Dirk Taylor's letter to the School Board. Maybe it is too much to put in one post, but I thought I would do it anyway. They are not listed in any particular order. I don't want to bury Dirk's letter, so make sure you read it!
From Steve Diaz:
Members of the Board: Given your new decision to break up your project so that you hire multiple prime contractors, can you explain how you justify the redundant administrative and overhead costs, the added delays and costs of likely jurisdictional disputes, and other unnecessary cost-overruns that are invariably associated with such an approach? What benefit do you see in doing this? You have gone from tone-deaf to the legitimate concerns of the community to a place that has no connection to reason or common sense. It is time to look forward to the high likelihood of continued frustration and failure as you mire yourselves down in one ill-conceived step after another: It is time for a breather -- you should take at least 6 months to study the options and consider how your plan can be made more efficient (not less so) while taking immediate steps to minimize the financial damage that your premature issuance of bonds has caused. The clock may be running on a process you have played with and mismanaged for years, but simply doing "something" is no guarantee of success. In fact, it would be good to do what most decision makers would do in a situation such as the one in which you now find yourselves: go back over what has gone wrong so far, change the team that has been unable to pull it together (including your own membership and committees, not just pointing fingers at third parties), and consider what merit there may be in the advice and opinion you have consistently rejected out of hand. If you are even now not willing to admit that your building project has been mishandled right along, you underscore your own ineffectiveness. There is no reason for the public to have any confidence in you or your process. If you cannot change course, then you must resign in recognition of the totally failed leadership you have offered this community. This is the third time I have called on you (yes, all of you) to resign for malfeasance, and I will continue to do so if you cannot find a way not to continue doing that which has led to unmitigated failure to date. You know what they say about people who continue doing the same ineffective thing over and over again expecting a different result. Look in the mirror, look to the paltry number of "supporters" for your project and ask yourselves "why have so many interested and concerned citizens simply given up on the school board". There is a reason people are walking away: no one believes that you listen or respond to anything but your own voice. You cannot believe you are admired or successful stewards of this community's affairs.
****
***
From Steve Diaz:
Members of the Board: Given your new decision to break up your project so that you hire multiple prime contractors, can you explain how you justify the redundant administrative and overhead costs, the added delays and costs of likely jurisdictional disputes, and other unnecessary cost-overruns that are invariably associated with such an approach? What benefit do you see in doing this? You have gone from tone-deaf to the legitimate concerns of the community to a place that has no connection to reason or common sense. It is time to look forward to the high likelihood of continued frustration and failure as you mire yourselves down in one ill-conceived step after another: It is time for a breather -- you should take at least 6 months to study the options and consider how your plan can be made more efficient (not less so) while taking immediate steps to minimize the financial damage that your premature issuance of bonds has caused. The clock may be running on a process you have played with and mismanaged for years, but simply doing "something" is no guarantee of success. In fact, it would be good to do what most decision makers would do in a situation such as the one in which you now find yourselves: go back over what has gone wrong so far, change the team that has been unable to pull it together (including your own membership and committees, not just pointing fingers at third parties), and consider what merit there may be in the advice and opinion you have consistently rejected out of hand. If you are even now not willing to admit that your building project has been mishandled right along, you underscore your own ineffectiveness. There is no reason for the public to have any confidence in you or your process. If you cannot change course, then you must resign in recognition of the totally failed leadership you have offered this community. This is the third time I have called on you (yes, all of you) to resign for malfeasance, and I will continue to do so if you cannot find a way not to continue doing that which has led to unmitigated failure to date. You know what they say about people who continue doing the same ineffective thing over and over again expecting a different result. Look in the mirror, look to the paltry number of "supporters" for your project and ask yourselves "why have so many interested and concerned citizens simply given up on the school board". There is a reason people are walking away: no one believes that you listen or respond to anything but your own voice. You cannot believe you are admired or successful stewards of this community's affairs.
In the meantime, I have to ask, again, why you do not answer the questions I have posed about Federal arbitrage penalties the school board may face on the bonds you issued almost 2 years ago, how you can justify borrowing so much money when you did, and what you plan to do now about the cash- and debt-management fiasco in your building program. Just a reminder: you also refuse to say how you will pay for the pension funding obligation given the fact that no "bailout" is on the horizon. Does such conduct strike any of you as responsible or worthy of public confidence? You must recognize your own failures and take personal responsibility for them.
With Due Respect.
Steve Diaz
****
Here is the application waiver that Baldwin-Whitehall submitted to the PDE for their auditorium renovation after using multiple-prime contracts for their high school. Baldwin-Whitehall waiver See the PG article here.
Update: Letters from the Baldwin-Whitehall architect have been added here and here.
Update: Letters from the Baldwin-Whitehall architect have been added here and here.
***
The Petersen Event Center was a public school multiple prime contractor project partly managed by P.J. Dick. You cannot make this stuff up. Read the PA Separations Act Report and Post Gazette articles.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04102/299310.stm
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04103/299740.stm
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07121/782379-85.stm
http://www.postgazette.com/pg/05001/435755-85.stm
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04102/299310.stm
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04103/299740.stm
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07121/782379-85.stm
http://www.postgazette.com/pg/05001/435755-85.stm
A letter from Dirk Taylor
The following letter is from Mt. Lebanon resident Dirk Taylor, President of Taylor Structural Engineers, Inc. and member of the CAC.
Dear Board Members,
It has been brought to my attention that at this week’s Board meeting you folks voted 7-2 to switch from a single-prime contract to a multiple-prime contract when you rebid the High School Renovation this fall. Well, I guess that makes it a clean sweep. You have now effectively rejected every significant recommendation of the CAC.
It is utterly amazing to me how this Board – with virtually no experience in building design and construction – can so easily discard the collective recommendations of eleven well-educated volunteer experts from the community, who brought to your table a combined total of over 300 years of professional experience in building design and construction. How utterly irresponsible! (I would like to add that, from personal experience, I’m pretty darn sure the one-and-only School Board member with any significant experience in building renovation – Dan Remely – whom I have known and worked with for nearly two decades, would never have made the kinds of decisions you have made for our High School if he was renovating a building for his business.) I repeat: how utterly irresponsible of you!
The CAC’s recommendation to go with a single-prime contract was not based on keeping the “bid price” down. No. Instead, it was based on keeping the project cost down, as the multiple prime approach almost always results in more additional costs unexpectedly incurred during the construction period due to “coordination disputes” between the various multiple prime contractors who argue that the Construction Documents do not clearly show where one contractor responsibility ends and another contractor responsibility picks up at the thousands of work interfaces that are encountered on big projects like this. Your own CM, PJ Dick (Dana), clearly stated this at a recent Board Meeting when this issue was being discussed. But apparently, in a desperate attempt to cheapen up the current design enough to push it through the bidding process – and therefore commit Mt. Lebanon to the project regardless of eventual cost – you managed to get PJ Dick to switch sides on this issue and allow you to commit our community to higher risk of cost overruns during the construction period. I repeat: how utterly irresponsible of you!
When you combine this with the fact that your current estimate only carries a 5% contingency on such a complicated project, fully knowing from our experiences on the Elementary School projects (and from construction industry standards) that a much higher contingency should be maintained on a project like this, it is very clear that this Board is perfectly content with doing anything and saying anything you can to move your project forward, even though you know it will exceed your “cost cap” sometime during the construction period. And you are betting on the community, whom you have never allowed a real say in the process, and whom you will present with the cost overruns at a time when the project is “beyond the point of no return,” will have no choice but to allow your over-reaching project to become more expensive at that time. You folks are like little kids cheating at cards!
In recent months I have tried my best to convince myself that this Board had some integrity, and was trying to what was best for our community – regardless of whether or not you were truly qualified to make such critical decisions. But your actions over the past two months – including stripping critical elements out of the current design to bring it back within your budget (and not fully disclosing the “stripping process” to the community), thus keeping your project away from a community referendum – have convinced me that you have no integrity, are not competent in making decisions for a project such as this, and are clearly not acting in the best interest of Mt. Lebanon.
If you manage to strip the design enough to have it bid within your budget – and give Mt. Lebanon the most expensive “shell building” in western Pennsylvania – you will be remembered for it. And when all the other pending, crushing school tax obligations (that you are all well aware of, but continue to mislead the community about) come to fruition, and the very real tax increases that result from those obligations are realized by all of your neighbors in Mt. Lebanon, you will be remembered for it. And when the shortfalls of this project are realized by the community, about the same time Mt. Lebanon is being faced with cancelling middle school sports, requiring pay-for-play in high school sports, and shutting down many of the programs that diversify our education system due to certain future budget problems, you will be remembered for it. I hope you can all sleep with that.
Every element pertaining to the education of our students and success of our student-athletes that was included in the Renovation design that bid unsuccessfully in April, can easily be worked into the existing building at far less cost than your over-reaching design that is apparently intended more for “wowing” our neighboring communities than providing the best value for Mt. Lebanon students. A smart design that renovates the existing facility could also yield 50,000 square feet of excess space that could be minimally renovated and “moth-balled” for possible future use, thus keeping current and future costs down, well below your current plan. If your attempt to re-bid a stripped-down version of your mistaken show-piece fails again this fall – and I now hope it does – perhaps that might finally convince you to do what is best for Mt. Lebanon, and start on a new path that is based on intelligence, honesty, and integrity. A true, smart renovation of the current building would give Mt. Lebanon far more than your proposed unnecessary reconstruction, at far less cost.
Sincerely,
Dirk A. Taylor, P.E.
President
Taylor Structural Engineers, Inc.
2275 Swallow Hill Road, Building 100
Pittsburgh, PA 15220
From: Dirk Taylor
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 9:55 AM
To: 'Josephine C. Posti'; 'Edward Kubit'; Daniel Remely; 'Elaine Cappucci'; 'Dale Ostergaard'; 'Lawrence Lebowitz'; 'Faith Ann Stipanovich'; 'Mary Birks'; 'Susan Rose'; 'Timothy Steinhauer'; 'Thomas Peterson'
Subject: High School Renovation
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 9:55 AM
To: 'Josephine C. Posti'; 'Edward Kubit'; Daniel Remely; 'Elaine Cappucci'; 'Dale Ostergaard'; 'Lawrence Lebowitz'; 'Faith Ann Stipanovich'; 'Mary Birks'; 'Susan Rose'; 'Timothy Steinhauer'; 'Thomas Peterson'
Subject: High School Renovation
President
Taylor Structural Engineers, Inc.
2275 Swallow Hill Road, Building 100
Pittsburgh, PA 15220
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
It was business as usual.
Nothing was mentioned by either the School Board Directors or the residents about the new teleconferencing policy. Sue Rose phoned in and reported there was nothing to report about SHASDA. My question is, how would she know? Oops. Forgot. Don't ask.
The School Board Directors are working on a new set of goals for Dr. Steinhauer. No word on salary increases.
The big discussion was about Single Prime vs. Multiple Prime for the high school renovation. The Master Design Team met last week. Are Carol Walton and Drew Haberberger still members? We never hear from them. I found this article about Carol Walton and her views on multiple prime contracts. Construction law called antiquated, costly
Update 6:26 p.m.: On March 15, 2010, Dr. Steinhauer and President Ed Kubit signed this waiver of multi-prime requirements. Waiver of requirement of entering multi-prime contracts. Didn't Tom Celli say that we were better off using a single prime contractor?
The School Board Directors are working on a new set of goals for Dr. Steinhauer. No word on salary increases.
The big discussion was about Single Prime vs. Multiple Prime for the high school renovation. The Master Design Team met last week. Are Carol Walton and Drew Haberberger still members? We never hear from them. I found this article about Carol Walton and her views on multiple prime contracts. Construction law called antiquated, costly
Update 6:26 p.m.: On March 15, 2010, Dr. Steinhauer and President Ed Kubit signed this waiver of multi-prime requirements. Waiver of requirement of entering multi-prime contracts. Didn't Tom Celli say that we were better off using a single prime contractor?
Monday, July 18, 2011
Automated Meter Readers controversy
I got this LeboAlert about Columbia Gas installing "Automated Meter Readers" today.
http://www.mtlebanon.org/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=462
Here is what Columbia Gas has on their website:
http://www.columbiagaspa.com/en/infrastructure-upgrade/automated-meter-reading.aspx
There's quite a bit of controversy surrounding "SmartMeters" in California. This article from January speaks of the battle: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/science/earth/31meters.html?pagewanted=all
More research needs to be done. This came from a Lebo Citizens blog reader:
http://www.mtlebanon.org/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=462
Here is what Columbia Gas has on their website:
http://www.columbiagaspa.com/en/infrastructure-upgrade/automated-meter-reading.aspx
There's quite a bit of controversy surrounding "SmartMeters" in California. This article from January speaks of the battle: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/science/earth/31meters.html?pagewanted=all
More research needs to be done. This came from a Lebo Citizens blog reader:
Personally, I'm up in the air about "SmartMeters." One one hand, I think it's good to use technology but on the other, there are groups who will use this technology to jack up rates (our President has even spoken of how under his plan, rates would necessarily skyrocket). I'm also not too keen on the fact that there are privacy implications (although more so with the electric "SmartMeters"). I also know that no encryption is unbreakable. All it takes is a motivated enough person to break that signal and you could have chaos.
I'd say for the reduced cost it will have for the Gas company, they should be thinking about rate reductions but that will never happen.
I'm not an radio frequency expert but I've dealt with radio frequency quite a bit in my job. If the gas "SmartMeters" work as Columbia Gas implies they will, it won't be as bad as what PG&E is doing in California. The PG&G "SmartGrid" has all of the meters talking to each other and they are broadcasting over long distances. Columbia Gas implies that the meters here only have to broadcast to the road (the key word being implies).
I would like to see more information though before they put something so controversial out there. Information on what radio frequency is being used and the signal strength would be a good step. Also, it would be good to know if the signal is one way or two way (are they using it to cut or limit service?). I am contacting Columbia Gas to ask them these questions as I feel they are important questions. If I get an answer, I'll pass it along.
Should we stop thinking of the high school as a building?
Richard Gideon sent me a link to a PDF file of a McGraw-Hill Research Foundation white paper called, "A HIGH SCHOOL FOR THE 21ST CENTURY." He is not endorsing everything in it, but we do think it is a huge step in the right direction. Please note page 17, where it states:
Item 1.4 Problem solving
Item 1.8 - Critical Thinking
I was trying to find the reference from Wikipedia concerning the Remediation percentage, but the text had been removed. I was able to find this: http://bloglebo.blogspot.com/2009/03/high-school-grads-not-prepared-for.html
Richard, thank you for sending this article. I think Lebo Citizens readers will enjoy it.
http://www.mcgraw-hill.com/user-media/high-school-for-the-21st-century.pdf
1. Stop Thinking of High School as a BuildingThe conclusion reminds me of unmet targets from the Strategic Plan. Balanced Scorecard
A high school education need no longer be limited to the physical place. High school is about learning the things one needs to know to succeed in life. It’s not about coming to the same building every day and following the same schedule with the same people. Many businesses are flexible today in offering their employees the opportunity to tele-commute. Why shouldn’t high schools offer “tele-learning?”
Item 1.4 Problem solving
Item 1.8 - Critical Thinking
I was trying to find the reference from Wikipedia concerning the Remediation percentage, but the text had been removed. I was able to find this: http://bloglebo.blogspot.com/2009/03/high-school-grads-not-prepared-for.html
ConclusionMany U.S. students receive an excellent education in high school, go on to college andeventually find their way to rewarding careers. But they are disproportionately from higher income homes and are no longer the majority.At the same time, a growing number of U.S. students -- both lower income and middle-class --are falling by the wayside, either dropping out or graduating without being either college- or career-ready.This is happening -- not because the kids aren’t smart enough or don’t know what’s good for them -- but because high school has become too focused on making students college eligible without making them sufficiently college and career-ready. At the same time, it is not encouraging them to develop the kind of critical thinking and problem-solving skills that will enable them to function in whatever they do after high school, regardless of how technology develops.
Richard, thank you for sending this article. I think Lebo Citizens readers will enjoy it.
http://www.mcgraw-hill.com/user-media/high-school-for-the-21st-century.pdf
Sunday, July 17, 2011
More monkey business?
Comparing last week's Mt. Lebanon School District
July 11, 2011 Agenda
July 18, 2011 Agenda
From the July 18th Agenda:
9. Comments from Residents and Taxpayers Concerning Action Items for This Meeting –
Presentations or comments are to be limited to four (4) minutes.
10. Unfinished Business for Board Consideration or Action
11. New Business for Board Consideration and Action. All matters of new business were considered
July 11, 2011 Agenda
July 18, 2011 Agenda
From the July 18th Agenda:
9. Comments from Residents and Taxpayers Concerning Action Items for This Meeting –
Presentations or comments are to be limited to four (4) minutes.
10. Unfinished Business for Board Consideration or Action
11. New Business for Board Consideration and Action. All matters of new business were considered
and discussed by the Board at its Discussion Meeting on July 11, 2011, except as noted (*).
If I understand this correctly, the Residents and Taxpayers are being given four minutes to comment on Action Items for this meeting in Item 9. After the opportunity for public comment, comes Item 10 - Unfinished Business for Board Consideration or Action. However, what the Board is taking Action on, is not stated!!! How are we expected to comment, when the Action Item is a secret? OR is the Unfinished Business the Superintendent's Salary motion which was not carried over from last week's Agenda? Josephine Posti did say that we would hear more this week. Why is the School Board not putting the Superintendent's Salary motion in the Agenda when his raise was due July 1? Where's the transparency? Why isn't the School Board following its own policy?
If I understand this correctly, the Residents and Taxpayers are being given four minutes to comment on Action Items for this meeting in Item 9. After the opportunity for public comment, comes Item 10 - Unfinished Business for Board Consideration or Action. However, what the Board is taking Action on, is not stated!!! How are we expected to comment, when the Action Item is a secret? OR is the Unfinished Business the Superintendent's Salary motion which was not carried over from last week's Agenda? Josephine Posti did say that we would hear more this week. Why is the School Board not putting the Superintendent's Salary motion in the Agenda when his raise was due July 1? Where's the transparency? Why isn't the School Board following its own policy?
Ideological Gridlock from The Post-Gazette
Members of the Board: Attached is a pdf of a column from the Post-Gazette "Forum" section today (Sunday, July 17, 2011). The column is written by Marc Dunkelman, a fellow at Johns Hopkins' Center for Advanced Governmental Studies. It is an analysis that I hope you have all read, or will read. Mr. Dunkelman addresses the very concern for community, open-mindedness, and the ability to interact with those whose views we do not share I have tried, along with many others, to pose to you as one reason why you have been unsuccessful in developing broad-based support in our town for your policies. Mr. Dunkelman goes squarely at the "Posti Postulate" ("surround yourself only with people who completely agree with you"). In fact, he specifically cites schools as one of the local social institutions to which we all should be able to turn for social mediation, intellectual tolerance, compromise--imagine that (a message you have heard from me and many others for a long time). Now that the Posti-Gazette has published such a viewpoint, you might even hear the message from an outside party. I urge you to read and consider Mr. Dunkelman's thoughtful views (just as I have also urged you to view and consider the documentary "Waiting for Superman").
You may not agree with my views on the specifics of policy, but you must learn to hear, consider, and respond in a mature and appropriate way (that is, in a non-manipulative and non-stonewalling manner) to the divergence of reasonable opinion among your constituents. Especially when it appears that the opinion you are shutting out is majority opinion. You know that you do understand that the majority of citizens in our town does not support your actions. Isn't your private concern that your building and spending plan would be rejected the true underlying reason why you will do anything to avoid letting the voters cast a ballot in a plebiscite on your "renovation"? Isn't your private view one of fear of losing if the majority are allowed to prevail (remember The 4,000)? Before the entire community, I challenge you to practice some open-mindedness and responsive democratic leadership from your lofty official aerie. I challenge you to reject the Posti Postulate, openly, vigorously, and completely. Change your ways to become responsive and responsible. Change your attitudes to become receptive to the full range of public opinion. Allow the majority you fear to be your ally instead of hunkering-down to resist the popular will to the bitter end. Remember, you are elected officials. Remember the call to work with and represent your neighbors that presumably led you to seek our support when you first campaigned for office. You asked for the responsibility, now show us you are wise and able enough to handle it. Prove me wrong when I conclude that you are incapable of representing this community fairly or with integrity---it is an argument I would love to lose.
With Due Respect. Steve Diaz
Can you help?
Fire destroyed the home of the Regis McQuaide family last night on White Oak Circle. Also lost in the fire, were their two dogs. Has anything been organized to help this family?
Saturday, July 16, 2011
More on storm water fee
Not moron storm water fee. As Bill Lewis said so eloquently at Monday's public hearing, HE understands the end result the commissioners are trying to reach, but I think the means holds no water. [sic] For the record, the suggestions I offered at the hearing came from this blog, and aren't MY suggestions, as listed in the Trib. Another point that I would like to make is that there were only twenty three respondents for the storm water fee poll, but forty votes for a "pay to play" fee with twenty votes saying a fee wasn't fair. Weren't there only three of us who spoke at the public hearing? The public may not be aware of this, but we are paying, based on average monthly residential water consumption of 4,000 gallons, about $40/ mo. in sanitary sewer surcharge fees tacked onto our monthly PAWC bills. This includes Mt. Lebanon and Alcosan surcharge fees, both of which will be increasing again next year.
What about properties surrounding our boundaries? Those on higher elevations? Should they be charged? And for those who said that it is only $8 a month, this sounds like the high school project only costing us $18 a month more, or Netflix raising their rates only $5 a month. Do we really feel better when we compare increases to lattes or just $xx a month more? Should I have included a "pay to play" fee, in some districts only costing $8 a month per student, while costing the rest of the residents zero a month? As it was pointed out to me, the twenty who responded, and were against the fee, may have been the parents of students who would be charged.
I don't have a solution to this "rain tax," but there has to be a more equitable solution. Perhaps the residents should be offered a 50% reduction in incentives, as well. Or only offer a one time $25 discount to everyone. I don't know.
What about properties surrounding our boundaries? Those on higher elevations? Should they be charged? And for those who said that it is only $8 a month, this sounds like the high school project only costing us $18 a month more, or Netflix raising their rates only $5 a month. Do we really feel better when we compare increases to lattes or just $xx a month more? Should I have included a "pay to play" fee, in some districts only costing $8 a month per student, while costing the rest of the residents zero a month? As it was pointed out to me, the twenty who responded, and were against the fee, may have been the parents of students who would be charged.
I don't have a solution to this "rain tax," but there has to be a more equitable solution. Perhaps the residents should be offered a 50% reduction in incentives, as well. Or only offer a one time $25 discount to everyone. I don't know.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
"Rain tax" unfair for smaller homes
Matt Santoni has an article in today's Trib concerning our stormwater fee public hearing that was held on Tuesday night. That reminds me. I need to put up the podcasts from the two commission meetings. It was a very long night!
Bill Lewis got a standing ovation for his comments. As usual, he made excellent points. I have to say that I understand the need for this fee. We had waist high water in our garage and basement for the 100 year storm, the 101 year storm, and when Hurricane Ivan hit. The Municipality corrected our street's problem, but there are many others still faced with this issue. I am just having difficulty with how the fee will be implemented. My street has some of the smallest houses in Mt. Lebanon. It is unfortunate that we will be assessed the same as homes in the more affluent areas. Yes, I will pay my fair share, but there were two cars which were totaled during those storms, on our street alone. Our neighborhood took quite a hit. Personally, we had considerable damages and our insurance wouldn't cover it. I guess what I am about to suggest would be an accounting nightmare, but wouldn't it be better to figure the average square footage of impervious surfaces per street and charge accordingly? Likewise, as Bill pointed out, those who have rain gardens and leach beds, shouldn't be charged at all. There has to be a more equitable solution to our problem.
Stormwater fee plan steams some Mt. Lebanon residents
Update: For those interested, here is a link to building a rain garden. http://learningstore.uwex.edu/assets/pdfs/GWQ037.pdf
Bill Lewis got a standing ovation for his comments. As usual, he made excellent points. I have to say that I understand the need for this fee. We had waist high water in our garage and basement for the 100 year storm, the 101 year storm, and when Hurricane Ivan hit. The Municipality corrected our street's problem, but there are many others still faced with this issue. I am just having difficulty with how the fee will be implemented. My street has some of the smallest houses in Mt. Lebanon. It is unfortunate that we will be assessed the same as homes in the more affluent areas. Yes, I will pay my fair share, but there were two cars which were totaled during those storms, on our street alone. Our neighborhood took quite a hit. Personally, we had considerable damages and our insurance wouldn't cover it. I guess what I am about to suggest would be an accounting nightmare, but wouldn't it be better to figure the average square footage of impervious surfaces per street and charge accordingly? Likewise, as Bill pointed out, those who have rain gardens and leach beds, shouldn't be charged at all. There has to be a more equitable solution to our problem.
Stormwater fee plan steams some Mt. Lebanon residents
Update: For those interested, here is a link to building a rain garden. http://learningstore.uwex.edu/assets/pdfs/GWQ037.pdf
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Bonds, Debt and Taxes
I want to thank both Steve Diaz and Dale Ostergaard for having an open dialog. It is refreshing to get more from a school board director than just, "Call my cell phone to further discuss." Thanks, Dale. I hope you aren't getting any grief from the others for your willingness to communicate. And Steve, always a pleasure to read your eloquent letters. Thanks.
Dale: I respond to your message (text below). It makes no sense to present a "millage equivalent" from non-millage charges, and there is nothing in your chart to hint at such an approach. If, again, as you did in your last email to me, you are telling me that the figures provided are not transparent, you underscore the problems of stewardship and credibility under which the school board labors -- problems of the board's own making.
Dale: I respond to your message (text below). It makes no sense to present a "millage equivalent" from non-millage charges, and there is nothing in your chart to hint at such an approach. If, again, as you did in your last email to me, you are telling me that the figures provided are not transparent, you underscore the problems of stewardship and credibility under which the school board labors -- problems of the board's own making.
I will not comment further as this has become a game of district officials consistently offering a moving target, never standing in one place even by the clear implications of their own numbers. It is another example, just as you may remember the district's reference to "20 year" enrollment projections--which do not exist--during the Act 34 process. This is part of what is wrong in this district.
--- DOstergaard@mtlsd.net wrote:
From: Dale Ostergaard To: "Steve Diaz, School Board Email list, Lawrence Lebowitz
The other most significant part of what is wrong in this district is reflected in your complete failure to address the "renovation" issues. It is beyond cavil that the school board postures and games the public, and then attempts to blame everyone from it's own paid advisers and consultants to a virtually non-existent "inflation" for its own failures of judgment. This nonsense has to stop: take responsibility for your own performance. You yourself ran on a platform opposed to the then board-majority's blind support for the renovation plan, but in the face of pressure from your new colleagues you capitulated and caved-in. Now, the public is not supposed to notice or hold you to your own pledge of independence? And what of the other matters that no one on the board will discuss as to the failed renovation? You saw how James Fraasch was bullied and intimidated, and you just bent in the wind to avoid the same fate - and make no mistake that is exactly how it looks to those of us who voted for you, including me. When does the board accept any culpability for the decisions it makes?
Let's take a concrete example. You say that the near $70 million in bonds for the "new building" should never have been sold when they were, and you are absolutely correct in that. We could not spend the money at that time, nor since for years afterward. We are paying what is clearly too high a rate of interest and we are paying now, on funds the district cannot use for a project that may never happen and will most certainly not approach the scale for which the school board thought it was borrowing. Moreover, there is a threat of a Federal arbitrage penalty looming in a matter of months because of the board's imprudent rush to raise money. It is not unnoticed that you have chosen not to answer such funding, arbitrage, and financial stewardship questions as posed in my email, nor to address what, if any, action alternative(s) the board may be considering to deal with the matter. The board is like a dog chasing its own tail: no one else sees any benefit in the motion. How much would this district have saved if the bonds had not been prematurely sold? Why does not the board admit responsibility for a clearly foolish and improper decision to issue bonds when it did? It is a classic case of taking a mortgage before you go looking for a house, then only to find that you cannot buy the house after all. Unfortunately, you used this community's credit to "buy a mortgage" - that is, to issue bonds - because it was other people's money at stake and you thought you could use the borrowing to justify a project for which there is overwhelming community disapproval (remember The 4,000). A clear example of gaming the community and trying to coerce acquiescence in a project in which most of us have no faith and frankly see as counter-productive and wasteful. Does the board still insist that the "essential" elements of the building project as extolled in the Act 34 submission, the board's sales brochure for the public, and in its published "FAQs" are "essential"?. If you do think that, how can you throw yourselves, as you have, into an exercise of jettisoning the LEEDS certification, the 3rd gym, the "crystal tower", the replacement of the entire theater building and the flex-space building "C", etc. etc.? How can you not answer these questions in simple declarative sentences? What are you doing and why are you doing it? Why does no one on the board have the courage to ask the obvious questions about the board's own conduct and stewardship?
The lack of introspection or open-mindedness on the school board are its most salient features. Note, for example, that when James Fraasch left the board for work-related reasons, an otherwise unanimous board, cognizant of the petition of The 4,000 and the obvious majority sentiment of the community in opposition to your building plans, rather than acknowledge that Mr. Fraasch had been elected by a significant constituency that would have no voice whatever on the board in consequence of his leaving, and that the board, in turn, would have no internal insight into the concerns and interests of that constituency, chose a new member to replace him who, on the contrary, opposed all of the ideas and positions Mr. Fraasch represented on behalf of that constituency so you would be a monolithic "Leviathan" (to borrow Edmund Burke's famous phrase). This was thoughtless for a local governmental entity, although it was quite consistent with your president's unconscionable commencement address to our graduating seniors this year in which she told them that they should only surround themselves with people who agree with them. This board is as anti-intellectual as it is anti-social and anti-democratic. We seem to be governed by megalomaniacs.
It is increasingly clear that excuses and explanations are more important to a self-justifying board of politicians than any reasoned accounting of the handling of the public's business in this school district. It is no wonder this board has failed in its own self-defined mission, and is failing by all objective standards in every aspect of its responsibilities. In the process, you are also offending and frustrating an entire community of your neighbors. If this board cannot handle the job, as it now appears, the members should voluntarily step aside and resign so that more insightful, effective and representative members of the community may take a turn to serve (to answer your question: no, I would not be among those ever seeking a seat on this or any other public board as I did that already, for some 40 years).
Dale, these are plain words, not disrespectful, but reflective of the facts and realities of the community relations situation developed by this school board as either a conscious policy or by social/political ineptitude. It is time for someone to say: "the Emperor wears no clothes".
With Due Respect. Steve Diaz
--- DOstergaard@mtlsd.net wrote:
From: Dale Ostergaard To: "Steve Diaz, School Board Email list, Lawrence Lebowitz
CC: Ronald Davis Subject: RE: Bonds, Debt, and Taxes...
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 03:14:15 +0000
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 03:14:15 +0000
Mr. Diaz,
Sincerely,
Dale Ostergaard
I want to clarify the numbers I provided you concerning the PSERS rates and millage. The "Budget Required for Pension" column represents the total amount payable to PSERS. That includes the District contribution and the state contribution. The state reimburses 50% of the total cost back to the district. So the cost to the district is half of what you see in the chart. You are also seeing the total cost, not the incremental cost year-to-year which is a fraction of those numbers.
I calculated the "Millage Eqv" column simply by dividing the Total amount payable to PSERS ("Budget Required for Pension") by the current millage rate to arrive at an equivalent millage value. It was not calculated by the District, does not represent the millage imposed on our community for pension costs, nor does it represent any increment in millage to the community for the coming years. The possible millage increment year to year above our current contribution is more in the range of .3 mills to .6 mills depending on the PSERS rate and is already reflected in the Forecast the District puts on the website.
As part of our annual update of district financials, this forecast will be updated and posted in August with the latest projections . Our debt service forecast will also be updated.
Sincerely,
Dale Ostergaard
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Thoughts about last night's school board meeting
Last night's meeting was one of the shortest in quite a while, but I feel that there were comments made that should be noted.
Dan Remely is incorrect about the time needed to replace a school board director. As with finding a replacement for James Fraasch, the process must be completed in thirty days, not two or three months as he first claimed. David Huston was correct. Another thing that bothered me when I watched the meeting this morning, the school board directors reacted inappropriately towards Mr. Huston's comments. Personal attacks were made towards Mr. Huston, and that was uncalled for. He was merely pointing out policy and tried to handle the situation as delicately as possible. I see it as another example of bullying, which the school board does so well. It is unfortunate that Director Sue Rose has been out of commission for as long as she had been, but there was no communication until last night's agenda about her status. We were due an explanation, don't you think? And for school board directors to be insulted, was not necessary or appropriate. The community was uninformed again.
Steve Diaz's ongoing conversation with Dale Ostergaard has been fruitful. It will be a topic of future discussion. Thank you, Dale. Here is another letter from Steve Diaz.
Bond restrictions?
Dale and Members of the Board: I have been advised that the bonds you sold on behalf of the district for the "renovation" project, commencing in the Fall of 2009, may be restricted to construction and renovation purposes. Such restrictions may now limit your options given the failure of your effort to move forward with the project as proposed. Given this fact, what are you doing with the money in the interim? We are certainly paying interest on it. Are you drawing any income off the idle funds? If you are drawing such income, is the district subject to IRS arbitrage penalties if the funds are not spent within a certain time (say, two years)? What is the full scope of permitted uses of the proceeds? What do you intend to do under the obligations of the bonds as issued?
Dan Remely is incorrect about the time needed to replace a school board director. As with finding a replacement for James Fraasch, the process must be completed in thirty days, not two or three months as he first claimed. David Huston was correct. Another thing that bothered me when I watched the meeting this morning, the school board directors reacted inappropriately towards Mr. Huston's comments. Personal attacks were made towards Mr. Huston, and that was uncalled for. He was merely pointing out policy and tried to handle the situation as delicately as possible. I see it as another example of bullying, which the school board does so well. It is unfortunate that Director Sue Rose has been out of commission for as long as she had been, but there was no communication until last night's agenda about her status. We were due an explanation, don't you think? And for school board directors to be insulted, was not necessary or appropriate. The community was uninformed again.
Steve Diaz's ongoing conversation with Dale Ostergaard has been fruitful. It will be a topic of future discussion. Thank you, Dale. Here is another letter from Steve Diaz.
Bond restrictions?
Dale and Members of the Board: I have been advised that the bonds you sold on behalf of the district for the "renovation" project, commencing in the Fall of 2009, may be restricted to construction and renovation purposes. Such restrictions may now limit your options given the failure of your effort to move forward with the project as proposed. Given this fact, what are you doing with the money in the interim? We are certainly paying interest on it. Are you drawing any income off the idle funds? If you are drawing such income, is the district subject to IRS arbitrage penalties if the funds are not spent within a certain time (say, two years)? What is the full scope of permitted uses of the proceeds? What do you intend to do under the obligations of the bonds as issued?
If you can only spend the money on "renovation" and construction, what happens if you cannot deliver the project you promised to the public as reflected in the Act 34 Handbook and the glossy brochure you mailed out to all of us? Or, what happens, as now seems quite likely, if you cannot even commence construction before the end of October of this year? Do you have any constraint of law or policy to revisit major changes in the scope or nature of the work with the public, or anyone else? I realize that you, as a collective body, feel absolutely no obligation to advise the public of your plans or activities (I think one of your number put it most accurately at the public meeting when you passed the "no release of email without the author's consent" rule, saying: "If they don't know we have it, they cannot seek it under the Right to Know")---but will you tell me, now that I ask, how you plan to proceed? The current hearings and agenda items seem a jumble of posturing and confusion, with no clear approach. You seem just to want to build anything, to prove you did something. It is actually amusing (but for the devastating financial and educational results) to watch your members scramble for "solutions" that entail back-tracking from everything you formerly said was "essential" to the project, and now trying to claim as your own the very criticisms of the original proposal The 4,000 put before you time and again only to be ridiculed and bullied by your undemocratic antics.
All the while, not the board corporately, nor any individual member has stepped forward to take any measure of personal responsibility for your stewardship or oversight of the project. For example, how about the chairman of the renovation committee, Mr. Remely, and his erstwhile side-kick, Ms. ("it's only a latte a day") Cappucci, or other board members, such as Mary Birks, who rather than listen to the public at the Act 34 hearings, first told the public that those hearings were "too late" an occasion to raise any objections (have you actually read Act 34?), before lecturing the public on why only your now discredited and failed plan was acceptable to you. Does it occur to any member of the board that the "buck stops here"? If the public is not to hold each of you personally responsible for your project, to whom do we turn? Why do you think the school board is elected by the people? The members of the board need to demonstrate the courage of their convictions, to accept the consequences of their own public acts, and to admit that "Sun Gods" they are not, nor do they enjoy a Divine Right to rule over us. If you are responsible, you should at least be mature enough to say so, admit error and arrogance, apologize to your constituents who have placed a public trust in your hands - but whom you have failed.
You can certainly continue to "stonewall" and hope the scandal will blow over. You can tough it out. Hide behind your secrecy and your bullying (and the bullies you send out to intimidate your legitimate critics). But, you cannot face your neighbors walking through Uptown, or at the dry-cleaners or the grocery, with any assurance that behind the polite greetings, or the discrete evasion of face-to-face contact that the old admiration and support is still there. Sometimes, on the other hand, you do show symptoms of shame by avoiding contact with your local critics, as, yes, has been noted in recent select table-hopping by Ms. Cappucci and Mr. Remeley, for example. The point is that you have not only lost respect in this community, you are dividing us and causing deep social and economic injury. Is that why you "offered" to serve? The best service you can do at this time for Mt. Lebanon is to show your own respect for the people who live here, who parent the students you are supposed to be educating, and who pay the bills you rack up, even when the interest we pay is for money that you leave laying around for years with no legitimate use, by taking responsibility for the taking and use of our money and the education of our children. Your cavalier and ineffective stewardship has degraded the effectiveness of this school district and threatens our strong and proud academic tradition. You cannot substitute intrigue for policy, or bullying for leadership.
Dale, you recently asked me why only one "outsider" is running for the school board, given all that I have raised. It is a good and telling question, the answer to which is as sad as it is obvious: the school board has created an atmosphere of fear and intimidation in which people are afraid of what the board members and their cronies will do to harass them and their families. It is very troubling that 4,000 people would sign an historically unprecedented petition in opposition to your center-piece policy, but then give rise to only a single candidacy at the next election for multiple directors. You decry student bullying, as you should, but how can you not see the impact of your own bullying on the social and political life of our town? So, the ball is in your court: will you engage the authors of what you now concede are very practical concerns with your program, or will you continue to demonstrate hubris and arrogance beyond sufferance? It is your decision as to how you want to engage the public and how you will comport your duty of public responsibility now that you have committed to pursue the authority of elected office.
Respectfully. Steve Diaz
Jan Klein reported at last night's meeting, that she was having a conference call with the financial advisor this morning. I hope the issue of IRS penalties is discussed, as well as bond restrictions. The podcast is online at 7/11/11 School Board Discussion Meeting.
Revised Commission Discussion Session Agenda and Start Time
I just received a Lebo Alert for tonight's Commission Discussion Session. The new start time is 6:15 p.m. The new agenda is here.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Meeting with Mr. Ostergaard, Part 2
Steve Diaz continues his discussions with Dale Ostergard in this email sent to the School Board.
Dale: Good morning. I want to thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my email on the PERS obligation and the proposed 2014 bond (your clarification of the figures is reprinted below following the text of this email). You will forgive me for missing the 1/4/2011 district posting, obscurely labeled "debt service" and not posted under a more transparent heading, such as, say, "proposed new bonds" -- so that it could easily be found and called-out for what it is, just as I hope you will understand how I might have missed the unlabeled change of subject on a chart showing the PERS funding obligation and might have attributed the bond to cover that expense. The problem is, your clarification only makes the problem worse.
If, as you now clarify, the proposed bond at 1.2 mills on the ad-valorem rate (on top of the 10% increase we suffered just this past year for the building project) is just more "renovation" expense, then we in fact face a total of 5.39 mills for the PERS underfunding, plus the 1.2 mills for additional building expense, meaning a total prospective increase of 6.59 mills on school taxes alone in 2014 (compared to my initial impression that the 1.2 was included in the 5.39). None of this includes the base operating and maintenance budget base, salaries, or other items. This is an impossibly unaffordable burden for homeowners to bear. Inasmuch as you tell me that your chart does not reflect any expense for financing the 539 mills, can you advise me what options the school board may be considering to fund this sum? Are you advised that the district has sufficient credit, capacity or resources to cover such a level of spending? Can you tell me in one simple "bottom line" number what the millage rate becomes after 2014 in consequence of the school boards intentions regarding "renovation", the PERS obligation, and all other spending, combined? So, you may now understand why your "clarification" is even more troubling than the chart before explanation.
Again, I have an idea the school board may wish to consider, given the untenable financial position its adventurous building dreams have place us in. Let's start with the roughly $70 million the district unwisely borrowed years before it could possibly have needed the money for a building project with which it still cannot proceed, at rates that are too-high given the actual market for such securities in the intervening period and at the present time (unsound public policy and very poor planning and exercise of judgement). Of such funds, why don't you pay the $11+ million PERS obligation in cash, and use the balance to correct the negligent deferral of maintenance of the public school property, using any "left-over" cash for such upgrades as we can afford, scaled to the significant decline in school population in this district? If the board should find that it, at that point is some relatively smaller sum short for necessary maintenance, updates and appropriately scaled facilities, perhaps a new renovation plan could be proposed. Such an approach would put the school board's feet back on the ground by covering, on a priority basis, our necessary legal obligations, while restoring confidence in the common sense and fiduciary responsibility of the school board, preserving our enormous investment and assets in existing public property and infrastructure, while also allowing the district to revise much of the platinum-plated, unnecessary and unaffordable waste the board is currently trying to trim from the building plan (after ridiculing such ideas for the past several years and excoriating those members of the public who proposed such ideas, but were ignored, during the Act 34 "process".
To regain public confidence, the school board must demonstrate the ability to admit some measure of self-doubt, admit very substantial errors of judgement (for which it must take responsibility, not point fingers), and exercise creativity and responsibility in the management of the educational and financial affairs of our community. I hope the school board is capable of admitting that there is no serious question of merely pushing ahead on the disastrous course by which they have arrived at the present situation.
Respectfully. Steve Diaz
Mr. Diaz,
The bond issue you are referring to in 2014 is the anticipated bond necessary to complete the HS financing. This proposal can be found in the ACT34 hearing noted as the "Series 2012" bond on page 35. It shows up on the district's forecast of 1/4/2011 posted online in the Devt-Service row under Expenitures for 2014-2015.
There is no bond issue proposal to account for pension obligations. I apologize if in our discussions you came away with that interpretation.
Regards,
Dale
The bond issue you are referring to in 2014 is the anticipated bond necessary to complete the HS financing. This proposal can be found in the ACT34 hearing noted as the "Series 2012" bond on page 35. It shows up on the district's forecast of 1/4/2011 posted online in the Devt-Service row under Expenitures for 2014-2015.
There is no bond issue proposal to account for pension obligations. I apologize if in our discussions you came away with that interpretation.
Regards,
Dale
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Meeting with Mr. Ostergaard
Now, it's getting scary. Thank you, Steve Diaz, for sharing this with the community.
Members of the Board: I had the pleasure of sitting down to discuss school issues on Thursday evening for two hours with Dale Ostergaard, whom I had never met before personally. Dale is a gracious and cordial man whom I found to be thoughtful, decent and considerate (he is also a Purdue graduate). My conversation with Dale was most interesting in that he actually provided some highly pertinent and important information to me which the public has a clear right - and need - to know. Attached, in his own hand, are the district's projections of the funding requirements for the teachers' pension fund, and its implications to the property taxes in our town. I have to assume you have all seen the same figures, but now is the first time that the broader public may come to know of them. The facts are stunning and daunting -- this school district is in a financial hole much deeper than has previously been revealed. Your current disarray over academic performance and school administration as well as over the "renovation" fiasco that you have completely mismanaged, now come into perspective as your lack of candor or any sense of fiscal responsibility has outgrown any mask behind which you may try to hide.
Ostergaard Pension Projections
Members of the Board: I had the pleasure of sitting down to discuss school issues on Thursday evening for two hours with Dale Ostergaard, whom I had never met before personally. Dale is a gracious and cordial man whom I found to be thoughtful, decent and considerate (he is also a Purdue graduate). My conversation with Dale was most interesting in that he actually provided some highly pertinent and important information to me which the public has a clear right - and need - to know. Attached, in his own hand, are the district's projections of the funding requirements for the teachers' pension fund, and its implications to the property taxes in our town. I have to assume you have all seen the same figures, but now is the first time that the broader public may come to know of them. The facts are stunning and daunting -- this school district is in a financial hole much deeper than has previously been revealed. Your current disarray over academic performance and school administration as well as over the "renovation" fiasco that you have completely mismanaged, now come into perspective as your lack of candor or any sense of fiscal responsibility has outgrown any mask behind which you may try to hide.
As demonstrated in the attached chart, we are facing a teacher pension funding obligation that reaches a district-projected burden of 5.39 mills on the property tax rate within the next four years. Add this to the 40% increase in school taxes already estimated by many observers to pay for your $113 million proposed "renovation", and the residents of Mt. Lebanon will effectively have to buy their homes all over again, mortgaged by the school district to pay for educating a substantially and rapidly declining school population with, as I have already noted in prior emails to you, an ever less effective academic program (we are still 3rd, down from 1st in the county). We have only 5,000 students in this district, but you spend as if we were a major population center (I feel the need again to urge you to see the documentary, Waiting for Superman). The fact that you are planning for a new bond issue to fund the pension liability in 2014 has never been mentioned by the board in the context of your renovation budgeting, which indicates to me that I was exactly correct when I wrote to you complaining that it seems you will bond us up to maximum levels without an election (one you know you would lose), just to then lay before us an additional bond issue that we "must" pass to finance the legal obligation under the pension plan. Either you are utterly irresponsible or you simply have no compassion for the elderly living on fixed incomes, or young families struggling in an economy with a rising 9.2% rate of unemployment, let alone the rest of us, many of whom are also negatively impacted by the current depression and the dual threats of increased Federal and state income taxes. Your fiscal universe is hallucinatory and deeply destructive to this community on every level: socially, politically, economically, and educationally. You are well aware of the deep rifts your policies have created in this community, so I ask you: is your "success" worth it?
Time has come for the school board to exercise some introspection as to the means and goals they have set for themselves and this district. Time has come for the members of the school board to demonstrate some measure of humility (or at least self-control). Time has come for the school board to demonstrate some respect for the dignity, intelligence and legitimate concerns of your constituents. I close with one random thought I had the other day reading about the effort in one of our neighboring communities to consolidate itself with the Chartiers Valley schools: perhaps the public in Mt. Lebanon should consider a similar petition to merge with, perhaps, Bethel Park or Upper Saint Clair to form one manageable district to get control of our out-sized administrative costs for an economically nonviable small district such as our own. What do you think the fate of such a petition might be here? Remember "the 4,000"?
Respectfully. Steve Diaz
Ostergaard Pension Projections
Friday, July 8, 2011
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Commissioner Miller needs your help.
I emailed the results of the storm water fee poll to the Commissioners today. I was disappointed in the number of votes, but this is vacation time. Dan Miller called me today to discuss the results.
I think it should come out of the General Fund and other services should be cut. 14 (60%)
Raise our taxes instead of charging us a fee. 1 (4%)
It isn’t fair and equitable 1 (4%)
I am not crazy about it, but do see the need. 3 (13%)
No problem. It is only $8 a month. 4 (17%)
Votes so far: 23
Poll closed
Poll closed
Dan would like to hear from the fourteen who voted to cut services, which services should be cut. Please leave comments. I will publish anonymous ones, if they are appropriate, for those who would feel more comfortable doing so. Thanks!
Pay to play will come at a cost
I am linking the article but will also publish it in its entirety here since The Almanac doesn't archive their letters.
Pay to play will come at a cost
Whether one agrees or disagrees with at least two local school districts' approving "pay for play" fees, it is a novel approach in an effort to balance the budgets.
But at what cost?
For some families, yes, even in Upper St. Clair and Peter Township
At least in Upper St. Clair, a district that released figures, of the projected $510,000 athletic budget on the high school level, imposing the fees will generate a mere $75,475. That's slightly less than 15 percent of the total athletic budget. And it's a minuscule portion of the district's more than $59 million total budget. Is it really worth all the paperwork?
In Peters Township
This year trying to achieve a balanced budget without compromising education has been brutal. Just ask any school district business manager, school board administrator or school board member about the long hours going line-by-line through the expenses and revenues.
Times are, indeed, tough. With the price of everything going up and up, it's hard for the average taxpayer to find the money to pay more in school taxes. Adding fees for athletics and activities makes it even more difficult for families.
Let's just hope there aren't students who can't play sports or join the band or participate in whatever activity because the extra money just isn't in the family budget.
1 comment
Bloat and Inequity : 7/7/2011
One of the things that has brought school districts to this point of charging athletic fees that no one mentions is the increasing payrolls of the coaching staffs. Once upon a time the football coach and his assistants were regular full-time teachers that happened to have experience in the sport. They were first teachers- then second coaches as which they earned some extra duty pay. Now we have full time coaches making near $100,000 masquerading as teachers. Sometimes with as little as one class assignment during the day. The other point to ponder, what happens to all the ticket and item (snacks, swweat shirts, programs & ads, hats etc.) sales at these athletic events. Especially at football and basketball which generally garner the largest attendences. If that money is being used to maintain athletic facilities and support other school sports have we not made the football and basketball players unwitting volunteers and donors. They'll be paying to play, parents then also PAY TO WATCH and the monetary fruits of the students labors goes to other activities!
One of the things that has brought school districts to this point of charging athletic fees that no one mentions is the increasing payrolls of the coaching staffs. Once upon a time the football coach and his assistants were regular full-time teachers that happened to have experience in the sport. They were first teachers- then second coaches as which they earned some extra duty pay. Now we have full time coaches making near $100,000 masquerading as teachers. Sometimes with as little as one class assignment during the day. The other point to ponder, what happens to all the ticket and item (snacks, swweat shirts, programs & ads, hats etc.) sales at these athletic events. Especially at football and basketball which generally garner the largest attendences. If that money is being used to maintain athletic facilities and support other school sports have we not made the football and basketball players unwitting volunteers and donors. They'll be paying to play, parents then also PAY TO WATCH and the monetary fruits of the students labors goes to other activities!
Curious
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Allegheny County Considers Legal Action in Reassessment Moratorium
Legislation that is allowing Washington County to put the brakes on its real estate reassessment has Allegheny County officials in an uproar and investigating their legal options.Read more: Allegheny County Considers Legal Action in Reassessment Moratorium
Council President Jim Burn said the county is pushing back on the legislation signed into law last week that allows a reassessment moratorium only for Washington County.
The state House originally passed a bill that would grant a moratorium for all counties, but it was changed in the Senate to only include Washington County. State officials said Allegheny County was excluded because the reassessment process was too far along to be stopped.
Allegheny County may challenge reassessment again
"...it's easier to say 'I'm sorry' than it is to ask for permission."
With Act 25 passed, I hope the Board isn't planning to forge ahead and half way through construction say, "I'm sorry. I guess we need a referendum to complete this project." Word on the street is that the Board is being advised that we "shouldn't" need a referendum. Now that we no longer have an Audit and Finance
Committee, who will the auditors be reporting to in the Fall? There are no more checks and balances in the School District.
It is fascinating to read old Mt. Lebanon blogs. Some commenters have been consistent with their messages, while others changed direction. The bottom line is that there were previews of coming attractions in 2009.
The following comments are from an old Blog-Lebo post from two years ago.
Dave Franklin said...
JULY 23, 2009 10:02 AM
said...
JULY 25, 2009 11:46 AM
Committee, who will the auditors be reporting to in the Fall? There are no more checks and balances in the School District.
It is fascinating to read old Mt. Lebanon blogs. Some commenters have been consistent with their messages, while others changed direction. The bottom line is that there were previews of coming attractions in 2009.
The following comments are from an old Blog-Lebo post from two years ago.
Dave Franklin said...
There is an area of bankruptcy and corporate law known as the "zone of insolvency". In short, this is a growing legal principle created by the Bankruptcy Courts that provides that when a company is approaching insolvency, the focus of the directors' fiduciary duty should shift from the shareholders to the company's creditors. In other words, if a board is even concerned about possibly being insolvent, the best course of action is to begin acting like the corporation is insolvent. Therefore, from a practical standpoint, the board should not continue with business as usual when there are indications that the company may be insolvent.
So what am I getting at?
Well, if we are within $500,000 (or even $1,000,000) of the price tag that would require a referendum, it's pretty safe to assume that by the time this project is even close to done, we will be well above that threshold cost. Anyone who has undertaken any sort of construction project - whether at home or at work - appreciates that construction costs go up, not down. One rule of thumb that some people in the industry use is to take the anticipated costs and add 8-10%. If we apply a way more conservative potential cost increase to this project, say just 2%, that would mean an additional $2,300,000 added to the price of this project. By anyone's standards, therefore, it only seems prudent for the board to acknowledge that the *total* cost of this project (as presently considered) will exceed the amount that they can legally borrow and spend without a community-wide vote. In other words, if we're even talking about the need for a referendum, the school board should start acting like we are in the "zone of a referendum".
It was last reported that the borrowing threshold is about $115.5 million. It seems to me that there is no reasonable way (when factoring in cost increases, delays, etc) that this project (as presently considered) can come in under the threshold amount. In light of that, what are the board's obligations with respect to seeking a community-wide vote? When does that happen? I just hope that the school board isn't applying another ill-fated principle - the one that states that it's easier to say "I'm sorry" than it is to ask for permission.
And I must agree with Mr. Hart. If we're banking on a $1.7 million reimbursement from the Commonwealth, I'm not holding my breath. In case no one on the School Board is paying attention, the state today enters its 4th week with no budget and by most accounts it could be weeks yet before Pennsylvania is able to pay its vendors or the 77,000 government employees. If Pennsylvania can't pass a budget in time to pay its employees, I'm hard pressed to put any sort of faith in receiving state funds for our school project. Besides, if this $115 million project lives or dies based on $1.7 million from the state, we've got much bigger problems.
So what am I getting at?
Well, if we are within $500,000 (or even $1,000,000) of the price tag that would require a referendum, it's pretty safe to assume that by the time this project is even close to done, we will be well above that threshold cost. Anyone who has undertaken any sort of construction project - whether at home or at work - appreciates that construction costs go up, not down. One rule of thumb that some people in the industry use is to take the anticipated costs and add 8-10%. If we apply a way more conservative potential cost increase to this project, say just 2%, that would mean an additional $2,300,000 added to the price of this project. By anyone's standards, therefore, it only seems prudent for the board to acknowledge that the *total* cost of this project (as presently considered) will exceed the amount that they can legally borrow and spend without a community-wide vote. In other words, if we're even talking about the need for a referendum, the school board should start acting like we are in the "zone of a referendum".
It was last reported that the borrowing threshold is about $115.5 million. It seems to me that there is no reasonable way (when factoring in cost increases, delays, etc) that this project (as presently considered) can come in under the threshold amount. In light of that, what are the board's obligations with respect to seeking a community-wide vote? When does that happen? I just hope that the school board isn't applying another ill-fated principle - the one that states that it's easier to say "I'm sorry" than it is to ask for permission.
And I must agree with Mr. Hart. If we're banking on a $1.7 million reimbursement from the Commonwealth, I'm not holding my breath. In case no one on the School Board is paying attention, the state today enters its 4th week with no budget and by most accounts it could be weeks yet before Pennsylvania is able to pay its vendors or the 77,000 government employees. If Pennsylvania can't pass a budget in time to pay its employees, I'm hard pressed to put any sort of faith in receiving state funds for our school project. Besides, if this $115 million project lives or dies based on $1.7 million from the state, we've got much bigger problems.
said... Dave...please refer to my comments on Joe Polks posting "Energy Certification Costs Raises Eyebrows in Mt. Lebanon" on 7/23.
Another *hidden* cost of the HS project, worth repeating once again, is the proposed wrapping of proposed & scheduled 2nd.& 3rd. bond issues that would result in excess interest costs amounting to $10 million over the term of the issues. Exactly the amount we're incurring in the $50 million bond issue for the Elementary School project in 2003 that will require $103 million in tax $ to pay down. All in the name of minimizing the initial tax increase that a normal serial, and lower overall cost, bond issue would otherwise require. Equivilant to interest-only mortgages with baloon principal payments during the final 3 years of the mortgage term. And there has been no public outcry that I am aware of. Based on your comments, perhaps we are contributing to the "subprime lending" debacle ? And it is nigh-on impossible to get bond insurance these days; however, the Commonwealth backs school bonds to some degree...but they appear to be insolvent in many respects as well.
The key differences between the Commonwealth & public school boards and the general public is that the Commonwealth & school boards have taxing & police powers, and we do not. And the public referendum law and regulations are a farce.
Another *hidden* cost of the HS project, worth repeating once again, is the proposed wrapping of proposed & scheduled 2nd.& 3rd. bond issues that would result in excess interest costs amounting to $10 million over the term of the issues. Exactly the amount we're incurring in the $50 million bond issue for the Elementary School project in 2003 that will require $103 million in tax $ to pay down. All in the name of minimizing the initial tax increase that a normal serial, and lower overall cost, bond issue would otherwise require. Equivilant to interest-only mortgages with baloon principal payments during the final 3 years of the mortgage term. And there has been no public outcry that I am aware of. Based on your comments, perhaps we are contributing to the "subprime lending" debacle ? And it is nigh-on impossible to get bond insurance these days; however, the Commonwealth backs school bonds to some degree...but they appear to be insolvent in many respects as well.
The key differences between the Commonwealth & public school boards and the general public is that the Commonwealth & school boards have taxing & police powers, and we do not. And the public referendum law and regulations are a farce.
Update 8:40 a.m. I received a link to a Youtube video about Obama that reminded me of what is happening in Mt. Lebanon
Here are some bullet points from that video.
"You ignored us.
We pleaded.
You mocked us.
You signed it...in spite of us.
We said no.
November Arrives "Shellacking"
(I have no idea why this update is appearing in upper case.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)