Key words: "Exceptions...if commissioners approved an increase unanimously"

The sky's the limit, thanks to uninformed Mt. Lebanon voters. 3,865 voters voted yes to give commissioners the power to raise taxes at any amount, if there is a unanimous vote. Voters thought they were voting to limit property tax increases.

 

The Post-Gazette reported  

In the race for the two-year seat, Mr. Riemer secured the Democratic nomination, and Ms. Cappucci will be the Republican nominee.

Way to go, Republicans. Elaine Cappucci is a Democrat and running for the seat that she resigned from or as an anonymous comment from May 17 succinctly stated, "Mt. Lebanon Republicans voted for Cappucci to appear on the November ballot for the two year term ... which is the very same seat that she gave up so that her son could get his (in through the back door, ill-deserved) job." You couldn't even support DePlato, a Republican!

Janice Crompton also reported,

Ms. Birks was the subject of recent controversy over accusations of a conflict of interest involving her role as executive director of Outreach Teen & Family Services.

No worries! Republicans voted to keep Mary Birks on the ballot, as well as the rest of the Timmy Ticket. As a Republican, I hang my head in shame.

Aaugh!!! UPDATED

I can't get on any sites for election results. I received a text that Bob Lee lost, but I haven't been able to confirm that.

I understand that Mary Birks is completely out. Mike Riemer finished first. So far, that's all I know.

Sorry that this post is in piecemeal.

Try this site for County results:
http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/PA/Allegheny/68994/Web02/#/

It looks like Cappucci won the 2 year term on the R ballot, and Riemer won the 2 year term on the D ballot.

Total votes (adding both R & D)

Cappucci 2194

Riemer 2642

Diamond 2270

Strotmeyer 2423

Caste 2038

Remely 1588

DePlato was only on the R ballot with 328 votes.

On the Dem ballot for 4 years: 

Riemer 

Diamond

Strotmeyer

Cappucci

On the Rep ballot for 4 years:

Caste

Cappucci

Remely

Riemer

Here are the updated unofficial results. The County has to certify the absentee ballots in the next week or so.

I do know that Mt. Lebanon voted yes for the commissioners to raise taxes. Shaking my head.

Update May 17, 2017 5:04 PM The Pennsylvania Ethics Commission received additional information concerning my complaint against Elaine Cappucci this morning at 10:41.

What does this mean?

On Monday's Commission Discussion Session Agenda, Item number 5:

Section 914 Tax Rates from the Home Rule Charter

Is this going to be one of those crazy referendums again? Remember this one that was on the front page of The Almanac? Brilliant MTL Commissioners and and the Voters Violate State Law

November 2014

Oh what will they think of next?

Newcomers, School Board Meeting on Tuesday

Normally, the Mt. Lebanon School Board would be meeting on Monday, but due to the Holiday, it has been moved to Tuesday, April 15, 2014. The agenda has been posted here.

On the agenda,

2014-2015 Proposed Final Budget: RESOLVED, That the Board approves a Proposed Final Budget in the amount of $87,924,509, at a millage rate of 23.15 mills, a .54 mill increase from 2013-14, utilizing $750,000 of the fund balance in the form presented.
Furthermore, the Board intends to vote on a Final Budget with such changes as it deems necessary at its May 19, 2014 meeting.

For those new to the system, residents are permitted to speak for four minutes at the beginning of the meeting, only on action items on the agenda. I see that Bill Matthews has requested to speak. My guess it is concerning the Proposed Final Budget. I hope President Cappucci actually listens to him this time instead of watching the time clock. Last year, she was very rude to him.

Last year, the school board was a smidgeon more transparent than they are this year. Last year, a list of suggested cost reductions was published and discussed at a separate Budget Forum. This year, we will learn more about the "Final Budget with such changes as it deems necessary at its May 19, 2014 meeting."

Another very important topic, which started prior to the newcomers' arrival is the high school renovation. The Almanac reports in the article Retirements, tuition payments will help close Lebo budget gap (Saved in Google Docs) concerning the $91,713 change order on the agenda:

the installation of additional sprinklers in the catwalk area above the auditorium. Project plans had not flagged this as occupied space. 

Architect Tom Celli said this was a miss by the design team. “When you have a project of this size and complexity, with materials and controls coming from all over the country, these things are going to happen. We have gotten nothing but great feedback, whether from people in the community or those who have competed in the gym or the swimming pool.”

I am glad that Dan Remely didn't throw Fire Chief Sohyda under the bus, as he had done in the past. I question Celli's comment about the great feedback about the swimming pool. I understand that the railing reported in the Fall is still taped off with caution tape.

The Almanac article continues with

contractors have billed 72 percent of construction costs, and have used 71 percent of the project’s contingency funds. 

Both Celli and project manager Tom Berkebile expressed confidence that the project would finish within the established contingency. 

“It’s going to be close,” Berkebile said, “but I still feel confident we’re going to get there.”

What that means is that the project should have gone to Referendum, but it would never have passed. If they go over, then voters get to decide to leave a school partially completed, or approve the project after the fact. We were told that the high school renovation would bring people to the community, similar to the rhetoric we are hearing about the artificial turf on Cedar Blvd. Aren't you glad you moved here?

If newcomers (and any other residents) wish to speak about items unrelated to the agenda, you must wait until the end of the meeting, where you are given five minutes to speak. Warning, the school board will be watching the clock instead of listening to what you have to say. These are the same people who have been working with Diversified Municipal Services for years. Enough said.

Construction timeline revealed at Commission Discussion Session

Last night, Dr. Ron Davis presented an update concerning student parking, a timeline of construction and answered commissioners' questions.  Here is a link to the discussion session. It is the first item on the agenda. 02 06 12 Commission Discussion Session

The construction timeline is as follows:
Contractors are localizing. For the remainder of this semester, MOST of the work will be occurring outside of the current high school building.  Construction of the athletic building (on the tennis courts site) and the new science wing (grassy surface in front of the swimming pool) will be the starting point.
Summer and throughout the course of the next school year, work will continue on the athletic building and science wing. SOME of the work will be inside, renovating the Fine Arts Theatre and one floor at a time starting with the sixth floor in Building B.
The next school year should include completion of the Fine Arts Theatre, sixth and fifth floors renovation. Work will continue with renovation of the fourth and third floor.  Demolition of Building C will occur during the 2014-15 school year.

A couple of questions:
When will the asbestos abatement occur? A concerned parent informed me that their child reported that walls are being knocked down and plastic is going up.  Is this going to be another example of hypocrisy like having the students park on Washington Road, Main Entrance, and Jefferson while the adults park on site?

Further in the discussion, several commissioners addressed concerns about on street parking, line painting, and the confusion about whether Horsman Drive will be closed or open. Commissioner Fraasch noticed that a 2010 document said nothing about Horsman Drive closing.

I spoke with a Main Entrance Drive resident who told me that neighbors are gridlocking Main Entrance by parking their cars in front of their houses to block students from parking.  But according to one resident on Main Entrance, a relative of a school official, everything is delightful. Of course.

I find it curious that the athletic building and science buildings are going up first.  If the high school is in such abominable shape, why begin there?  Is it so that when the money runs out, the referendum will be necessary for the kids' safety?  How could we vote no? It is for the kids.

I know this will fall on deaf ears for sure.

This letter to the editor will just be ignored, but I hope that some day, the School Board will realize what we have been saying for two years. I don't want to see a letter like this in the Almanac about the cost of our high school renovation.

Cost of Bethel school is overwhelming

There is an old saying...the glass is half full or half empty.

Of course, we all want to be optimistic about the new high school construction...but the glass is getting too full and overflowing with higher and higher costs, which are drowning us, something none of us wanted.

The original bid for the new building was about $78M. Then, some things were upgraded, such as floors to be terrazzo instead of linoleum, etc. Slowly the new cost became $81M, and we were told by some board members that it would be not a dime over $81M. What worthless assurance that was because at the writing of this article, the new figure is now $91M...with no end in sight.

The administration now tells us that there is $6M dollars left over and that we are under budget. How can that be, when $81M is now $91M? Aren't the figures being confused?

A bond issue was taken out for about $93M (and that was excessive for a $78M bid). Then added to that were several millions more of our hard earned taxpayers' dollars, leftover, after a previous bond issue was satisfied. These dollars should have been returned to us taxpayers by lowering the millage rate, but it was not. Therefore, the funds available for this project grew to about $98M dollars.

A lot of money had to be used to correct some really huge problems on the site upon which the new building now sits. The administration/school board were warned many times about the excessive waters under the ground and that it was very unsuitable as a construction site for the new high school, but they ignored it. As a result, hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent in trying to correct this problem, such as buying limestone to dry up the dirt, as well as installing a manhole inside the building (which is a rarity) that is equipped with a sump pump for water drainage. All of this added change order after change order, which seems to have been a regular pattern throughout this construction project.

In addition to all of this, and yet to come, is the most difficult chore of all...the demolition of the campus style buildings, which can be full of surprises. Since those buildings have been sitting there for many decades, no one will predict what can happen. How many more change orders will result?

To attend these monthly board meetings and witness these soaring costs of the new Bethel Park High School is indeed frustrating, as well as frightening. For many, it has been difficult to accept especially when the consent of the people, via a referendum vote, was never allowed to occur. So, now we ask, if the sump pump fails and the tax dollars dry up...then what?

Nita Potocar

Bethel Park

"...it's easier to say 'I'm sorry' than it is to ask for permission."

With Act 25 passed, I hope the Board isn't planning to forge ahead and half way through construction say, "I'm sorry.  I guess we need a referendum to complete this project." Word on the street is that the Board is being advised that we "shouldn't" need a referendum.  Now that we no longer have an Audit and Finance
Committee, who will the auditors be reporting to in the Fall?  There are no more checks and balances in the School District.

It is fascinating to read old Mt. Lebanon blogs.  Some commenters have been consistent with their messages, while others changed direction.  The bottom line is that there were previews of coming attractions in 2009. 
The following comments are from an old Blog-Lebo post from two years ago.

Dave Franklin said...

There is an area of bankruptcy and corporate law known as the "zone of insolvency". In short, this is a growing legal principle created by the Bankruptcy Courts that provides that when a company is approaching insolvency, the focus of the directors' fiduciary duty should shift from the shareholders to the company's creditors. In other words, if a board is even concerned about possibly being insolvent, the best course of action is to begin acting like the corporation is insolvent. Therefore, from a practical standpoint, the board should not continue with business as usual when there are indications that the company may be insolvent.

So what am I getting at?

Well, if we are within $500,000 (or even $1,000,000) of the price tag that would require a referendum, it's pretty safe to assume that by the time this project is even close to done, we will be well above that threshold cost. Anyone who has undertaken any sort of construction project - whether at home or at work - appreciates that construction costs go up, not down. One rule of thumb that some people in the industry use is to take the anticipated costs and add 8-10%. If we apply a way more conservative potential cost increase to this project, say just 2%, that would mean an additional $2,300,000 added to the price of this project. By anyone's standards, therefore, it only seems prudent for the board to acknowledge that the *total* cost of this project (as presently considered) will exceed the amount that they can legally borrow and spend without a community-wide vote. In other words, if we're even talking about the need for a referendum, the school board should start acting like we are in the "zone of a referendum".

It was last reported that the borrowing threshold is about $115.5 million. It seems to me that there is no reasonable way (when factoring in cost increases, delays, etc) that this project (as presently considered) can come in under the threshold amount. In light of that, what are the board's obligations with respect to seeking a community-wide vote? When does that happen? I just hope that the school board isn't applying another ill-fated principle - the one that states that it's easier to say "I'm sorry" than it is to ask for permission.

And I must agree with Mr. Hart. If we're banking on a $1.7 million reimbursement from the Commonwealth, I'm not holding my breath. In case no one on the School Board is paying attention, the state today enters its 4th week with no budget and by most accounts it could be weeks yet before Pennsylvania is able to pay its vendors or the 77,000 government employees. If Pennsylvania can't pass a budget in time to pay its employees, I'm hard pressed to put any sort of faith in receiving state funds for our school project. Besides, if this $115 million project lives or dies based on $1.7 million from the state, we've got much bigger problems.

JULY 23, 2009 10:02 AM

 Bill Lewis said...

Dave...please refer to my comments on Joe Polks posting "Energy Certification Costs Raises Eyebrows in Mt. Lebanon" on 7/23.

Another *hidden* cost of the HS project, worth repeating once again, is the proposed wrapping of proposed & scheduled 2nd.& 3rd. bond issues that would result in excess interest costs amounting to $10 million over the term of the issues. Exactly the amount we're incurring in the $50 million bond issue for the Elementary School project in 2003 that will require $103 million in tax $ to pay down. All in the name of minimizing the initial tax increase that a normal serial, and lower overall cost, bond issue would otherwise require. Equivilant to interest-only mortgages with baloon principal payments during the final 3 years of the mortgage term. And there has been no public outcry that I am aware of. Based on your comments, perhaps we are contributing to the "subprime lending" debacle ? And it is nigh-on impossible to get bond insurance these days; however, the Commonwealth backs school bonds to some degree...but they appear to be insolvent in many respects as well.

The key differences between the Commonwealth & public school boards and the general public is that the Commonwealth & school boards have taxing & police powers, and we do not. And the public referendum law and regulations are a farce.

JULY 25, 2009 11:46 AM 

Update 8:40 a.m.  I received a link to a Youtube video about Obama that reminded me of what is happening in Mt. Lebanon.  http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=gQD9IaGoLWk 

Here are some bullet points from that video.

"You ignored us.

We pleaded.

You mocked us.

You signed it...in spite of us.

We said no.

November Arrives "Shellacking"

(I have no idea why this update is appearing in upper case.) 

Woowhoo!

According to the Trib, the Act 1 Exemptions passed yesterday.

Later Wednesday night the House by a 99-98 margin approved an amendment from Rep. Seth Grove, R-York County, to tighten existing language in state law covering referenda. "It is designed to prevent property tax increases," said House Majority Leader Mike Turzai, R-Bradford Woods.

What this means to Mt. Lebanon is that we cannot afford the High School Renovation without going to referendum. The School Board is stuck with the $75 million already borrowed + half the fund balance of $5 million + $5-10 million more borrowed without having to raise taxes over and above Act 1 limits, totaling $85-90 million.  The School Board needs to do some serious fundraising for those bike racks!!!  OR the School Board needs to come up with that $75 million plan almost 4,000 people asked for.  Somebody needs to tell the architect.

Read more: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_744554.html

Update July 2, 2011 Final 2011-12 Budget Printout

This is BIG

Through a Right to Know Request, PlanCon F Attachment C can be found here.  PlanCon F Attachment C

In this document, Janice Klein answered Question 7 with "To be determined" even though Tom Celli specifically said at the April 25 meeting that a second Act 34 hearing or referendum is not required.

In Question 8, the School District plans to rebid, yet the Board is divided on this.  Or is the Board not the decision maker here?

Added: March 23 PlanCon F Architectural Review
            PlanCon F

More questions

At the December 20, 2010 School Board Meeting, a resident asked the School Board the following questions.  The School Board attempted to answer some of them.  12/20/2010 School Board Business Meeting  Looking at the photo of Hoover School, the questions are asked just under the lamp post on the podcast.  Are you satisfied with their answers?  What about the unanswered questions?

  

1. Mr. Ostergaard, do you think our reputable architect who was born and raised in Mt. Lebanon, attended K thru twelve, have an advantage in knowing the community’s wants, needs, and affordabilities?  Were you surprised that they didn’t use one suggestion that the Community Advisory Committee made?  Was the CAC only an exercise in pacifying the community?
2. Ms. Posti, you didn’t think, we as a community had the right to vote on a huge project that will be financially life-altering for our residents.  Do you think it is morally right to tax families and seniors out of their homes?  These seniors have paid their dues for years building this community.  Collectively, you have taken their rights away.  Do you have any regrets?
3. Ms. Birks, has our football team gone undefeated this year?  Did the girls’ basketball and softball teams win the WPIALs?   Bricks and mortar didn’t win the WPIALs.  Talent, hard work, and excellent coaching did.  Our kids just proved that we don’t need the state of the arts sports center.  Yes, we do need the gym, locker, and shower rooms to be safe, clean, and healthy for them.  This is without question.
4. Mrs. Rose, a family living in a $150,000 home earning $50,000 will not be able to remain here in Mt. Lebanon.  Are you willing to cut the extra amenities out of the school project so they may continue to remain in their home and community that they love?  You know it is never too late to do the right thing. 
5. Mr. Peterson, is it true that you wrote a memo proving that a discussion took place in a meeting with some of our present board members about keeping this project under referendum to keep the community from voting? Is this ethical?
6. Mr. Kubit, do you know that according to our tax collector, there are a good number of residents that are a year behind in paying their taxes? If you haven’t noticed, the homes in Mt. Lebanon aren’t selling quickly as the past due to the sky rocketing taxes.  The exodus of Mt. Lebanon has already begun with 244 homes for sale.  Upper St. Clair 121.
7. Ms. Cappucci, I am not here to argue.  I just want to know the truth. My curiosity was peaked at the November 15^th meeting.  The fact that Mr. Kubit stopped everyone from answering Mrs. Stephenson’s question about the budget for the school relating to the referendum limit or not having a certain figure in your mind for the cost of the school.  Mr. Remely volunteered his answer. It was no.  I would like to know if you were present during the discussion regarding keeping the cost of the school under the referendum.  Yes or No?

So let me summarize what has been going on.

Fact: You intentionally kept this project from referendum.

Fact: The majority of the residents was not once to keep the renovation of the school not to exceed the $75 million already borrowed.

Fact: Four thousand signatures on that petition were ignored.

Fact: The Community Advisory Committee was an exercise in appeasement.

Fact: You have ignored the facts presented to you not only from professionals in their field but from our community. The news screams how bad the economy is.  The whole country has been tightening their belts.  Why aren’t we?

Fact: According to our tax collector, I said the residents are behind in paying their taxes.

Fact: You are building this school knowingly that residents living here at present, making $50,000 a year, will not be able to stay in their homes.  This is called profiling. This is called discrimination and that’s illegal.

Is there something more sinister going on?  It seems to me that you are planning to get rid of many more residents that aren’t up to your standards financially. I guess having more revenue from an elitist community will get you anything your heart desires.  I personally prefer a well diverse community like we have now.

Also, President Posti asks the resident for the copy of the document.  Mr. Peterson was already aware of it.  Didn't President Posti see it in her packet?  Why did everyone know about except her?

Keeping it under the referendum

I have uploaded the June 8, 2009 school board business meeting on lebocitizens.com. Part 2 of the meeting can be heard at June 8, 2009 School Board Meeting, Part 2 As I wrote in the comments:
Discussion about adding a third gym, adding two lanes to the pool, and walkway while keeping it under the referendum/debt limit/borrowing limit.

Mrs. Cappucci apologizes for “a lack of communication or misunderstanding on the part of the public and even people within the building...we will, after taking this vote, step up that communication between the groups.”  (00:11:20)  and “whatever we can add in to our borrowing limit, I think we need to do.” (00:12:50)

Former Superintendent Allison speaks about how the architects need a budget.  Also, “it can more than adequately meet the instructional needs.” Mrs. Rose asks what his opinion is and Mr. Allison gives his parting comments about the high school renovation.  It begins at 00:19:15.

I suggest listening to both parts of the meeting.  Very revealing.