"Rain tax" unfair for smaller homes

Matt Santoni has an article in today's Trib concerning our stormwater fee public hearing that was held on Tuesday night. That reminds me.  I need to put up the podcasts from the two commission meetings.  It was a very long night!
Bill Lewis got a standing ovation for his comments. As usual, he made excellent points.  I have to say that I understand the need for this fee. We had waist high water in our garage and basement for the 100 year storm, the 101 year storm, and when Hurricane Ivan hit.  The Municipality corrected our street's problem, but there are many others still faced with this issue. I am just having difficulty with how the fee will be implemented. My street has some of the smallest houses in Mt. Lebanon. It is unfortunate that we will be assessed the same as homes in the more affluent areas. Yes, I will pay my fair share, but there were two cars which were totaled during those storms, on our street alone.  Our neighborhood took quite a hit.  Personally, we had considerable damages and our insurance wouldn't cover it.   I guess what I am about to suggest would be an accounting nightmare, but wouldn't it be better to figure the average square footage of impervious surfaces per street and charge accordingly? Likewise, as Bill pointed out, those who have rain gardens and leach beds, shouldn't be charged at all.  There has to be a more equitable solution to our problem.
Stormwater fee plan steams some Mt. Lebanon residents

Update: For those interested, here is a link to building a rain garden. http://learningstore.uwex.edu/assets/pdfs/GWQ037.pdf

Bonds, Debt and Taxes

I want to thank both Steve Diaz and Dale Ostergaard for having an open dialog.  It is refreshing to get more from a school board director than just, "Call my cell phone to further discuss." Thanks, Dale. I hope you aren't getting any grief from the others for your willingness to communicate.  And Steve, always a pleasure to read your eloquent letters.  Thanks.

Dale:  I respond to your message (text below).  It makes no sense to present a "millage equivalent" from non-millage charges, and there is nothing in your chart to hint at such an approach.  If, again, as you did in your last email to me, you are telling me that the figures provided are not transparent, you underscore the problems of stewardship and credibility under which the school board labors -- problems of the board's own making.  

I will not comment further as this has become a game of district officials consistently offering a moving target, never standing in one place even by the clear implications of their own numbers.  It is another example, just as you may remember the district's reference to "20 year" enrollment projections--which do not exist--during the Act 34 process.  This is part of what is wrong in this district.

The other most significant part of what is wrong in this district is reflected in your complete failure to address the "renovation" issues.  It is beyond cavil that the school board postures and games the public, and then attempts to blame everyone from it's own paid advisers and consultants to a virtually non-existent "inflation" for its own failures of judgment.  This nonsense has to stop: take responsibility for your own performance.  You yourself ran on a platform opposed to the then board-majority's blind support for the renovation plan, but in the face of pressure from your new colleagues you capitulated and caved-in.  Now, the public is not supposed to notice or hold you to your own pledge of independence?  And what of the other matters that no one on the board will discuss as to the failed renovation?  You saw how James Fraasch was bullied and intimidated, and you just bent in the wind to avoid the same fate - and make no mistake that is exactly how it looks to those of us who voted for you, including me.  When does the board accept any culpability for the decisions it makes?  

Let's take a concrete example.  You say that the near $70 million in bonds for the "new building" should never have been sold when they were, and you are absolutely correct in that.  We could not spend the money at that time, nor since for years afterward.  We are paying what is clearly too high a rate of interest and we are paying now, on funds the district cannot use for a project that may never happen and will most certainly not approach the scale for which the school board thought it was borrowing.  Moreover, there is a threat of a Federal arbitrage penalty looming in a matter of months because of the board's imprudent rush to raise money.  It is not unnoticed that you have chosen not to answer such funding, arbitrage, and financial stewardship questions as posed in my email, nor to address what, if any, action alternative(s) the board may be considering to deal with the matter.  The board is like a dog chasing its own tail: no one else sees any benefit in the motion.  How much would this district have saved if the bonds had not been prematurely sold?  Why does not the board admit responsibility for a clearly foolish and improper decision to issue bonds when it did?  It is a classic case of taking a mortgage before you go looking for a house, then only to find that you cannot buy the house after all.  Unfortunately, you used this community's credit to "buy a mortgage" - that is, to issue bonds - because it was other people's money at stake and you thought you could use the borrowing to justify a project for which there is overwhelming community disapproval (remember The 4,000).  A clear example of gaming the community and trying to coerce acquiescence in a project in which most of us have no faith and frankly see as counter-productive and wasteful.  Does the board still insist that the "essential" elements of the building project as extolled in the Act 34 submission, the board's sales brochure for the public, and in its published "FAQs" are "essential"?.  If you do think that, how can you throw yourselves, as you have, into an exercise of jettisoning the LEEDS certification, the 3rd gym, the "crystal tower", the replacement of the entire theater building and the flex-space building "C", etc. etc.?  How can you not answer these questions in simple declarative sentences?  What are you doing and why are you doing it?  Why does no one on the board have the courage to ask the obvious questions about the board's own conduct and stewardship?

The lack of introspection or open-mindedness on the school board are its most salient features.  Note, for example, that when James Fraasch left the board for work-related reasons, an otherwise unanimous board, cognizant of the petition of The 4,000 and the obvious majority sentiment of the community in opposition to your building plans, rather than acknowledge that Mr. Fraasch had been elected by a significant constituency that would have no voice whatever on the board in consequence of his leaving, and that the board, in turn, would have no internal insight into the concerns and interests of that constituency, chose a new member to replace him who, on the contrary, opposed all of the ideas and positions Mr. Fraasch represented on behalf of that constituency so you would be a monolithic "Leviathan" (to borrow Edmund Burke's famous phrase).  This was thoughtless for a local governmental entity, although it was quite consistent with your president's unconscionable commencement address to our graduating seniors this year in which she told them that they should only surround themselves with people who agree with them. This board is as anti-intellectual as it is anti-social and anti-democratic.  We seem to be governed by megalomaniacs.

It is increasingly clear that excuses and explanations are more important to a self-justifying board of politicians than any reasoned accounting of the handling of the public's business in this school district.  It is no wonder this board has failed in its own self-defined mission, and is failing by all objective standards in every aspect of its responsibilities.  In the process, you are also offending and frustrating an entire community of your neighbors.  If this board cannot handle the job, as it now appears, the members should voluntarily step aside and resign so that more insightful, effective and representative members of the community may take a turn to serve (to answer your question:  no, I would not be among those ever seeking a seat on this or any other public board as I did that already, for some 40 years).  

Dale, these are plain words, not disrespectful, but reflective of the facts and realities of the community relations situation developed by this school board as either a conscious policy or by social/political ineptitude.  It is time for someone to say:  "the Emperor wears no clothes".

With Due Respect.  Steve Diaz

                          

--- DOstergaard@mtlsd.net wrote:

From: Dale Ostergaard To: "Steve Diaz, School Board Email list, Lawrence Lebowitz

CC: Ronald Davis Subject: RE: Bonds, Debt, and Taxes...
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 03:14:15 +0000

Mr. Diaz,

I want to clarify the numbers I provided you concerning the PSERS rates and millage.  The "Budget Required for Pension" column represents the total amount payable to PSERS. That includes the District contribution and the state contribution.  The state reimburses 50% of the total cost back to the district.  So the cost to the district is half of what you see in the chart. You are also seeing the total cost, not the incremental cost year-to-year which is a fraction of those numbers.

I calculated the "Millage Eqv" column simply by dividing the Total amount payable to PSERS ("Budget Required for Pension") by the current millage rate to arrive at an equivalent  millage value.  It was not calculated by the District, does not represent the millage imposed on our community for pension costs, nor does it represent any increment in millage to the community for the coming years. The possible millage increment year to year above our current contribution is more in the range of .3 mills to .6 mills depending on the PSERS rate and is already reflected in the Forecast  the District puts on the website.

As part of our annual update of district financials, this forecast will be updated and posted in August with the latest projections .  Our debt service forecast will also be updated.

Sincerely,

Dale Ostergaard

Thoughts about last night's school board meeting

Last night's meeting was one of the shortest in quite a while, but I feel that there were comments made that should be noted.

Dan Remely is incorrect about the time needed to replace a school board director.  As with finding a replacement for James Fraasch, the process must be completed in thirty days, not two or three months as he first claimed. David Huston was correct. Another thing that bothered me when I watched the meeting this morning, the school board directors reacted inappropriately towards Mr. Huston's comments.  Personal attacks were made towards Mr. Huston, and that was uncalled for.  He was merely pointing out policy and tried to handle the situation as delicately as possible.  I see it as another example of bullying, which the school board does so well.  It is unfortunate that Director Sue Rose has been out of commission for as long as she had been, but there was no communication until last night's agenda about her status. We were due an explanation, don't you think?  And for school board directors to be insulted, was not necessary or appropriate.  The community was uninformed again.

Steve Diaz's ongoing conversation with Dale Ostergaard has been fruitful. It will be a topic of future discussion.  Thank you, Dale.  Here is another letter from Steve Diaz.

Bond restrictions?
Dale and Members of the Board:  I have been advised that the bonds you sold on behalf of the district for the "renovation" project, commencing in the Fall of 2009, may be restricted to construction and renovation purposes.  Such restrictions may now limit your options given the failure of your effort to move forward with the project as proposed.  Given this fact, what are you doing with the money in the interim?  We are certainly paying interest on it.  Are you drawing any income off the idle funds?  If you are drawing such income, is the district subject to IRS arbitrage penalties if the funds are not spent within a certain time (say, two years)?  What is the full scope of permitted uses of the proceeds?  What do you intend to do under the obligations of the bonds as issued?

If you can only spend the money on "renovation" and construction, what happens if you cannot deliver the project you promised to the public as reflected in the Act 34 Handbook and the glossy brochure you mailed out to all of us? Or, what happens, as now seems quite likely, if you cannot even commence construction before the end of October of this year?   Do you have any constraint of law or policy to revisit major changes in the scope or nature of the work with the public, or anyone else?  I realize that you, as a collective body, feel absolutely no obligation to advise the public of your plans or activities (I think one of your number put it most accurately at the public meeting when you passed the "no release of email without the author's consent" rule, saying: "If they don't know we have it, they cannot seek it under the Right to Know")---but will you tell me, now that I ask, how you plan to proceed?  The current hearings and agenda items seem a jumble of posturing and confusion, with no clear approach.  You seem just to want to build anything, to prove you did something.  It is actually amusing (but for the devastating financial and educational results) to watch your members scramble for "solutions" that entail back-tracking from everything you formerly said was "essential" to the project, and now trying to claim as your own the very criticisms of the original proposal The 4,000 put before you time and again only to be ridiculed and bullied by your undemocratic antics.  

All the while, not the board corporately, nor any individual member has stepped forward to take any measure of personal responsibility for your stewardship or oversight of the project.  For example, how about the chairman of the renovation committee, Mr. Remely, and his erstwhile side-kick, Ms. ("it's only a latte a day") Cappucci, or other board members, such as Mary Birks, who rather than listen to the public at the Act 34 hearings, first told the public that those hearings were "too late" an occasion to raise any objections (have you actually read Act 34?), before lecturing the public on why only your now discredited and failed plan was acceptable to you.  Does it occur to any member of the board that the "buck stops here"?  If the public is not to hold each of you personally responsible for your project, to whom do we turn?  Why do you think the school board is elected by the people?  The members of the board need to demonstrate the courage of their convictions, to accept the consequences of their own public acts, and to admit that "Sun Gods" they are not, nor do they enjoy a Divine Right to rule over us.  If you are responsible, you should at least be mature enough to say so, admit error and arrogance, apologize to your constituents who have placed a public trust in your hands - but whom you have failed.  

You can certainly continue to "stonewall" and hope the scandal will blow over.  You can tough it out.  Hide behind your secrecy and your bullying (and the bullies you send out to intimidate your legitimate critics).  But, you cannot face your neighbors walking through Uptown, or at the dry-cleaners or the grocery, with any assurance that behind the polite greetings, or the discrete evasion of face-to-face contact that the old admiration and support is still there. Sometimes, on the other hand, you do show symptoms of shame by avoiding contact with your local critics, as, yes, has been noted in recent select table-hopping by Ms. Cappucci and Mr. Remeley, for example.  The point is that you have not only lost respect in this community, you are dividing us and causing deep social and economic injury.  Is that why you "offered" to serve?  The best service you can do at this time for Mt. Lebanon is to show your own respect for the people who live here, who parent the students you are supposed to be educating, and who pay the bills you rack up, even when the interest we pay is for money that you leave laying around for years with no legitimate use, by taking responsibility for the taking and use of our money and the education of our children.   Your cavalier and ineffective stewardship has degraded the effectiveness of this school district and threatens our strong and proud academic tradition. You cannot substitute intrigue for policy, or bullying for leadership.

Dale, you recently asked me why only one "outsider" is running for the school board, given all that I have raised.  It is a good and telling question, the answer to which is as sad as it is obvious:  the school board has created an atmosphere of fear and intimidation in which people are afraid of what the board members and their cronies will do to harass them and their families.  It is very troubling that 4,000 people would sign an historically unprecedented petition in opposition to your center-piece policy, but then give rise to only a single candidacy at the next election for multiple directors.  You decry student bullying, as you should, but how can you not see the impact of your own bullying on the social and political life of our town?  So, the ball is in your court:  will you engage the authors of what you now concede are very practical concerns with your program, or will you continue to demonstrate hubris and arrogance beyond sufferance?  It is your decision as to how you want to engage the public and how you will comport your duty of public responsibility now that you have committed to pursue the authority of elected office.

Respectfully.  Steve Diaz

Jan Klein reported at last night's meeting, that she was having a conference call with the financial advisor this morning.  I hope the issue of IRS penalties is discussed, as well as bond restrictions.  The podcast is online at 7/11/11 School Board Discussion Meeting.

Revised Commission Discussion Session Agenda and Start Time

I just received a Lebo Alert for tonight's Commission Discussion Session.  The new start time is 6:15 p.m. The new agenda is here.

Meeting with Mr. Ostergaard, Part 2

Steve Diaz continues his discussions with Dale Ostergard in this email sent to the School Board.

Dale:  Good morning.  I want to thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my email on the PERS obligation and the proposed 2014 bond (your clarification of the figures is reprinted below following the text of this email).  You will forgive me for missing the 1/4/2011 district posting, obscurely labeled "debt service" and not posted under a more transparent heading, such as, say, "proposed new bonds" -- so that it could easily be found and called-out for what it is, just as I hope you will understand how I might have missed the unlabeled change of subject on a chart showing the PERS funding obligation and might have attributed the bond to cover that expense.  The problem is, your clarification only makes the problem worse.

If, as you now clarify, the proposed bond at 1.2 mills on the ad-valorem rate (on top of the 10% increase we suffered just this past year for the building project) is just more "renovation" expense, then we in fact face a total of 5.39 mills for the PERS underfunding, plus the 1.2 mills for additional building expense, meaning a total prospective increase of 6.59 mills on school taxes alone in 2014 (compared to my initial impression that the 1.2 was included in the 5.39).  None of this includes the base operating and maintenance budget base, salaries, or other items.  This is an impossibly unaffordable burden for homeowners to bear.  Inasmuch as you tell me that your chart does not reflect any expense for financing the 539 mills, can you advise me what options the school board may be considering to fund this sum?  Are you advised that the district has sufficient credit, capacity or resources to cover such a level of spending?  Can you tell me in one simple "bottom line" number what the millage rate becomes after 2014 in consequence of the school boards intentions regarding "renovation", the PERS obligation, and all other spending, combined?  So, you may now understand why your "clarification" is even more troubling than the chart before explanation. 

Again, I have an idea the school board may wish to consider, given the untenable financial position its adventurous building dreams have place us in.  Let's start with the roughly $70 million the district unwisely borrowed years before it could possibly have needed the money for a building project with which it still cannot proceed, at rates that are too-high given the actual market for such securities in the intervening period and at the present time (unsound public policy and very poor planning and exercise of judgement).  Of such funds, why don't you pay the $11+ million PERS obligation in cash, and use the balance to correct the negligent deferral of maintenance of the public school property, using any "left-over" cash for such upgrades as we can afford, scaled to the significant decline in school population in this district?  If the board should find that it, at that point is some relatively smaller sum short for necessary maintenance, updates and appropriately scaled facilities, perhaps a new renovation plan could be proposed. Such an approach would put the school board's feet back on the ground by covering, on a priority basis, our necessary legal obligations, while restoring confidence in the common sense and fiduciary responsibility of the school board, preserving our enormous investment and assets in existing public property and infrastructure, while also allowing the district to revise much of the platinum-plated, unnecessary and unaffordable waste the board is currently trying to trim from the building plan (after ridiculing such ideas for the past several years and excoriating those members of the public who proposed such ideas, but were ignored, during the Act 34 "process".

To regain public confidence, the school board must demonstrate the ability to admit some measure of self-doubt, admit very substantial errors of judgement (for which it must take responsibility, not point fingers), and exercise creativity and responsibility in the management of the educational and financial affairs of our community.  I hope the school board is capable of admitting that there is no serious question of merely pushing ahead on the disastrous course by which they have arrived at the present situation.

Respectfully.  Steve Diaz

 

Mr. Diaz,
The bond issue you are referring to in 2014 is the anticipated bond necessary to complete the HS financing. This proposal can be found in the ACT34 hearing noted as the "Series 2012" bond on page 35. It shows up on the district's forecast of 1/4/2011 posted online in the Devt-Service row under Expenitures for 2014-2015.

There is no bond issue proposal to account for pension obligations. I apologize if in our discussions you came away with that interpretation.
Regards,
Dale

Meeting with Mr. Ostergaard

Now, it's getting scary.  Thank you, Steve Diaz, for sharing this with the community.

Members of the Board:  I had the pleasure of sitting down to discuss school issues on Thursday evening for two hours with Dale Ostergaard, whom I had never met before personally.  Dale is a gracious and cordial man whom I found to be thoughtful, decent and considerate (he is also a Purdue graduate).  My conversation with Dale was most interesting in that he actually provided some highly pertinent and important information to me which the public has a clear right - and need - to know.  Attached, in his own hand, are the district's projections of the funding requirements for the teachers' pension fund, and its implications to the property taxes in our town.  I have to assume you have all seen the same figures, but now is the first time that the broader public may come to know of them.  The facts are stunning and daunting -- this school district is in a financial hole much deeper than has previously been revealed. Your current disarray over academic performance and school administration as well as over the "renovation" fiasco that you have completely mismanaged, now come into perspective as your lack of candor or any sense of fiscal responsibility has outgrown any mask behind which you may try to hide.

As demonstrated in the attached chart, we are facing a teacher pension funding obligation that reaches a district-projected burden of 5.39 mills on the property tax rate within the next four years.  Add this to the 40% increase in school taxes already estimated by many observers to pay for your $113 million proposed "renovation", and the residents of Mt. Lebanon will effectively have to buy their homes all over again, mortgaged by the school district to pay for educating a substantially and rapidly declining school population with, as I have already noted in prior emails to you, an ever less effective academic program (we are still 3rd, down from 1st in the county).  We have only 5,000 students in this district, but you spend as if we were a major population center (I feel the need again to urge you to see the documentary, Waiting for Superman).  The fact that you are planning for a new bond issue to fund the pension liability in 2014 has never been mentioned by the board in the context of your renovation budgeting, which indicates to me that I was exactly correct when I wrote to you complaining that it seems you will bond us up to maximum levels without an election (one you know you would lose), just to then lay before us an additional bond issue that we "must" pass to finance the legal obligation under the pension plan.  Either you are utterly irresponsible or you simply have no compassion for the elderly living on fixed incomes, or young families struggling in an economy with a rising 9.2% rate of unemployment, let alone the rest of us, many of whom are also negatively impacted by the current depression and the dual threats of increased Federal and state income taxes.  Your fiscal universe is hallucinatory and deeply destructive to this community on every level: socially, politically, economically, and educationally.  You are well aware of the deep rifts your policies have created in this community, so I ask you:  is your "success" worth it?

Time has come for the school board to exercise some introspection as to the means and goals they have set for themselves and this district.  Time has come for the members of the school board to demonstrate some measure of humility (or at least self-control).  Time has come for the school board to demonstrate some respect for the dignity, intelligence and legitimate concerns of your constituents.  I close with one random thought I had the other day reading about the effort in one of our neighboring communities to consolidate itself with the Chartiers Valley schools:  perhaps the public in Mt. Lebanon should consider a similar petition to merge with, perhaps, Bethel Park or Upper Saint Clair to form one manageable district to get control of our out-sized administrative costs for an economically nonviable small district such as our own.  What do you think the fate of such a petition might be here?  Remember "the 4,000"?

Respectfully.  Steve Diaz

Ostergaard Pension Projections

This struck me as very funny

In today's Trib, Violations of Sunshine Act to cost more:

Elected officials will face stiffer penalties beginning in August if they're found to have violated the state's Sunshine Act.
Gov. Tom Corbett on Thursday signed an amendment that will increase the maximum penalty to $1,000 from $100 for officials who hold violate the law, which broadly requires government officials to hold meetings in public.

Mt. Lebanon Commissioner Joe DeIuliis was quoted as saying:

Mt. Lebanon Commissioner Joe Deluliis said the measure's strength could also be its weakness.
A $1,000 fine for a first offense, even if it's unintentional, is "pretty big," Deluliis said.
"I know the governor's intentions are positive, and I know the intent is for greater transparency, but when you start increasing the penalties, it may have an adverse effect on people's willingness to get involved in government," he said.

Why I find this funny is that Joe DeIuliis was the only commissioner against televising the commission meetings, as well as the discussion sessions. Of all the people to ask about this new amendment.

 

Read more: Violations of Sunshine Act to cost more - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Commissioner Miller needs your help.

I emailed the results of the storm water fee poll to the Commissioners today. I was disappointed in the number of votes, but this is vacation time.  Dan Miller called me today to discuss the results.

I think it should come out of the General Fund and other services should be cut.  14 (60%)

Raise our taxes instead of charging us a fee. 1 (4%)

It isn’t fair and equitable 1 (4%)

I am not crazy about it, but do see the need. 3 (13%)

No problem. It is only $8 a month. 4 (17%)

 

Votes so far: 23
Poll closed

Dan would like to hear from the fourteen who voted to cut services, which services should be cut.  Please leave comments.  I will publish anonymous ones, if they are appropriate, for those who would feel more comfortable doing so.  Thanks!

Pay to play will come at a cost

I am linking the article but will also publish it in its entirety here since The Almanac doesn't archive their letters.

http://www.thealmanac.net/alm/story10/07-06-2011-editorial-2 

Pay to play will come at a cost

Whether one agrees or disagrees with at least two local school districts' approving "pay for play" fees, it is a novel approach in an effort to balance the budgets.

But at what cost?

For some families, yes, even in Upper St. Clair and Peter Township, shelling out an additional $100 or $200 so the student can participate in football and basketball or other activities, will be a struggle.

At least in Upper St. Clair, a district that released figures, of the projected $510,000 athletic budget on the high school level, imposing the fees will generate a mere $75,475. That's slightly less than 15 percent of the total athletic budget. And it's a minuscule portion of the district's more than $59 million total budget. Is it really worth all the paperwork?

In Peters Township, the newly adopted fee schedule is causing concerns because of its vagueness. While athletics was clearly defined, the generalization of activities is somewhat obscure. Word has it employees are working on clarifying which activities will cost $10 and which will not.

This year trying to achieve a balanced budget without compromising education has been brutal. Just ask any school district business manager, school board administrator or school board member about the long hours going line-by-line through the expenses and revenues.

Times are, indeed, tough. With the price of everything going up and up, it's hard for the average taxpayer to find the money to pay more in school taxes. Adding fees for athletics and activities makes it even more difficult for families.

Let's just hope there aren't students who can't play sports or join the band or participate in whatever activity because the extra money just isn't in the family budget.

1 comment

Bloat and Inequity : 7/7/2011
One of the things that has brought school districts to this point of charging athletic fees that no one mentions is the increasing payrolls of the coaching staffs. Once upon a time the football coach and his assistants were regular full-time teachers that happened to have experience in the sport. They were first teachers- then second coaches as which they earned some extra duty pay. Now we have full time coaches making near $100,000 masquerading as teachers. Sometimes with as little as one class assignment during the day. The other point to ponder, what happens to all the ticket and item (snacks, swweat shirts, programs & ads, hats etc.) sales at these athletic events. Especially at football and basketball which generally garner the largest attendences. If that money is being used to maintain athletic facilities and support other school sports have we not made the football and basketball players unwitting volunteers and donors. They'll be paying to play, parents then also PAY TO WATCH and the monetary fruits of the students labors goes to other activities!

Curious

Allegheny County Considers Legal Action in Reassessment Moratorium

Legislation that is allowing Washington County to put the brakes on its real estate reassessment has Allegheny County officials in an uproar and investigating their legal options.

Council President Jim Burn said the county is pushing back on the legislation signed into law last week that allows a reassessment moratorium only for Washington County.
The state House originally passed a bill that would grant a moratorium for all counties, but it was changed in the Senate to only include Washington County. State officials said Allegheny County was excluded because the reassessment process was too far along to be stopped.

Read more: Allegheny County Considers Legal Action in Reassessment Moratorium
                  Allegheny County may challenge reassessment again

"...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.) 

Property tax/rent rebate checks arrived

For some, there was a nice surprise in their mailboxes today.  If you applied for a property tax/rent rebate,  you should have received your check today. 

Eligible individuals include:

·         Pennsylvanians who are 65 and older;

·         widows and widowers 50 and older; and

·         people with disabilities 18 and older.

Go to http://www.lebocitizens.com/Lebo_Citizens/Tax_Rent_Relief.html, for more details.

Commencement Speech

The following letter was emailed to the School Board, and cc'ed to the Almanac, the editors at Blog-Lebo, and me from a "Mt. Lebanon resident" with a Yahoo address.  I applaud this student for taking the time to write an excellent letter.  The English Department should be very proud.
Elaine

To Whom It May Concern:

It was only after reading Steve Diaz’s open letter regarding President Posti’s speech to the graduating class of 2011 that I felt confident about expressing my own view on the subject—and, for that matter, the view of several other students and parents with whom I’ve discussed the speech in question.  I am a current student at the high school, and as I sat amongst hundreds of others in the bleachers on graduation day, I could hardly believe the words broadcast over the speaker system.  I was not alone; as she spoke, my entire section, adults and kids alike, exchanged a variety of looks (boredom, disbelief, shock), and I assure you, none of them were positive.

Posti’s (unnecessarily long) speech could be described in many ways, but the word to which I keep returning is simply “condescending.”  Condescending to the audience, which was forced to listen as the speaker droned on in a monotone about her entire life and career.  (For the future:  In general, only celebrities and third-world refugees can get away with doing that.)  Condescending to adult professionals who actually chose the career path that was right for them and stuck to it; she seemed to discount that as old-fashioned.  But most importantly, it was condescending to the graduates, who were told to relinquish whatever big dreams they have for their futures in favor of serving none other than the Mt. Lebanon community. 

My family is not originally from Mt. Lebanon, but I have lived here nearly all of my life.  In that time, I’ve grown to understand and respect the fact that a good number of current adult residents are alumni of Mt. Lebanon High School, and that they have deep ties to the community.  Many students, as well, plan to live in or around the area after—or during—college.  But to tell a class of intelligent and motivated young adults that their life goals should ultimately be put on hold so that they can repay their childhood community is completely backwards.  That type of attitude an exaggerated characature of a Mt. Lebanon resident—the narrow-minded snob who has never lived anywhere else and therefore believes the welfare of his beloved high school is superior to any other cause.  Are there people like that here?  Sure.  But they are not the norm.  I truly believe that despite their own love for this community, most parents genuinely encourage their children to explore and make the right life choices for themselves.

Posti’s speech did not reflect the view of the residents of this community.  It did not enthuse and it did not leave listeners with anything other than the bitter taste of yet another elected official who does not truly understand his or her own constituency.  It was not appropriate for any gathering, but it was especially inappropriate as a commencement speech.  My family is friends with a few school board members, and I am confident that those members, who I know and like very much, agree with at least some of the criticism expressed by me and others in the community.  I am doubtful that they will rise to the occasion and respond publicly, but I wish they would.  Again, I’m not alone in that sentiment.

Perhaps next year a better approach would be to instead feature two student speakers.  If this year was any indication, the students have a much better grasp on how to speak to an audience and write to inspire.

-A Student

The silence is deafening.

Yes, I realize this is the Fourth of July weekend. Yes, I realize people go on vacation this time of year. Yes, I realize that the Central Office Administration is off on Fridays during summer hours, but...
There has been no update on Dr. Steinhauer's blog since March 25, 2011.  Josephine Posti's Center Court blog's last post was June 21, 2011.  No interviews with the Post Gazette or Trib.  Nothing on the School District website. Surely, the School Board knew this was coming.  Any thoughts on the State Budget? Is this what you meant by a 21st century education- something within our means which concentrates on academics? Are we going to get that $75 million plan now? Almost 4,000 people would like to know.

Update July 3, 2011 6:15 p.m. Josephine Posti has updated her blog with this post. General Assembly Completes Budget Work, Includes Restrictions on Act 1 Exceptions It is interesting that Ms. Posti brings up the storm water fee (not the sewer fee, as she said) in her post. The Commission has been operating on a tight budget and has been moving money around, in order to have a balanced budget.  Their hands have been tied since the School Board raised taxes 10.5% last year.  They don't run and raise taxes like the School District does, when money gets tight. I would still like to know if the School Board plans to proceed with the current renovation plans.

Another one charges sports and activities fees

In a nut shell, Bethel Park raised taxes, cut 16 jobs, reading programs, music and foreign language classes, and will start charging fees for extracurricular sports and activities last night.

Are we revisiting Building C yet?

Read more: http://pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_744805.html