I never thought this day would come. The 2013-14 Final Budget approved on May 20, 2013 has finally been posted on the School District website. After filing RTKs and sending emails to the School District, it is available here. The document contains 199 pages, so have fun!
The cost of the grievance has not been budgeted this year.
ReplyDeleteSee page 12.
Where is that $100,000,000 house that is mentioned on page 8?
ReplyDeleteElaine
If the grievance was not budgeted this year, did we lose and raise salaries a lot this year or next?
ReplyDeleteElaine, that house is now worth $115,500,000
ReplyDeleteFrom page 12:
ReplyDelete"At the time this Budget was approved, the teachers’ union (MLEA) filed a grievance requesting that some of their members be placed higher on the pay scale for their service time as permanent substitute teachers even though our contract specifically says this is not to occur and a prior year arbitration on this issue was resolved in the District’s favor. The result of this grievance could cost over $900,000 if decided in the MLEA’s favor. This cost has not been budgeted this year."
Wasn't it in the early spring when Tom Peterson told a constituent that they were waiting for an interpretation of the decision that was made in January? Didn't he say that it was going to be any time now - back then?
Elaine
On page 17, is that the certificate that Jan pays $900 to receive?
ReplyDeleteElaine
Two interesting items on page 6 and 7 of 207 in the pdf.
ReplyDeleteLast sentence on page 6;
"The large increase in state funding is due to the large increase in funding for the PSERS retirement system from 12.36% of salaries to 16.93 % of salaries, a 37% increase. Since the state funds half the
cost of the retirement payments, the funding from the state increased accordingly. Unfortunately, so
did our expenditures in response to that rate increase."
Unfortunately... the state doesn't control the amount that salaries increase, therefore directly increasing pension cost. That control is held by the local school district.
So, we've been told by Ms. Birks and others that the state has reduced its funding which Ms. Klein states isn't true.
When Ms. Birks declares that the state needs to send more money, she is ignoring the fact that the state has budget problems of its own and that any increase it might pass along to her would likely come from tax increases on us.
Page 7:
"The School Board requested the administration put together a budget which minimized any millage
increase. The administration responded to this request by carefully reviewing all current programs and looking for ways to reduce costs. The superintendent met with staff to hear their ideas on how to reduce costs within the system. Utilizing some of their concepts and requesting that all budgets for consumables be held to no increase from 2012-13, the administration put together a budget which reduces costs in many areas of the budget."
An area of the budget directly under the Superintendent's direct control is administrative staffing and salaries. Apparently. he and his assistant administrators not wanting to feel any pain INCREASED THEIR COMPENSATION (no reduction), added an $82,500/yr campaign coordinator and even handed out some $1,000 bonuses.
Just a reminder of how everyone in the district isn't quite on the same sacrifice page.
"The District began the renovation of our high school facility in early 2012. This facility contains about half of the total square footage of all District buildings. It is therefore a significant cost consideration.
The estimated cost for the planned renovation totals $109 million."
Gee, we passed that $109 million mark a while ago didn't we? What ever happened to that much touted >$100 million number, Mr. Kubit, Mr. Remely?
Gee, no wonder they thought they could afford the HS Taj Mahal!
ReplyDeleteSomewhere in Mt. Lebanon someone is living in a $100,000,000+ home. What'd that bring in-- $2,262,000/yr in SD taxes.
Too bad they decided not to oppose those underassessed homes, they'd have caught that one.
For all the expensive help the district has, isn't there anyone that can proofread an important document?
This is the part that just frosts me!
ReplyDelete"An area of the budget directly under the Superintendent's direct control is administrative staffing and salaries. Apparently. he and his assistant administrators not wanting to feel any pain INCREASED THEIR COMPENSATION (no reduction), added an $82,500/yr campaign coordinator and even handed out some $1,000 bonuses.
Just a reminder of how everyone in the district isn't quite on the same sacrifice page."
Isn't this info a little dated?: "Mt. Lebanon High School was awarded a National Blue Ribbon by the U.S. Department of Education in 1983-84; 1990-91; and 1997-98." How sad.
I don't see any revenue from the YSA. Are they are officially MIA?
Elaine
In 1984 Dr. Blacka was superintendent and in 1991 and 1998 Dr. Smartshcan was superintendent.
ReplyDeleteElaine, that part that frost you... You didn't repeat this from the budget document-
ReplyDelete""The School Board requested the administration put together a budget which minimized any millage increase. The administration responded to this request by carefully reviewing all current programs and looking for ways to reduce costs. The superintendent met with staff to hear their ideas on how to reduce costs within the system."
Some of their ideas:
Charge students a higher parking fee (total $5,000) which they promptly turned around and spent on bonuses for 5 administrators.
Then they also added extracurricular fees, the collection of which will probably require the addition of another staffer to monitor sometime in the near future.
THIS BUDGET IS BULLSHIT!
ReplyDeleteEVERY MT LEBANON RESIDENT SHOULD BE LIVID!
WE NEED A MATH FACILITATOR? FOR WHAT? WHAT ARE WE PAYING THESE LAVISH SALARIES FOR? CAN'T THEY TEACH???? TELL THE TEACHERS TO GET OFF THE STICK AND PERFORM, OR GET THE HELL OUT OF OUR SCHOOL DISTRICT!
THE TAXPAYERS ARE EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE. WHAT - WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THIS $83 MILLION DOLLAR INSTITUTION LEAD BY AN ASPIRING TEACHERS UNION ACTIVIST? ARE WE GOING TO CONTINUE TO LET THE TEACHERS UNION DRAIN EVERY PENNY FROM WHAT IS LEFT IN OUR POCKETS?
BOY, THE DAUBNER FAMILY SURE CLEANED UP WITH THIS ONE! WHAT THE HELL IS THE MATTER WITH YOU PEOPLE?
WAKE UP, GET INTERESTED, GET INVOLVED, VOTE AND END THIS BULLSHIT!
11:24 AM, the math facilator is to teach the teachers that horrible math program called TERC Investigations. You may recall how unresponsive the school board was to the math parents. I guess this is the board's fix to a bad program.
ReplyDeleteElaine
EXACTLY! YOU DON'T FIX A FLAT TIRE BY CUTTING ANOTHER HOLE IN THE RUBBER AND BLOWING IN MASSIVE HOT AIR AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE!
ReplyDeleteYOU WOULD THINK THAT THE SB PRESIDENT, WHO IS THE DAUGHTER OF MTL TEACHER UNION ACTIVIST AND MT LEBANON MATH TEACHER DAUBNER WOULD KNOW BETTER...OR MAYBE THE FAMILY KNOWS HOW DIRE MATH EDUCATION IS UP THERE!
Dire? what are you talking about in all caps?
ReplyDeleteHow did one family "clean up" 11:24? Your all caps rant makes absolutely no sense! Our teachers need to "get off the stick and perform"? What the #$@$ are you talking about? Our schools are among the best in the state. Our teachers are performing!
ReplyDeleteI was waiting for this day because I wanted to prove that not only is Posti a plagiarizer, but she is a liar as well. So is Jan Klein.
ReplyDeleteRemember in the meeting where Ms. Posti asked the leading question of Ms. Klein about how much more borrowing capacity the District would have after floating these bonds? Posti went so far as to suggest that the District would have $30 million or so ADDITIONAL funds to borrow AFTER they float the current bonds. Her point of asking this was to suggest that we are not maxing out the district credit card.
Well, well, well.
Turn to page 121 of the district budget where Ms. Klein has done the calculation for us and it shows as of June 30, 2012 we had $33,428,376 left to borrow before we hit our debt limit.
Now, how much was our district going out to borrow this time around? Oh yeah, $35 million!
http://tinyurl.com/kwwuxkz
So not only did they max out what they could from the June 2012 date, but they are even borrowing more since they paid down a bit of the principal since June 2012.
Jan lied when she answered the question and Posti HAD to know the answer before she even asked it.
Guys, the credit card is maxed.
No wonder there is no money for the weight room!
No money for program change proposals either.
And that, my friend at 12:05 PM, is why the final budget was posted so late.
ReplyDeleteElaine
From Josephine Posti's blog on August 13, 2013, "Even after this bond issuance, our borrowing capacity will still be about $30 million and will only increase over time as we continue to pay down debt. Should the District decide to start any future capital projects such as middle school renovations, the high school project's bonds will not limit our ability to do so."
ReplyDeleteShe and Lebowitz are already looking to spend more. I am so glad that there are only four candidates running for four seats. As the Greeks say, "Kala na patheis."
καλά να πάθεις -> it serves you right, you got what you deserved, you asked for it, that'll teach you.
Elaine
Ms. Posti said, ". . . our borrowing capacity will still be about $30 million and will only increase over time as we continue to pay down debt."
ReplyDeleteShe forgot to mention the borrowing capacity will also increase over time as we increase the property tax.
The credit card is not fully spent and Mrs. Posti's $30,000,000 remaining borrowing capacity is a low number.
ReplyDeleteJohn Ewing
John
ReplyDeleteI disagree. If they had to borrow just $10 million tomorrow, they wouldn't be able to without a referendum.
2:28,
ReplyDeleteSign your name and check your facts.
John Ewing
John
ReplyDeletePage 121 is "the facts" and they just borrowed all of it.
John E., how do you interpret page 121?
ReplyDeleteElaine
Page 121 of the newly posted Budget appears to show the Debt Limit through June 30, 2012 at $33,428,476 that can be borrowed without a referendum.
ReplyDeletePage 7 of the Official Statement of the 2013 Bond Issue discloses $34,745,000 in Face Value of Bonds plus $1,294,383.30 in Bond Premium received for a
Total Sources of Funds of $36,029,383.30.
The deposit to the Construction Fund was $32,952,802.63.
Page 12 of the Official Statement of the 2013 bonds says:
Remaining Borrowing Capacity of $38,683,468.
I would think this would be the Borrowing Capacity Mrs. Posti was speaking about but if it is the Borrowing Capacity as of June 30, 2013 then 2:28 is correct and the District can’t raise $10 million more just yet without a referendum. If so, where did Mrs. Posti get her $30,000,000 number?
Page 12 of the Official Statement also says:
“There are no further capital improvement projects presently contemplated by the School District that would require the incurrence of additional bonded indebtedness.”
If there are “ . . . no further capital improvement projects presently contemplated by the School District that would require the incurrence of additional bonded indebtedness.” what is Mrs. Posti saying and why is she saying it?
John Ewing
So it looks like the remaining borrowing capacity in the prospectus, as John points out, was about $38 million.
ReplyDeleteThis was an increase from the June 2012 number due to regular debt service payments and increases in budget expenditures.
They borrowed $36 million of it leaving them with roughly $2 million left to borrow against.
Now, over time that amount will increase but not as much as you might think. Remember the structure of these bonds is such that very little principal is paid for the first number of years.
One would hope that Steinhauer/Klein and the Board have a forecast in place for future capital projects and estimated dates of future borrowing.
Thanks for explaining that to us, John. I knew you would understand it. As far as Josephine, I don't think she knew what she was saying. She was probably just reading the script. Clearly, Timmy didn't write the introduction. It was more than 140 characters. So who wrote it? Timmy and the board, minus Scott Goldman, aren't capable of original thoughts.
ReplyDeleteElaine
I am studying whether the school district investigates student residency in Mt Lebanon. I asked The Board about this and Ms. Cappucci emailed me that she is unaware of any data on how often the District investigates student residency.
ReplyDeleteWhat I've also discovered is that the District can request tax filing information from the student's parents.
What I don't know is the level of authority that a teacher has to read the tax return of a student's parent.
Does anyone else know how this process is administered by the District?
I'd hate to think that we have a practice of people renting a room to establish residency while living elsewhere. Wouldn't it really suck knowing that we're at the point where people rent to avoid the nightmare that the Board has dumped on all Mt Lebanon taxpayers?
Wouldn't it suck even more if your kids teacher was reading your tax returns?
John David Kendrick
John (Ewing),
ReplyDeleteThank you for your wonderful presentation of the facts.
John & John,
ReplyDeleteIt's a well known fact that there are some students who are living with grandparents or aunts & uncles to enable them to attend MTLSD. They are not adoptee's or foster children.