Friday, December 19, 2008

More on the High School Project

School Director James Fraasch is doing a great job of keeping a critical eye on the high school renovation project and not backing down from his position despite response to public attacks from other Directors and their supporters. Over at his blog, he has some interesting comments on the Almanac's recent story covering school projects in both Mt. Lebanon and Upper St. Clair.

Here is a link to his post, which includes the text of the Almanac article.

From the post:

As this article points out, and as I have been saying for some time, we are in a different economic reality than the one that existed even a year ago. Two months ago the Audit/Finance Committee talked about how much additional debt this District could add before being forced to go to a referendum. There is a law on the books that says that a school district can have debt up to 225% of its 3-year average annual revenues before being forced to go to a referendum. Any debt that would force us over that 225% level would have to be approved by voters. What we learned at that Audit/Finance Committee meeting was that the "magic" number is roughly $116 million dollars in additional debt over the next year or two before we are forced to go to a referendum. The thinking behind the quote above comes from understanding that ANY high school proposal that requires the District to add over $116 million in new debt would likely fail in a referendum vote.

That is basically the final reason why I believe a fully LEED certified high school building is off the table in the near term. Understand that this isn't an either/or discussion. It isn't either do this proposal or build a new school. Those are not the only choices on the table. I am sure other Directors will make their thoughts known in January. Some of these ideas will include a complete renovation or perhaps a more phased construction approach that has yet to be fully discussed at a Board meeting.

There is a certain irony in this that I think is important to point out. There are many that have emailed the Board and said that the most important thing to keep in mind is that we need to hold our taxes in check so that we remain competitive with neighboring communities. There are also many that have emailed the Board and said the most important thing to keep in mind is that we need a new LEED certified school to maintain our reputation as a community that values education and that a tax increase to accomplish this is well worth the investment.

The reality of the situation is that the current economic environment seems to put these two groups of people on the same side.


Kudos to James for keeping the public spotlight on this important issue.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

2 Comments:

Blogger Bill Matthews said...

Go James!

The Board has an exemplary record of the leading the District. And today it is quickly approaching a fork in the road that will affect our students and those not yet pondered.

Let’s pretend we are prepared to invest an additional 4 mills in our educational programs today (about $8,000,000 per year or $800.00 in new taxes on a $200K assessed property). How do we carve up the pie?

Will our children be served best by award winning bricks & mortar, smaller class sizes, an advanced curriculum, unmatched student activity opportunities, cutting edge technology, or …?

How are we prepared for future cost increases? I hear we may need another $2,000,000 (about 1 mill) annually for the retirement system contribution in 2013.

We need to look seriously at all options if we are serious about maintaining and enhancing the education in Mt. Lebanon.

To those that stand solely for procedure – Stuff your procedure.

December 20, 2008 1:31 PM  
Blogger Bill Matthews said...

Regarding the Procedure: Last Monday James sought Board support for professionals to scrutinize his alternative plan for the High School. James has never represented the alternative as a turn-key plan, but yet another approach to maintaining our educational leadership position, while facing the realities of the day.

James was essentially ruled out of order, by the presiding officer ---- we have procedures ‘ya know.

I would never expect any Board member to be an expert parliamentarian, but what I do look for, is for the leadership to lead; to find ways to enable Board members to bring genuine, fresh ideas into the discussion.

At the time, some of the options available to the President included: 1) Simply allowing James’ motion to be seconded and voted on by the Board, 2) Asked for the unanimous consent of the Board to proceed, 3) Asked for a motion to amend the agenda by unanimous consent or with a vote of the board, 4) Asked to suspend the rules by unanimous consent or a vote of the Board, 5) etc…

There are plenty of options available to help fit a round peg in a square hole - - unless one has no interest.

December 21, 2008 7:55 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home