6. Preliminary Budget – According to Act 1 of 2006, the Board must present a budget for public view in January for Board approval in February. If the Board would like to maintain the option of applying for exceptions to the Index, the approved budget in February must be high enough to reflect the need for the exceptions. Due to the lack of information concerning staffing, student course selections, retirements, healthcare cost increases and State funding proposals, I recommend the Board consider approving a budget so that we preserve the ability to apply for exceptions if we need them. Such a budget has been prepared and will be reviewed with the Board before it is placed on the website for public inspection. Note that if the Board desires, it has the right to pass a resolution to ‘not exceed the Index’ by the end of January which would eliminate the need to approve a budget in February.
C. Other
6. Change Orders for High School Renovation Project – This month’s list of change orders proposes 10 changes for Board consideration. They are as follows:
a. GC-16-29 to Nello for $4,900 for carpet for the upper Little Theatre Lobby which was not scheduled for replacement,
b. EL-08-34 to Farfield to reconnect parking lot lighting due to voltage change $5,240,
c. GC-17-35 to Nello to eliminate dry wall ceiling in G Building and replace with sound proof spray ($7,516),
d. EL-09-36 to Farfield to add power to elevator sump pumps in Buildings H and G $7,718,
e. PL-04-37 to Vrabel to add sump pumps in elevator shafts in Buildings H and G $7,892
f. GC-18-38 to Nello to patch existing walls on 5th floor for safety reasons $4,620,
g. GC-19-39 to Nello to change provider of spray foam insulation for fire proofing $5,652,
h. AB-03-40 to Precision to change provider of spray foam insulation for fire proofing ($5,652),
i. GC-20-41 to Nello to add additional duct supports at G Building roof for flashing on duct rails $6,090, and
j. GC-21-42 to Nello to add epoxy rebar for reinforcement of loading dock wall $5,750.
Will Dan Remely "reluctantly" approve these change orders on January 21?
Up for discussion:
High School Rifle Range – The Board will consider the renovation of the rifle range.
23 comments:
This board just can't say no to anything.
Not a 6.9% raise for Jan Cline,
Not a 4% raise for our super Super,
Not an unplanned new carpet in the slightly used Fine arts theatre reception area.
Not a maximum budget.
Not even guns for students just after Newtown.
Remember Cappucci's crocodile tears for Newtown at the last meeting.
They even had to tear down our newest Building C for better safety sight lines according to Jo Posti. Apparently that was just another Posti lie.
They can't even post the budget ahead of the meeting so we can see what they are talking about.
The more they hide the more we know we are getting screwed by an ignorant, arrogant bunch of @$&^!%#&. "What the Kluck!,"Lebo deserves the board they voted for.
The rifle range was a $300,000 renovation. This must be an election year
The Board has the right to pass a resolution to ‘not exceed the Index’ by the end of January which would ELIMINATE THE NEED TO APPROVE A BUDGET IN FEBRUARY.
Bullies-> Winning
Elaine
1:47
Typically the Board will adopt the measure to exceed the Act 1 limits and ask for exceptions for couple of reasons, the most important of which is the number of retirements. If only one person retires as opposed to 15, then they may have a problem staying under the index limits.
If the Board passes a resolution to stay under the index, then they would be asked by the State to finalize their budget by February. If instead they vote to ask for exceptions or "keep their options open" then they can wait until much later to pass the budget.
This year will be interesting because they have the ability to NOT do what the municipality did by forgoing the reassessment windfall of 5%.
I am 100% certain that they will take every penny of that 5% plus some of the Act 1 index limit as well. I am 99% certain they will do this to float the second round of bonds without need for referendum. This is contrary to what the Act 34 document said when it said they would float the bonds in 2009-2010 I believe.
Regardless of the vote, the Board will need to vote Monday on some kind of preliminary budget that will most likely not include any retirements but will include other stuff (like a bond float) so we can see where they expect revenues and expenses to be.
It would make me sick to my stomach to see them NOT include the rifle range in the cost of the high school project but this Board has a habit of doing just that.
We'll have a good idea on Monday on where our taxes will end up (the numbers will just not include retirements but we can do a simple calculation to figure out how much each retirement saves the District).
Hold onto your wallets!
Still no mention of the $900,000 grievance.
Elaine
The union is holding the $900,000 grievance as negotiating leverage for contract negotiations.
Jan Klein and Board should read this SmartBlog: How to communicate effectively about school budgets
Elaine
If we had a Board with brains and working in the best interests of the community, they'd tell the union to pound sand, and then start firing teachers. But we don't. So we'll have to keep paying more and more for teachers to babysit fewer and fewer kids. Makes perfect sense to me. But as long as those PSSA scores keep is in the running with USC, man, it's worth every nickel. All 18 dollars' worth per month.
Those who filed the grievance should find the door; nobody is asking them to stay.
Those who don’t want the true finances in the public mind hide the information.
Latest LeboAlert:
Grab your hard hat and take a video tour of the high school renovation project with Mt. Lebanon Magazine: http://lebomag.com/9218/behind-the-tarps/
Elaine
Looks like they are still editing it.
http://lebomag.com/9187/video-tour-of-high-school-site/
Elaine
Video tour of the school construction. That's what I want to see--my tax dollars being wasted in real time.
Too bad Steinhauer and Co. never hear what the folks in nearby communities are saying about Mt. Lebanon.
Put it this way....no one is impressed.
Remely will vote for it without question or hesitation....over a million bucks, so his "keep it to 95 million" now amounts to a vote for almost $115 million---the very amount that would have required a referendum in the first place (i realize that procedural rules change to up the base number once the project is under way), nonetheless, shouldn't he explain why it was not likely that the expense would rise to this level when he enthusiastically supported the adoption of the plan without a vote by the citizens? Shame on him.
Realtors are estimating what the taxes will be and telling potential buys of Mt Lebanon homes that they can't afford homes they want to put in offers for because of the anticipated school taxes.
Just waiting for the taxpayers' revolt...
I have heard realtors complain that there are not enough houses on the market in Lebo. People want to move here but can't find a hose. Ask HH agents.
Not enough houses on the market? Baloney. I doubt there are people beating down the proverbial door to move to an area where they'll pay two to three times the taxes they'd pay in Peters or USC and get nothing above and beyond out of the deal. I'd love to go all Neil berch and demand evidence of that.
There are never enough houses on the market for agents. That's how they make their money!
From the PG March 29, 2012,
"The board also passed a revision to its board member code of ethics on Monday night. The school directors agreed to add a 15th point to its policy, which outlines board members' responsibilities and interactions with each other and their constituents.
The addition to the policy says the board members should seek the permission of the sender before disseminating communication to the public.
The policy makes an exception for nonconfidential materials in packets distributed to board members.
The last two lines mean a board member can distribute a copy of the SECRET budget that Jan Cline is hiding until after the meeting.
.
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-south/mt-lebanon-school-taxes-increase-252-mills-248451/#ixzz2HpWYdjQq
I am the 2:01 poster and I think I may be wrong about the Anti-windfall provision of 5% for school district. It appears to only apply to the municipality.
Here's hoping that is true! This way the District would be limited to a 1.7% increase without exceptions or voter approval.
I believe in one of his Audit & Finance meetings James Fraasch asked Jan if the district might get caught under the 1.7% limit although I could be wrong that was the topic.
At any rate, Jan replied there were exemptions and exclusions the district could use to skirt the limit.
It seems there is always a loop hole they can go through.
Post a Comment