The district already is deep in debt after borrowing $55 million in 2005 to update its elementary schools and won't start making large payments on that debt until 2017, Fraasch said.According to a December 4, 2008 article by Matt Santoni, we are in deeper debt than I ever knew! Maybe I am not alone on this one. I am appalled!
Yeppp, glad there is no baggage on that joint steering committee. Love what Posti said.
Talk about irresponsible - look at Jan Klein's comment.
Mt. Lebanon board member urges postponing school projects
27 comments:
"Director of Finance Janice Klein has said, however, the district wouldn't start borrowing the money for years, even if the project moved forward quickly"
Due to the fact that the district is facing a budget shortfall of nearly $3 million it appears the years snuck up on Jan Klein quicker than expected! Or perhaps she (expediently or better yet obediently???) turned a blind eye to reality.
Oh yeah, I'm going to be writing some big checks to Pursuant Ketchum very soon. After all, its for the kids. LOL
Dick Bachman
Oh yeah ! Here's some background.
Few will recall that the 2003 SD bond issue of $50 million for the : (a) renovation of the 7 elementary schools ($44.4 million), (b) $5 million for an indoor pool (across Horsman where the new athletic complex will be sited) that never happened, and (c) $1 million for the HS stadium (that also never happened)...all $50 million plus arbitrage interest earnings went into the elementary renovations due to change orders and enhancements.
And here is what is now being referred to...added insult to injury...the bonds issued were wrapped over and behind the maturity of other outstanding bonds, and were basically interest only (no principle of any consequence) until about 2017, I believe. This will result in :
1) debt service payments for that issue that will only then include new and large principle components along with interest...this may not in itself cause a millage increase in 2017 because some pror debt behind which the wrapped issue was scheduled has possibly been paid down. We'll have to see; and,
2) the wrapping of the 2003 issue to minimize the initial millage increase required to finance the bonds (i.e. masking or hiding from the public) results in total debt service costs of the bond issue to be $103 million...to borrow $50 million...and that will be $10 million more or higher than had the bonds been a serial or level issue. Taxpayers will pay extra for the truth being hidden or disguised.
Subsequent refunding and refinancing of the 2003 issue may have further disguised the above, but that's what it was and probably still is in possibly a different set of clothes....and just a little factual history to rattle some cages.
Bill Lewis
Bill, this just makes me sick. Posti and Klein need to go. James Fraasch is such a gentleman. He never said, "I told you so." James, you endured so much grief trying to do the right thing.
Elaine
Thanks Elaine.
Those debt payments were why I had wanted to delay a major renovation until 2017 or 2018. That would have given us 8 or 10 years to realize some gain on the GESP (fixed the windows/roofs/etc) while putting a dent into those bonds.
It wasn't an easy concept to understand and it was harder still to convince people to try to delay gratification for the betterment of future tax considerations.
In the end I was only able to convince two other members of the Board that something along those lines made sense.
James
If you are not sure what a wrap around bond issue is think about buying two cars without raising your payments too much.
The principle and interest payments are made on the first car for six years. Interest only is paid on the second car for the first six years and the principle on the second car is paid with more interest in years 7 to 12.
This method of financing make no sense until you figure out the board that took out the loan kept the millage down for the first six years and spent a lot more money over the 12 year period than if they had financed both cars for six years at a slightly higher monthly payment.
We can always rely on our school board to make the most expensive decisions that hide the real cost of the District's toys.
Now it is time to pay the expensive financing costs and the members of the school board don't give a damn as long as they look good to their buddies.
John
Just a thought- before the board spends $41,000, they don't have, on a feasibility study on fundraising possibilities, why don't they test the waters themselves for free.
I mean seriously, if they can't find some organization or alumni to pony up $41,000 to pay for the feasibility study how can the expect to raise $30,000,000. $41,000 is basically chump change. The PSEA throws that kind of money around like peanuts, maybe they'd step up and get things started.
After all, students are only in the high school for 4 years. The High school administrators and teachers on the other hand will enjoy the new digs for their entire careers. $41,000 from the union should be easy, it's for the kids and the community - right!
Giffen Good
I watched the meeting this morning on TV and I posted the podcast on my website. I will post the feasibility study podcast as soon as I get it, as well as the construction update.
This is what I got from the school board meeting concerning the study. I think this study is a CYA for the board. I believe PK will be hired to see if $30 million is a realistic number. They may come back with a lower number which the BOARD will be soliciting funds. As Dale Ostergaard pointed out, the Board would be setting an example to the community. Scott Goldman felt that soliciting is a big commitment. He gets it. I think Dale does too. I look at it as, put your money where your mouth is. If the board wants to raise $30 million, why not have each member be responsible for raising 1/9 of the $30 million or $3.34 million. It shouldn't be too difficult considering there was an 8 million dollar promise out there. That is almost three board members' share right there alone! A compromise, in my mind, is that each board member be responsible for raising $3.34 million and Dr. Tim come up finding $2.9 million to cover the grievance and $1.9 million shortfall.
Look at it this way, Brumfield can magically come up with a million dollars to light and turf Mellon Field, so the money is out there just waiting to be spent on the District. It isn't for the kids anymore. It is "for the community."
Elaine
Gif, I think you hit on an absolutely great idea.
Lets see if the people that are so quick to spend taxpayer money and will benefit the most from an influx of $30,000,000 in donations and naming rights are eager to start the ball rolling.
Students will spend only 4 years in the new high school. Staff and teachers on the other hand might spend their entire career working in the building.
Furthermore, if donors pony up the $30,000,000 to pay for the second HS bond, with that expense covered, the district won't have to make cuts in supply budgets, furlough teachers or dismiss staff.
So here's an idea.
Let the people that will see the biggest gain from the results of the feasibilty study start the ball rolling and donate the $41,000for the PK study.
There are about 425 administrators/teachers/staff in the district. If each donated just $100 they would cover the Pursuant Ketchum feasilbilty study cost. Which if it yields the results the board hopes for and certifies there is indeed $30 nillion up for grabs, the job those employees might save could be there own.
SO how about Dr. Tim Steinhauer, cash in one vacation day for the PK feasibility study and show your staff how its done. C'mon, its for the kids.
Dick Bachman
For the kids, for the community? Really?
Is there a new kind of Kool-Aid in Lebo?
John
"For the kids," John was tongue in cheek
Dick Bachman
Yes, there is a new flavor of Kool Aid. It is the community flavor. Posti liked Brumfield's approach of turfing Mellon with municipal dollars because it helps the community. Why doesn't he concentrate on Bird Park or Brafferton, if he wants to improve fields? Or does he believe that Posti will want to contribute district dollars down the road to improve municipal fields? Don't hold your breath, Dave. They wouldn't spend $79 to recycle batteries! Concentrate on the municipality. That is why you were elected and why you get a stipend as a commissioner. Now you know why I was suspicious of the joint discussion session and why I think the District was the clear winner of that meeting? Don't tell me that you are saving taxpayers money by offering to fund a district field project when all I heard at the hearing was how unusable Bird Park was or how Brafferton was a mess.
Elaine
So now we have
Brafferton, and
Bird Park, and
McNeilly, and
Twin Hills - all needing upgrades.
All four fields are Commission created problems.
We also have a $1,000.,000 Pension Compromise created by the Commission and new Commissioners who want to share the cost of a Municipal Pool with the District and Turf Mellon Field for the school district.
Do any of our Commissioners know anything about Budgets?
Do our Commissioners pay the mortgage for their neighbors by putting it on their family's credit card?
Who came up with the hair-brain idea that the
Municipality should pay to turf a District property and share the cost of a community pool with the District?
Perhaps we all need to remember that Commissioner Brumfield was a member of the Youth Football Association Board of Directors and has an obvious conflict of interest b between his volunteer Board position and his paid Commission position. Commissioner Brumfield was the Field Director for the Youth Football Association and another commentator on this blog was the Funding Director.
Any more questions about how we go into this mess of a District and a Municipality with budget problems?
Yeah! This is for the kids on the Commission and the Board as well as 19 other kids between the ages of 22 and 55.
Just think folks we are paying Commissioners to make a mess of the Municipal and District budgets!
John
John, I failed to mention that he wants to turf AND light either Mellon or Jefferson field. But Josephine was quick to point out that Mellon is close to the business district and Jefferson might be too noisy for a residential area. And there is the convenience of ice cream, pizza shops, etc. for treating the kids after the games uptown. It is "for the community."
Elaine
If a few adults want to turf or light a field, the adults are welcome to write a check to the District to do so.
Commissioners are paid $300 x 12 months x 4 years = $14,4000 to serve one term.
Five Commissioners x $14,4000 are paid $72,000 to serve four years. If the Commissioners can't be responsible stewards of community budgets they should give up the $72,000 and provide proper drainage for one field from their own pockets.
John
John
John, I hope you're not suggesting that the commissioners are paid too much. I certainly wouldn't want their job or even worse the school board director's responsibilities who are paid nothing.
Having said that, I totally agree this isn't the time to spend money we don't have in district or municipal coffers. The community wants more and nicer athletic facilities start saving for it as Fraasch suggested on the high school project. And as I said earlier if the school staff firmly believes there is $30 million out there waiting to be tapped, let them step up and pay for the feasibility study.
If they do manage to get the $30 million, they will be the first to profit from the gains in better digs, job security etc., etc.
Dick Bachman
Frankly, Dick, I don't know why commissioners are paid anything. Dan Miller worked very hard to reduce the structural deficit from $3.0-Million to $1-Million and now we have this Commission going backwards. Why pay folks who go backwards and can't control a budget?
John
Just as an FYI to everyone, it ain't all the commissioners that want to spend all your money. There were some actually some NEW ideas last night that would have prevented the catastrophe of investing taxpayer money in the boondoggle that is McNeilly. It seems someone got to thinking about Robb Hollow and it came out that Robb Hollow can be made into fields for something on the order of $500k to $1 million. This is far less than any other option that is designed to address our field space issue. Turfing will cost more than that. McNeilly will cost five times that.
The issue appears to be that some of the commissioner ran on the idea that they will turf something. Now that they see it is economically unfeasible to do so, they will march forward and do it anyway! The field issue appears to be split 3-2. How many times did the the municipality say that what we need is more field space? Well, turfing doesn't get you that. Robb Hollow does and it solves the field problem at the cheapest cost yet.
Can someone explain to me why this is so hard to figure out? The commissioners that promised turf should just stop, take a breath, realize they have a new solution that is BETTER than what they promised and move forward. If you repair the field drainage issue at Bird/Brafferton/Mellon (maybe $50k per field) then you solve 40% of your problem. Add two new fields at Robb Hollow and you solved the other 60%. The commission can wash their hands of this and then move on to actually figuring out how to pay for fixing roads, paying pensions, etc.
I don't want to spend any money. But, I will gladly spend $500,000 on Robb Hollow just to shut everyone up.
Git 'er done!
Albert Brennaman
Albert, I remember asking about Robb Hollow the night the sports people showed up at a commission meeting. If the commission decides to improve municipal assets and it is done responsibly, then I am all for it. But to spend one dime of our tax dollars on anything that belongs to the District is just plain wrong. When will we be turfing and lighting KO? When will we be turfing and lighting Seton-La Salle? For the same reason why Dave explained to Elaine and Josephine, at that joke of a meeting, that fees could not be waived because there were other school systems in Mt.Lebanon and the muni and SD were two different taxing bodies, the muni better not co-mingle(?) our tax dollars. We are being taxed to death because of the SD's greed. I'll be GD to see the commissioners enable them. The one meeting I decide to miss!! Grrrr.
Elaine
Yes Elaine. I agree, why would the municipality pay to upgrade school fields when they have issues with their own. The school district should be responsible for repairing their own fields for Pete's sake. Yes, the rec department uses them, but shouldn't that require a "use" fee and not a complete capital investment?
Robb Hollow looks like a win. It is vacant and used to be a baseball field so it should be a no-brainer for more field space...especially at the estimated price tag.
And forget McNeilly. Move on. There is nothing to see there except for wasted money.
Albert
If Posti is willing to combine taxing authorities, then I'm all for spending municipal dollars on a SCHOOL DISTRICT facility. And, of course, eliminating the school board from any tax-related decisions. They've demonstrated a compelte lack of understanding related to financial matters anyway. And I'm going to go out on a limb here but...if turfing and lighting Mellon is such a wonderful idea, why hasn't it already been done? My guess is because (drumroll) it's actually a really dumb idea.
I can already envision doing it for the "good" of the community, then the school district restricting hours of operation for the community at large. When does this madness end?
Just to stick a fly in the ointment - should the school district decide to close a school (it was discussed in Monday's meeting as a future possibility) do we lose another field?
Will the municipality then have to provide a replacement because the numb skulls on the school board can think two moves ahead?
Giffen Good
Giffen- you write:
"Will the municipality then have to provide a replacement because the numb skulls on the school board can think two moves ahead?"
Can or can't?
If the district closes Hoover, for instance, rents it out to UPMC or St. Clair Hospital since it is close to the hospital -let's say, we would still have use of the field.
Elaine
Not necessarily. Parking at Hoover, Foster, Washington, Lincoln, Howe is at a premium. Should the tenant need more parking than presently available the fields would need to be sacrificed.
Giffen Good
Samuel Adams' comment, "...eliminating the school board from any tax-related decisions..", brought to mind the time I lived in Connecticut. It seemed to me that school boards in that State do not impose taxes themselves, but since I was not sure about this I asked my wife's cousin, a South Meriden, Connecticut resident, to verify it. She wrote back and said, "In Connecticut, Public School Board's of Education do not have the power to levy taxes; they all must submit a budget proposal to be approved or rejected by the City or Town government."
Elaine, I'm not sure you can make the assumption that the fields would still be available.
Parking is limited at our elementary schools and any entity that would "rent" buildings this large would probably require more on-site parking. The only space to enlarge parking for adult staff and patrons would logically be the fields.
Giffen Good
So some commissioners sold their votes to get elected.
Isn't it wonderful how we have managed to attract such well qualified "sell-out-the-community-to special-interest-groups" so you get elected to the Commission and Board. No wonder we have such small regard for either group. Both groups are about as honest as the
D. A. S. They deserve each other.
John
John, could it possibly be that the special interest groups just did a better job of rallying their people to get involved and vote. Turnout in the last election was a dismal 29% or so.
The "we can't afford this!" whiners and complainers chose to sit on their hands and skip doing anything to help themselves.
We deserve what we get.
Giffen Good
Post a Comment