Today is February 29. Leap year. But what I heard last night at the Joint Leadership meeting, I think the commission president is suggesting taking a leap backwards. At the end of the podcast, Dave Brumfield defends his stand to helping the District. It would be saving taxpayers' dollars, in his mind. In my December 10, 2011 post, I thanked Dan Miller for his efforts to put together a series of financial reforms to get a balanced budget. Listening to all the budget hearings discussions about service levels in all the departments, cuts in services, or raising taxes to avoid relying on the undesignated funds in hindsight, seems like a waste of time now. Last night, Dave Brumfield was more interested in turfing and lighting a District ball field on the Municipality's dime.
What happened to the discussions about raising taxes or cutting services? I hope to be doing something more exciting than this on the next February 29. "What doesn't kill you, makes you stronger," according to Kelly Clarkson. Well, this is killing me.
The biggest thing government does is make decisions on how to spend taxpayer money.
ReplyDeleteIf government makes poor decisions on how to spend our money, then how effective is the same government in other areas such as law enforcement and public education?
David Hustn
So the Municipality and the District both have pension contribution problems and the Municipality wants to pay for a District ball field?
ReplyDeleteIt appears the Municipal Officers have no influence over the commissioners' decisions. If the school board can't afford fields the Municipality will pay for them.
We seem to have two dysfunctional governments in Lebo, just like our neighbor to the south that is also in financial trouble.
This smells like the D. A. S. have been active behind the scenes.
John Ewing
I too attended the meeting and watched and listened to Dave, and came away with a different *read* :
ReplyDelete1) some background factors obviously influenced Dave's remarks..e.g.(a) a public meeting of some 50 from youth sports with Dale Colby & Dan Miller took place in the Public Safety Building in 2008. The purpose was to try to reach a consensus on problems and solutions to athletic field issues. Being a public meeting, I attended. McNeilly was off the table, and in fact the Commission decided to put it up for sale in 2009. The group consensus of attendees at that time was to pursue the idea of turfing 1 or 2 existing fields, possibly Mellon, Jefferson or Wildcat; and, (b) McNeilly came back into play susequently because we couldn't sell it. The price tag for developing it had risen from the original $1.75 million to a $4.05 million development cost in 2011 ! Dan Miller wanted to limit this figure to $3.5 million in 2011 in order to get his of the 4 votes necessary to approve a bond issue, and the matter remains in limbo; however, I *read* that Dave may feel that McNeilly is likely going nowhere...and this all may be behind his comments ;
2) the HS project is permanently removing 2 fields from the now 13 SD + 5 Muni field inventory..this just exacerbates the existing field problems ;
3) one of the contributing problems with existing fields, 3 of which have been declared fundementally useless, is the failure to spend what seem to modest amounts of additional $'s to alleviate drainage problems with several fields. Dave indicated that perhaps an additional $20,000 or so in soil additives/reconditioners might improve playability and use. And the Bird Park field drainage problems limiting usage might be solveable with the replacement of a better field drainage system costing perhaps $70,000 or so;
4) I think Dave stated that the Cedar Blvd. fields - Wildcat, Middle & Dixon - are considered pretty good to excellent;
5) if all this were to occur, the turfing of Mellon OR Jefferson might prove to be the best and final answer to the field problems, as that would also essentially add another large field to the inventory;
6) if a SD field were to be pursued for turfing, Dave fully acknowledged that it would likely be a difficult negotiation between the Muni & SD, but hopefully do-able.
7) Dave also suggested, not proposed, a development cost and operating cost sharing idea or concept to illustrate what HE had in mind for a turfing option - say $1 million for turfing a field by the Muni, and the SD would cover the annual cost of maintaining & repairing the field because the SD had the equipment & knowhow on turfed fields because of the HS atletic field. I believe his $1 million Muni number to be his rough guesstimate, not a formal engineered estimate, and certainly not representing a Commission commitment for such an idea or a dollar amount.
8) there was no mention last night of how or where the funds for the capital cost of turfing..be it $1 million or any $ figure..would likely be raised or come from (e.g. Muni bond issue and/or contributions from the youth sports groups). Or, who would pay for the annual turf field R&M (e.g. taxpayers and/or field usage fees). These are valid questions, certainly ones I will speak to if need materializes. But it was not there or in play last night as I *read* the scene, status of the subject or purpose of the meeting;
9) pursuing the options described above on fields in lieu of what I would consider to be a major $4.05 million McNeilly mistake would be a definite savings to taxpayers if they would put the athletic fields issues, and they are plural, to rest, period ;
10) Dave did mention that the Muni was considering bonds now for refunding/refinancing the 2009 issue; and, that while interest rates were low, and that in his opinion there might be a reason or opportunity to consider what I thought he was referring to as a possible go-ahead with the Muni pool;
Thats what it was to me.
Bill Lewis
Mr. Lewis, that is a lucid and compelling "read" on the issues. For the most part I agree with your conclusions except for several pertinent facts that you've left out.
ReplyDelete1. The school district is facing a potential $2.9 million dollar hole in its budget. According to the financial experts in the media its going to be years before, if ever, things return to normal in this state.
I take that to mean, the district is going to be making tough financial decisions on the staff, programs and buildings they're currently responsible for in the forseeable future.
Furthermore, they are so desperate for cash they're willing to trade the community's stellar reputation as an affluent, well-heeled community for naming-rights income to cover what they already can't afford.
The municipality isn't in much better shape. They borrowed $2 million to pave roads. A responsibility they're been task with since the municipal's founding 100 years ago.
So, while on the surface your support of the discussion seems logical, how logical is it for these two entities that can't manage to pay for the things they already have, to take on even more spending?
Dick Bachman
Mr. Bachman,
ReplyDeleteThe original composition of my comment must have consisted of over 6,000 keystrokes, because it was immediately rejected for having more than the acceptable limit of 4,096 strokes. The original version was far more descriptive and included some of my thoughts on exactly what you suggest. I tried a total of 6 keystroke-reducing revisions before what now appears was finally accepted. I did not want to even attempt to provide all my thoughts on this in 2 or more separate submissions. In the process of striving for blog acceptance, and to keep my remarks focused on essentially what Dave said, except for my background item 1) which I thought absolutely necessary, I ended up removing my personal thoughts on the implications of going forward willy-nilly, irrespective of the economic & financial realities of the Muni, SD & taxpayers.
Suffice it to say, my final parting remark in the original draft was " SHOW ME THE MONEY !" (I grew up in Missouri).
Your comments basically cover the rest of what I wanted to include in this regard. But please understand, I believe Dave Brumfield was providing only his snapshot update of where we seem to be at the moment regarding fields, and his thoughts on what possible solutions to the field problems might be and require...not where & how we as Muni & SD & taxpayers are actually going to go. I believe Dave well understands, and may even agree with, our over-reaching concerns on economic and financial realities and consequences.
I hope you continue to remain active in commentary and actions.
Bill Lewis
Mr. Lewis, I hope and certainly applaud investigations such as the ones Mr. Brumfield is instigating.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, experience tells me that once these things are broached they seem to take on a life on their own. Such as the wildly irresponsible McNeilly purchase and the high school renovation incarnations, that tax the community's ability to fund them to its limits.
I'm glad you're keeping watch, I will too... with an open but inquisitive, suspicious mind.
Dick Bachman
Has anyone wondered why Posti and Cappucci are sitting on a Board that is considering hiring a professional fund raiser for $41,000 while they are begging the Municipality to raise taxes to pay District field maintenance expense?
ReplyDeleteDid either of these women think about the professional fun raiser asking some residents for a substantial gift after those residents have paid double taxes to the District and Municipality?
Does either of them know they have now complicated the fund-raising process because they now have 1) a Capital Campaign four the HS, 2) operating expenses for a $900,000 teacher grievance and c) maintenance expense for fields.
Many large donors - the kind you must approach to raise $30,000,000 - will write a gift contract that tells you they will cover Capital expenses but never Operating or Maintenance expenses. If you don't agree to those terms you don't get the major gift.
P/K is a terrific fund raising firm but they don't need rookies or unions messing with the process. That goes for the Commissioners as well as the Board.
John
Mr. Ewing, you're right about P/K, Ketchum PR was/is one of the best.
ReplyDeleteI can't image they'd even want to fool with such a mundane fundraiser such as selling naming rights to "a classroom."
Seriously, why would any company pay anything of any substance to put their name on the door of a classroom?
Giffen Good
Dang spell checker-- machinations, notincarnations!
ReplyDeleteDick Gachman
Mr. Good,
ReplyDeleteFolks will name a classroom because they want to give a gift and recognition is always appreciated. The naming rights of certain parts of a building may be named but they may or may not be named after the donor.
For instance, if someone wanted to donate an amount of money equal to the price of the football field they may choose to name that field, Directors' Field in honor of the Directors who have served over many years. Likewise, a classroom or a theater may be named after an outstanding teacher or an exceptional administrator. Horsman Drive is an example of honoring a superintendent in our District.
I seem to recall plaques in the library recognizing the gifts of certain rooms by specific donors, At any rate I would expect any name or recognition to be subject to review and good taste before a recognition plaque is placed.
I would also expect the naming rights and recognition to be tasteful and respectful and not to appear ostentatious. Recognition and naming rights are an art and that is one of the reasons we need a professional like P/K as a consultant to advise the Board. Given the proper chance this fund raising could lower the tax cost of our high school by about $1.7 Million per year over a 25-year span at 4% interest. I'm certainly up for a $1.7 Million cash flow improvement in our budget and I believe our directors will welcome the opportunity to do that too.
The District has a naming rights policy on their website that may help folks understand the process better.
John
Just so I'm clear on what I read...a drainage solution for Bird Park is 70k. Turfing a field is 1 million. Why not just put new drainage systems in the fields they want to turf? And don't tell me it's to "save" maintenance costs. Ba-Lo-ney.
ReplyDeleteAnd the capital campaign basically amounts to whoring out public property to private entities? What?? This school board has jumped the shark and this whole thing is insane.
Our family gifted a classroom to the Carnegie Museum in honor of my mother’s special birthday three years ago. She served as a docent in the Museum of Natural History for over 25 years and has been a strong supporter of the Powdermill Nature Reserve, an associated environmental nature research center. (I have actually slept at Powdermill and been awakened to bears trolling for treats in the garbage cans right outside the back door – not particularly comforting.) The classroom is called the Ford-Mateer classroom after my parents and we have been delighted that so many enjoy a multitude of learning experiences in that space. In fact, prominent artist Elizabeth Castonguay, formerly of Mt. Lebanon, teaches art classes in that classroom and she has told me how much she enjoys teaching there.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, the above-described scenario is a contrast to the reality that a taxpayer who already involuntarily “donates” a substantial amount to our educational offerings here in Mt. Lebanon. Given the fiscal management of our school district’s resources on the part of our collective Board of School Directors in committing to an unrealistic high school renovation project along with continued salary and benefits increases at this time, I believe it will be a hard sell soliciting extra mile donations from our residents. I also believe that the cart has been placed before the horse considering the commitment made to the high school renovation project cost before any capital campaign was properly in place. Personally, if I believed that our local educational system was in jeopardy in spite of every effort being made to carefully manage the bottom line, I would feel differently about helping out. Unfortunately, that is not the case based on what I have witnessed over the past two years.
Perhaps a knight in shining armor will appear to the Board. However, in my mind people tend to donate to their universities or other educational institutions closer to their professional successes because that is where people correlate their educational experiences to their professional employment situations. Notice that the fundraiser P/K Ketchum is key to the fundraising for Notre Dame. If they have a successful track record soliciting donations for high school projects perhaps I missed that and I will stand corrected.
So, I hope our Mt. Lebanon Board of School Directors proves me wrong and if it spends $41,000+, determines that the money is out there and then undertakes a campaign that yields $30M that would be great. My experience with other local fundraising initiatives tells me differently.
-Charlotte Stephenson