Mt. Lebanon School District has not released the Capital Campaign Financial Report ending 1/31/18. As of 12/31/17, Mt. Lebanon taxpayers have spent $467,275.74 on salaries, healthcare, and fringes on a position that Lebo Citizens have been saying is totally unnecessary since the beginning of the campaign.
The breakdown for the "Director of Advancement" since its inception, is as follows:
Salaries $355,830.65
Healthcare $61,493.20
Fringes $$49,951.89
Nick Meduho had been filing Right To Knows for all the receipts concerning this issue. He had to face many obstacles because the District was not willing to surrender this information without a fight.
He asked for the "reset" presentation when then school board president Mary Birks would reply with, "Nope." I saw Nick later that week and he was still upset over the capital campaign. Nick died ten days after that school board meeting. He died from hypertension. Since he never went to a doctor, his high blood pressure was left untreated. What a senseless death. I will never forget that meeting.
Now I see that Sloane Astorino's name is no longer listed on the Capital Campaign or the MLFE website. Sloane also drew a salary and benefits for heading the MLFE. She vanished without a trace. Nothing is listed on Monday's school board agenda
Mt. Lebanon taxpayers deserve some answers. Come on, School Board Directors, do it for Nick.
35 comments:
That $467,275.74 in salaries would have paid somewhere around 50% of the costs to improve and turf the Rock Pile or better yet probably paid all of the cost to improve it with natural grass!
One would have given kids back a convenient practice field. The approach they took helped out a very small handball of people.
What a boondoggle. It really makes you question the basic competency of both the Administration and the Board. How could this silliness be allowed to go on for years at such a cost and absolutely no net benefit. Scary.
3:44, the co-chair is focused on some $700 thing with an en election campaign loan.
Wow and what does the 9 member board do when she brings this up?
Nothing, absolutely nothing.
Pathetic.
One has to wonder what these supposedly intelligent campaign leaders are thinking as they’ve run a fundraiser for 5 years that missed its goal by millions and basically lost money.
They start out throwing gobs of money investing whether there is any support in the community for such any effort. Problem is they only polled 27 people out of thousands. They interviewed themselves! It’s no wonder they got the response they wanted.
They tell the community that this is the greatest school district in PA and spending millions building a Taj Mahal high school, focused on a bridge and unique sports complex, air conditioning, and proposing lavish artificial turf projects. There’s no end to the list of showy stuff they want to spend money on.
To top it all off, they think nothing of dispensing 6% raises, $20,000 annual bonuses and top of the market compensation to a few individuals whose need were suspect in the first place.
One more thing, this is an entity that has an almost unlimited ability to take money from taxpayers to fund itself.
Yet, we’re suppose to be supportive of a secretive “reset” by the very same myopic leadership. Like their quiet phase worked so well before.
Yeah sure, it’s our fault this fundraising is a disaster. Beal’s $700 contribution to some school board candidates duped us and scared us away.
LOL
Still jumping through hoops for answers. This pertains to page 2 of the YTD 12/31/17 Capital Campaign report. Since I don't hear back from anyone, are there any Lebo Citizens who know the answer?
-----Original Message-----
From: egillen476
To: jszalinski
Cc: jklein ; schoolboard
Sent: Sun, Feb 11, 2018 1:10 pm
Subject: Fwd: Questions
Hi Jeanine,
I had a question about the RTK response attached to this email. I never got a response from Jan Klein. Should I file another Right To Know for the answer? Let me know, and I will be happy to submit one.
Elaine Gillen
-----Original Message-----
From: egillen476
To: jklein
Cc: schoolboard
Sent: Tue, Feb 6, 2018 7:03 pm
Subject: Questions
I am not able to read the section that starts out with "Finance office has pledge..." Please explain what it says and what it means.
Thank you.
Elaine Gillen
“Governor Wolf proposes increased funding to Public schools: The budget proposal would raise funding for public schools to a record level.”
The MTLSD leaves their option open for raising taxes about the Act 1 cap.
For some reason though, we’re told that to maintain our excellence school district performance we must also support a fundraiser even though that fundraiser appears to be losing money.
Doesn’t that concern anybody?
Know what Wolf’s proposal means- higher taxes and fees.
Know what MTLSD exceeding the Act 1 cap will mean- higher property taxes!
Does anyone want to put more money into a fundraiser?
I’m still baffled.
The school district is going to do a reset on a money-losing fundraiser that has also tied up $910,000 from its General Funds because they claim it will be difficult to “meet the high standards of educational excellence that Mt. Lebanon is known for, our students require for future success, and the community expects.”
At the same time that they are proclaiming that these are difficult financial times for the district the board is planning to spend over a million dollars reclaiming a practice field that they themselves took out of service for over 6 years.
Why? Some claim that if we don’t artificially turf an expand this practice field our student athletes and band members will suffer.
So for 6 years when they didn’t have a practice space at the Rock Pile were our football, soccer, lacrosse teams uncompetitive? Was the marching band out of step? Out of tune?
Before the Rock Pile was closed did the natural grass and space not work for practices?
Wonder why the board found taking the Rock Pile out of service made the most sense and was in the best interest of thousands of students and the community in general for so many years, but now we just can’t live without it being artificially turfed and expanded.
Plus if it was so all important to the community as they now claim, why didn’t they included its reconstruction in the high school renovation project?
Can you say REFERENDUM! They didn’t want to trigger one because that would’ve undermined their claims that the public majority supported the $110 million (š¤£) high school project.
10:07, can we agree on any of the following:
1. The Rockpile was taken out of service due to the construction project.
2. The decision to modify the construction agreement that would have required the contractor to return the Rockpile to its original shape and condition might have been necessary, but it was unfortunate nevertheless.
3. It doesn’t make sense to leave it the way it is right now.
4. Prior to the election, every SB member voiced the opinion that something should be done to create a full sized field - surface TBD.
5. The post-election Board voted to retain a design professional to consider what can be done and at what cost.
6. Keeping the space as a useless dirt pile serves no one, plus it’s an incredible eyesore.
7. It is going to cost us something to do anything to improve it.
Can we agree on all of that? If not, tell me where we disagree. If we do agree on 1-7, then isn’t it really just a debate over what needs to be done now. I appreciate the fact that residents may differ as to scope, surface type, etc. I personally believe that maximizing the return on the investment is a better solution than taking the less expensive option and hoping that grass grows, we get fewer days of rain and mud, and not a lot of snow. Creating a full sized turf field benefits the largest number of students of all ages and makes the most of the improved space.
Thank you 11:28 for engaging in a civil discussion. I’ll address your points.
1. Yes the Rock Pile was taken out of service due to construction.
But if it was so badly as it is argued now, why was it allowed to be taken out of service?
Could the dirt have been trucked else where? Where will it go now that they’ll be recovering the field. The piles of dirt will have to go somewhere.
2. Don’t understand your point. Don’t most construction projects including recovering areas disrupted by the construction. I believe if you put an addition on your home, zoning would require recovery of the grounds.
3. No one is claiming leave it a pile of dirt!
4. Please show me in the records where every SB member was lobbying for a full size field. Don’t believe that is true.
5. Of course they did. How many natural turf companies did they invite?
6. See response to #3.
7. Yes, of course it is going to cost something to recover the Rock Pile. That’s why when they elected to take it out of service the costs of recovering should have been in the HS renovation budget. They didn’t include that because it would have triggered a referendum on the whole project. Why was the board afraid of giving taxpayers a say?
Hope I’ve addressed your points and shown why I don’t agree with them. I look forward to your rebuttal.
At any rate, the board is scared they won’t be able to budget under this year’s Act 1 limit. They gone over 3 times already since 2009 so adding another $1.2 million debt doesn’t make sense.
“Hoping that grass grows.”
Really, 11:28?
You have absolutely no confidence that our SD facilities maintenance department can’t maintain a properly installed natural grass field? Especially considering that the grass on the Rock Pile was pretty lush before the board used it as a staging area.
As for making it regulation size, I might opt for that but first I’d be curious to hear what impact that expansion has on parking spaces.
There already are too few for things like football games and commencements and they were shy the number of parking spaces required by zoning. Remember the lawsuit between the district and the municipality over parking spaces in the HS renovation plan?
Responding to 12:30 first, the district’s facilities staff is in favor of turf because they understand the limitations, obstacles and cost of maintaining a consistently usable grass surface in W. Pa.
With respect to 12:13:
1. I’d assume that that Rockpile was used for staging to save on the cost of trucking the dirt elsewhere. I think there was also some used to backfill the tennis court space.
2. The original construction contract required that Nello restore the Rockpile to its original condition. That requirement was adjusted at the request of the contractor midway through the construction. Absent that modification, I’m not sure we’d even be having this conversation.
3. That’s good.
4. I think if you watch the meeting before the election, you will see that all of the directors were polled and each supported a full size field. The difference of opinion was with regard to the surface. If I’m mistaken, I’m only of by one.
5. The design professional that was retained has no skin in the turf vs grass debate. Their role is to design the space and provide estimates, for both grass and turf. Not to be snippy, but please watch or attend the meetings.
6. Good.
7. Restoration to grass WAS in the original contract. The SB agreed to an amendment (at the request of the contractor) that eliminated that requirement. Again, please watch or attend.
Here’s an idea! Reconfigure the dirt pile into a BMX course!
Save us a lot of money and we’d have something no other school districts have. LOL
“In 2003, the International Olympic Committee made BMX a full medal Olympic sport for 2008 Summer Olympic Games in Beijing, China, and MÄris Å trombergs (male, for Latvia) and Anne-Caroline Chausson (female, for France) became the first Olympic champions.[4][5]”
We could be raising some future Olympians!
2:08, a nice debate and yes I’ve been following the school board meetings.
you say facilities staff understands the obstacles and limitations of maintaining a consistently usable grass field. I have a problem with that declaration. I’m very familiar with the Rock Pile and the grass surface was pretty decent and I’d be hard pressed to count up a great many days where it wasn’t available for use. With alternative locations like the parking lot or gyms should there be a time when a properly created and constructed grass field isn’t available those alternatives should suffice. They did for decades before the Rock Pile was used for the renovation.
Besides, since the Rock Pile has been unavailable for 6 years, where have the kids been practicing? Could you tell us?
I saw the conversations by the board pre-election concerning the Rock Pile and my impression was they indeed all favored a full size field, some though had reservations regarding the expense and two board members were rejected by the voters.
With the district now thinking they may have trouble staying within the Act 1 budget limits, this is hardly the time to look for a $ 1.5 million expenditure.
Your reply in #1 doesn’t say where the dirt on the Rock Pile will go. So what money did the previous boards save by using the Rock Pile as a staging area?
Regarding #2, soooo! It became apparent had they not used the Rock Pile they’d never had stay within the original budget. They played games to avoid a referendum.
On the design professional, how many contractors did that professional approach for natural grass solutions? Can you name whom they contacting. Watching the presentation (and I did watch it by the way) I believe their projections for natural grass were inflated. I’d be interested in seeing their supporting documents.
Regarding #7, if the original contract was to restore the grass why don’t we just restore like the original contract demanded? That was the board’s original intent for the Rock Pile. Apparently, they thought it was good enough to put it in the contract.
So here we are, the board doesn’t think it can live within the Act 1 budget cap, thinks it still needs to rely on panhandling to maintain our district’s education goals and the board that settle on the HS renovation thought the field was good enough that they wrote it into the project contract.
I’m satisfied with that.
You still haven’t address the parking issue. The HS renovation met the zoning guidelines on the required number of spaces. Will the Rock Pile expansion cut parking spaces thus nullifying the agreement between the municipality and board reached after costly legal fees?
Yes, I follow the board and commission meetings just as you do.
Apparently 2:08, the maintenance dept. was confident enough in their ability to grow grass that they allowed the board to write storing the Rock Pile’s original natural grass in the HS renovation contract!
Odd that 6 years later they don’t think they can.
Bottom line 2:08.
The Board that accepted the original contract to renovate the high school were on board with recovering the Rock Pile to the original dimensions and natural grass.
You claim that it was due to a request from the contractor midway through the project not to recover the Rock Pile.
So we are where we are today, not because of anything the board, taxpayers or maintenance dept. requested but rather because the contractor didn’t want to recover it.
So the debate really becomes do we want to take this opportunity to create a field with artificial turf or just get back the practice field we had to begin with. At the start of the HS project everybody just wanted the original Rock Pile back and based on the board’s budget fears that is probably the wisest option.
2:08, ask the maintenance department why there is grass on the football/soccer/lacrosse fields at both Mellon and Jefferson schools despite having to absorb extra use because of the Rock Pile being out of use for 6 years.
Someone is trying to pull the wool over your eyes.
Don’t believe me go take a look.
A question 2:08.
Larry Lebowitz is quoted in the Almanac that $300,000 is hard to come by.
Can you tell us where we will find the $1.2 to $1.5 million to expand and turf the Rock Pile? Then where we will find the $800,000 to replace the turf when it wears out in 8 to 10 years?
2:08, you admonished 12:13 to watch and attend board meetings. Apparently, you have so how about responding please to 12:32’s questions!
I found Mr. Cooper’s points to be excellent. Specifically, if were even going to consider allocating $300,000 to a rifle range that will be used by two dozen students over the course of two months, a similar discussion should be had to discuss the thousands of athletes and residents of the community who will use a renovated rock pile over the course of 12 months. There is such a difference in the return on investment. If the school board is all in on $300,000 for a rifle range, they have certainly set the bar for purposes of the Rockpile discussion.
I think Monday's meeting was the best I have watched in a while. This board asked more questions than I have seen in a long time. I hate to admit it, but Bill Cooper is right. So.Is.Larry. Wow! I never thought I would be saying that. I think spending $300,000 for a rifle range that is used by 20 kids or so is absurd! Will there be a yearly fee for maintenance on top of that? What happens if there are less kids next year? How many slots will be available for student use - since that was a selling feature when pushing to replace the best grass fields in Mt. Lebanon with artificial turf?
4:46 PM, the rock pile will not be used over the course of twelve months. Be realistic. I agree that it will be used by many more kids, but you are also talking about replacing the turf at the stadium which is at the end of its life. If the board votes for artificial turf and retaining wall, they also have to build in the cost to replace artificial turf in eight years or so.
And to the person who keeps asking about where the money will come from, the capital fund must be spent on capital projects. Don't forget that a roof or text books or computers or iPads (you get the idea) also fall under the category of capital projects. Artificially turfing one or three fields will burn through that money in no time.
Being that the Century of Excellence was a total bust, I think that the school board is finally realizing that, but will never admit it. Where is Sloane Astorino? She is MIA. Where is the reset presentation? Posti, Lebowitz, Cooper, and Cappucci will never admit that their grandiose plan cost the district almost a million dollars. Tragically, the municipality asked for some of the dirt for Wildcat Field, and Jo Posti and Elaine Cappucci said no.
So what is my point? The school board directors better start thinking and acting like fiduciaries with taxpayers' money. Nix the $300,000 commitment with the municipality and start in terms of ROI.
Elaine
4:46, you are correct concerning a ROI, but the funny thing is to have a ROI you have to have the money to invest in the first place!
It is not like the administration and board did not know they’d be hard pressed for money today. Jan Klein essentially said during Audit & Finance meetings, not to worry when James Fraasch asked if the HS project would impact the district’s ability to stay within Act 1 limits!
Look at the The Almanac article on the district’s proposed tax rate for 2018. James was the canary in the coal mine!
Mr. Lebowitz claims finding $300,000 to invest in a shooting range is very difficult. Finding 5 times that amount is even tougher and turf is a perpetual problem requiring hundreds of thousands of dollars in new turf every 8-10 years!
With the rifle range investment that $300,000 is good for 20 or more with very little additional upkeep.
Furthermore, the Rock Pile and the rifle range should have been included in the original HS renovation. They kept them out to get out of a referendum ballot question.
Elaine, there’s no question that the Rockpile with turf would be used 12 months out of the year. Not every day of course, but it will most certainly be used every month. Look at Wildcat. It’s been used every month for both official and unofficial activities. The HS baseball team is out there whenever there’s no snow. Today, in fact. Lacrosse and other groups have used Wildcat in November, December and January for workouts and pick up games. It would certainly be a year round facility.
Also, the notion that every turf replacement costs the same as the initial install is simply not true. We know that from our 40+ years of experience with turf in the District. To suggest that it costs $800,000 every 8-10 years is simply not true. Morever, given the timing of the Rockpile renovation and the age of the HS turf it actually does make good financial sense to do both at the same time and save money on the replacement of the HS turf. This was noted in one of Mr. Marciniak’s earlier presentations.
Absolutely agree Elaine with ROI in mind.
Nix the shooting range entirely. There is a range in Bridgeville where the police can hone there shooting skills for about $15/month. I’ll bet the municipality could make a good group discount for the police dept.
A good question to ask is how many neighboring police departments have shooting ranges? How do their officers stay proficient marksman?
Now if the municipality wants a better ROI, then perhaps they should make a public range available to everyone like the skating rink or tennis courts.
As for turf vs grass. Long term grass is cheaper and considering our band and athletes have done without the Rock Pile for 6 years, maybe we don’t need it all that much at this time considering the proposed tax hike.
7:05 PM, after buying the plans from Gateway for Wildcat, I am well aware of the replacement costs vs. initial costs. I know about grading, drainage, E layers, etc. I never said that the costs were the same, so please don't say that I did. If done properly, those costs only come into play with the initial install.
It only makes sense to do both at the same time, if 1.) The board moves forward with artificial turf for the Rock Pile, and 2.) It is in the budget. The whole pot can't go to fields, you know. There are other capital expenses besides fields. We were told originally that the high school roof was bad, and then miraculously, they weren't that bad after all. I am sure that we will be facing roof replacements district wide one of these days. Blow it all on fields and that will put us all in deep doo doo.
Elaine
You sure 7:05 that 8-10 year turf life span estimates and $800,000 projections are far-fetched?
History over the last decade and a half suggest prudent financial planning would be to plan for replacing turf somewhere near the 8-10 time frame and cost.
Turf replacement at the stadium in 2011 was budgeted for $750,000. See page 128 of 197 in budget document below.
The replacement came just 7 years after the previous replacement in 2003.
(From Pgh PG February 2003. “The school board voted 8 0 Monday , night, with member Ron Hoffman absent, to replace the artificial turf and track and to add a sixth track lane to the high school stadium”)
I’m fairly certain the next stadium replacement will be more than the $750,000 estimate in 2011.
https://www.mtlsd.org/uploaded/District/Budget/budget2010.11.pdf
Stadium field complex replace stadium turf............. $750,000.
Elaine, 2:08 is blowing smoke. No one here in these comments suggested replacement costs equal initial installation.
Didn’t say that you did Elaine. But 12:32 and others certainly have. To replace a typical, full-sized football or soccer turf field, usually runs about $4.75-5.00 per square foot. These fields are approximately 80,000 square feet.
Here we go again!
“Costs: Synthetic Turf — Safe Healthy Playing Fields Coalition“
http://www.safehealthyplayingfields.org/costs-synthetic-turf/
Synthetic turf fields are extremely expensive to install, cost more than advertised to maintain, and typically last 7-10 years. At the end-of-life of a synturf field, there is costly and dangerous work to be done to remove of and properly dispose of the carpets.
"Because these materials tend to wear out over time, they must be replaced every 8-10 years for a cost of around $500,000"
- Brian Wolfson, Duke University Soccer Politics Blog, 2015
The Sports Turf Managers Association suggests including the cost of replacement in your budget. "Plan on an approximate range of $6.50 to $7.80 per sq. ft. for the disposal and resurfacing of a synthetic field." This makes the cost or replacement for one football field (57,600 sq. ft) at least $374,400 - $449.280.
Source: A Guide to Synthetic and Natural Turfgrass for Sports Fields (Sports Turf Managers Association) (prepared in 2008 and updated in 2014)
COSTS FOR SYNTHETIC TURF DISPOSAL ALONE CAN RANGE FROM $45,000-$191,000 OR MORE
Source: Cost Analysis - Sports Turf Alternatives Assessment, September 2016 , Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Institute
Let’s see a link to Mr. Marciniak’s Rock Pile presentation, please.
9:46, you say “these fields are approximately 80,000 sq. ft.”
If we use the Sports Turf Managers Association highest sq. ft. costs of $7.80/sq. ft. for disposal and replacement then replacement of your 80,000 sq. ft. field would be around $624,000.
OK, not the $800,000 claimed by 12:32, but figuring the Sports Turf Management article is from 2014 and allowing for inflation and increasing disposal cost (remember our garbage tipping fees are going up) $800,000 or there about is a safe projection.
I’d rather project on the high side and be pleasantly surprised by a lower bid than budget low and not have enough money.
Once turf is installed the district is pretty much locked into replacing it whatever the cost.
From Duke University!
“As one can see, maintaining a natural grass field is slightly more expensive than a turf field, but not by a significant margin. Plus, if one takes into consideration the $500,000 that must be paid every 8-10 years to replace the carpet of an artificial turf field, and the fact that it is at least $250,000 more expensive to implement, then using natural grass ends up being cheaper in the short and long run.”
https://sites.duke.edu/wcwp/tournament-guides/world-cup-2015-guide/all-about-that-turf/turf-vs-grass/
Did everyone read that last sentence from Duke University? I’ll repeat it!
“...using natural grass ends up being cheaper in the short and long run.”
So here we are, the district that projects to need to exceed PA Dept. of Education Act 1 taxing limits for a fourth time in just 9 years want to go the expensive route to bring back a ‘practice field!’
Enough said?
I cringe whenever quotes are posted here, but 10:05 AM, this quote by the famous Stanford psychologist, Leon Festinger is for you.
A man with conviction is a hard man to change.
Tell him you disagree and he runs away.
Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources.
Appeal to his logic and he fails to see your point.
I appreciate your tenacity, but nothing is going to change people's minds. You saw it with the high school renovation. Same group of people, 10:05 AM.
Elaine
Appreciate that you appreciate my tenacity, but if nothing is going to change peoples’ minds, what in the world are we doing here?
If the same people are in charge and it’s the high school renovation all over again, just what are we taxpayers suppose to do?
Post a Comment