posted by Mike Madison at 8:22 AM /
With the emergence of the something called "Build Our School Now" advocating for a full-scale new high school facility in Mt. Lebanon and for a referendum to approval the borrowing necessary to pursue that plan, Dave Franklin's questions in a comment to that post seem appropriate for more discussion. Dave asks:
My quick eyeballing of the numbers led me earlier to conclude that the answer to Question 3 is "a permanent 20% increase in your school taxes." No one wrote in to correct my estimate, so let's go with that number for now (of course, it may be less -- or it may be more!). In an offline comment, one resident suggested to me that opposing this plan would be akin to hanging an "I'm Poor!" sign around your neck. Fine: If being skeptical about a near-term and permanent 20% tax increase makes me poor, then I'm poor!
Of course, I don't really claim to be poor, but this is plausible logic (opposing tax increases signals low status in Mt. Lebanon), and that fact tells me that something is rotten in Denmark. The terms of the debate need to change. Otherwise, it's just "to be, or not to be," and that doesn't answer the question.
So, please (and this question is directed especially to "Build Our School Now"):
Can we discuss Dave's questions, in the Comments and elsewhere, without implying that school construction skeptics don't care about the future of our children (we do), that we are ignoring the value of our houses (we know how real estate markets work), or that we don't understand that the current facility is falling apart (my children and I have seen it with out own eyes)?
$150 million is a sizable investment (even $100 million is a sizable investment). I emphasize the word "investment" because this is basically a business decision. Make the business case that this is a wise investment in 2009 and 2010.
1. If both proposals under consideration would exceed the debt threshold, thus requiring a referendum, how do you vote for one or the other and NOT vote for a community-wide referendum? What would be the point of that?
2. It seems likely that a referendum would fail. Sorry, that's just my gut. In light of that reality, why not give more attention to a proposal that comes in under the debt threshold?
3. When taking into consideration the tax increase that is surely coming without any construction, what is the long term tax impact (to John Q. Public) of taking on a record level of debt?>
My quick eyeballing of the numbers led me earlier to conclude that the answer to Question 3 is "a permanent 20% increase in your school taxes." No one wrote in to correct my estimate, so let's go with that number for now (of course, it may be less -- or it may be more!). In an offline comment, one resident suggested to me that opposing this plan would be akin to hanging an "I'm Poor!" sign around your neck. Fine: If being skeptical about a near-term and permanent 20% tax increase makes me poor, then I'm poor!
Of course, I don't really claim to be poor, but this is plausible logic (opposing tax increases signals low status in Mt. Lebanon), and that fact tells me that something is rotten in Denmark. The terms of the debate need to change. Otherwise, it's just "to be, or not to be," and that doesn't answer the question.
So, please (and this question is directed especially to "Build Our School Now"):
Can we discuss Dave's questions, in the Comments and elsewhere, without implying that school construction skeptics don't care about the future of our children (we do), that we are ignoring the value of our houses (we know how real estate markets work), or that we don't understand that the current facility is falling apart (my children and I have seen it with out own eyes)?
$150 million is a sizable investment (even $100 million is a sizable investment). I emphasize the word "investment" because this is basically a business decision. Make the business case that this is a wise investment in 2009 and 2010.
Labels: high school renovation
13 Comments:
I have attended the recent school board meetings, so I will attempt to answer Mr. Franklin's questions.
1. The board has three choices: a) select one of the options higher than the debt threshold and go to referendum. b) move forward with the Silhol/Remely $80 million plan. c) choose the James Fraasch wait/save/decide later plan. Please note the Fraasch plan is the only one that makes necessary repairs NOW. Choice a) above requires one and only one option (not including the Silhol/Remely or Fraasch plans) to be presented to the electorate. I am on record as being in favor of the Fraasch plan, choice c) above.
2. Choice b) above, the Silhol/Remely plan is the proposal that answers your question.
3. The long term tax impact is, many households, including some with children in the school system, will be forced to move out of the Mt. Lebanon school district. Both Mr. Fraasch and I stated this during Monday's meeting. Mr. Hart agreed with Mr. Fraasch.
4. Yes, someone was asleep at the switch as far as capital improvements etc were concerned.
The Fraasch plan addresses this.
If Mr. Huston is correct, then I am further confused by what has been reported. I was led to believe by the P-G's story that the Board had narrowed their decision to 2 options.
Specifically, the P-G reported that the Board will vote for one of two options - a complete rebuild or a renovation. It went on to state that "both alternatives exceed the $110 debt limit and would require a referendum."
The P-G also noted that the less expensive ($90 million) combo plan created by Sihol/Remely (and the Fraasch plan) appear to be out of the mix entirely (or at least in considerable limbo) since those plans were "not among the ones studied and presented by the district's architects and construction manager."
So, based on my reading of the P-G report, there are only 2 options; both of which require a referendum.
Dean Spahr, who reports having technical difficulties, asked me to post this comment for him:
David-
I agree with your questions, especially #4. It's a good question, how did we arrive at this point in the current high school? I don't have the answer, but what I find curious is that many think Fraach's plan is a good one, had it been in place 10 or 20 years ago.
In the next breath they demand constructing a new HS thus repeating the same shortsighted planning.
While there are definitely problems in current building, its ludicrous to think that a new building will eliminate maintenance issues or that new
technology will emerge that we will want to take advantage of.
If we "bet the farm" on a new building, will we have limit the districts ability to hire the best teachers and retain the ones we have? Pay for new technology, teaching aids/materials and extracurricular activities that we all demand?
While it's a compromise, it is my belief given the current economy a
combination of the Silhol-Remely plan and Fraach's is the prudent way to fix the current building and keeping future options open.
I believe that you can only answer those three questions after highlighting some of the background information. Firrst and foremost is that the High School facilities are both in disrepair and generally unacceptable. The stories of the falling ceiling tiles, leaks, unresponsive heating and cooling and even fires are well known. Much of the discussion centers around these problems, but it is not what I tend to focus on. I believe the bigger problems are those concerns voiced by the teachers and other education experts. Lack of flexibility, inability to merge classes, insufficient power supply and outlet location, improper classroom size, labyrinthine layout and inneficient location for students to be on time to class.
These problems have been discussed by school boards since 1995. Every person that has spoken at any of the 5 meetings I have been to agreed that something needed to be done. Even Mr. Fraasch who supports waiting still plans to immediately pour millions of dollars into the school immediately as a stop gap measure.
As long as you believe the need for action then the fiscally responsible choice is option 3. Under Mr. Fraasch's plan you would be compounding the costs the eventual burden shouldered by Mt. Lebanon for no guaranteed benefit. If taxes are raised in advance it can only be for two purposes 1) save a down payment for the construction; or 2) increase revenues to artificially increase the borrowing limit to increase the amount that can be borrowed without a referendum. Unfortunately neither of these goals are a certainty. This board cannot bind future boards so they cannot promise whatt would be done with the money. Additionally, who is to say that the law regarding the borrowing limit won't be changed. But most importantly what happens to the cost of the immediate band-aid repairs and then the increased construction costs of the school 7-10 years from now. Those will be shouldered by all the same people that Mr. Fraasch is trying to protect, the difference is there taxes will have been increased for between 10-15 years before they have anything to show for it. Anyone selling their home in the interm will be selling a home with a higher tax burden with no reciprocal increase in services. If Mr. Fraasch had proposed this type of plain in 1995 it may very well have been a visionary solution but at this point it is merely fiscally irresponsible procrastination.
As to the remaining plans I believe that you have to be more critical of the Remely/Silhol plan because they do not have the education, qualifications, training or experience to do what they claimed to have done. Additionally to the extent that they are correct that the numbers the architect used are to high and should come down then the same would be accomplished under plan 3 so it would have a commensurate drop in cost. Additionally as to both the Remely/Silhol plan and plan 2, both which involve extensive renovation the dangers of budgeting renovation work must be discussed. Every individual that spoke to the board with any typ of constuction background discussed the fact that when you renovate you always find things you did not expect that drive up the cost. We are better off paying for a brand new school (with a more dependable budget) that will last for 50 years, than paying for a renovation that gets us some of what we want for hopefully less money.
Finally, as to the resulting tax increase I believe people have to be more careful as to how they frame the argument. Please remember your taxes are going to be increased and they are going to be increased a noticable amount. The three plans cost approxinately $90 million (Remley/Silhol) $130 Million (plan 2) and 146. Under the Remley/Silhol plan there would still be an "a la carte" list of improvements/repairs that would be necessary and have to be done later. Of course that would also mean that the eventaul cost could easily exceed plan 3. And clearly with plan 2 and the Remley Silhol plan those parts of the building would not have the same usable life as the new construction. So in 25-30 years (about the time we stop paying for these bonds we will get to pay for new ones.
I know that this project seems to be coming at the worst time. I am sure there will be some households that get squeezed out of Mt. Lebanon. But if the incremental differences between these plans force you out that means you are barely hanging on as it is. I hope it doesn't happen to anybody, but I tend to believe it will, no matter which plan we chose.
Please remember we do not stop making fiscally prudent decisions when money is tight. If you were forced to buy a car right now wouldn't you still squeeze enough money out of your already tight budget to get a dependable and efficient car. Of course you would. I would just ask that no one succumb to shortsightedness and saddle this community with a clunker.
Mr. Brumfield:
You stated, "If Mr. Fraasch had proposed this type of plain in 1995 it may very well have been a visionary solution but at this point it is merely fiscally irresponsible procrastination."
I don't know what the solution for the HS school should be, something indeed needs done.
But, with discussions already being presented that we're looking at Middle School projects in 2017 then I would think if James' proposal was "visionary" in 1995, it is even more so now.
SO, do we raise millage above and beyond the debt limit now to cover the new high school and then add some more for James' plan?
Then where do we raise revenue for the new teacher contract and pension obligations coming due?
Dean Sphar
Dave B., you know I like and respect you buddy. And I especially appreciate and respect how you treat the kids in our community. I've seen it first hand and I know you absolutely have their best interests at heart. I applaud you for standing up and taking a lead role on this effort, regardless of the outcome.
However, when you use phrases like "fiscally responsible decision-making" I think we probably have a difference of opinion. In my opinion, that means spending wisely, but not well beyond one's means . . . whether it be for a car, a house or a school.
I've had my eye on a big stone house on Valleyview Rd in Virginia Manor for about 20 years now. It's a sweet house. I could live their for 50 years, Lord willing. Fact is, I can't afford it. Could I stretch and sacrifice and buy it, perhaps. But it would be a significant risk for me and my family, and would likely mean that other equally important items (i.e. retirement savings, 529s and other long term needs) may suffer or remain completely unfunded. And God forbid, I become disabled or unemployed - who pays for it then? That's a risk I just can't take.
Perhaps I'm over simplifying things, but I have to think that the same logic applies to this decision - at least to a degree. Other issues (likely some big ones) are going to come up in our school district and our community long before this debt is paid off. Other big checks are going to have to be written by our aging and declining tax base - both for the school system and the municipality as whole. How do we pay for those? Who will lend us the money then? Who will vote for the next tax increase? Let's not forget that we as taxpayers fund not only the high school, but also the township's infrastructure, the parks, the streets, the sewers, the ball fields, the central business districts, the public safety department, etc.
If the events in the credit markets over the last 6 months have taught us anything at all, it is that spending beyond our means has its pitfalls.
So while I remain undecided, I'm not yet convinced that something short of a complete $150+ million rebuild is negligent or fiscally irresponsible.
Maybe we could just get Obama to pay for the whole thing! At a town hall type meeting he attended earlier this week some lady said she needed a "new car and a new home and her own bathroom" and Obama merely took her name and said a staffer would be back in touch with her. Here's the video.
http://libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com/2009/02/florida-moocher-begs-obama-for-new-car.html
As they say in sales, the worst a potential customer can say is "no", but if you don't ask you'll never know what might happen.
All kidding aside, though, this whole issue really begs a bigger question. That being that perhaps it is time to re-think the entire concept of a public school education being free. Nobody in their right mind is going to say that a kid in Mt. Oliver is getting an equivalent education to a kid in Mt. Lebanon. But since their education is funded by the amount his or her neighbors pay in taxes, that's just the way it is. Is it fair? Of course not. And, if you've read anything I've ever written here, you certainly know I don't subscribe to the notion that life is fair. But at some point you have to have more people actually paying into a fund than you have people taking from it. And if 75% of our households are forced to pay into something that they are receiving no benefits from (I know the home value argument) I don't see how in the world you can count on a referendum coming even close to passing. Add to that the number of renters with children in the school district who only have to pony up 1.3% EIT and you have further ammunition to see why we need to fundamentally re-think the way our kids are educated in America today. (As for me, I'd be 100% on board with vouchers.)
Just because our politicians can't figure out that money doesn't grow on trees doesn't mean that each of us can't look at a tab of 150MM ON TOP OF the debt we currently have and see that, at some point, that money is going to have to be REPAID. And, in my humble opinion, it's just morally wrong to keep paying essentially only interest on our current debt and then debate ways to saddle future generations with this noose. You don't do this in your personal lives, so why do you think it's OK to do it with everyone's tax dollars?
And, for the record, I'd love for us to have a brand new shiny high school along with a new fieldhouse and a new outdoor swimming pool. Hell, I'd be happy if we could grow real grass in Mt. Lebanon Park.
I don't envy anyone actually involved with figuring this whole thing out. But Godspeed at doing it....
Glad to see Dave's questions highlighted because they are the same questions I've had (especially #4).
I'm also a fence sitter but seriously leaning away from the build a whole new building plan and toward one that tears down and adds a better "addition." I read the PG article and was also left with the clear impression there are only two options remaining on the table: build a new building or leave building B, the auditorium/fine arts and build the new arch shaped facility along Horsman. Both of these options costing above and beyond the debt threshhold so Dave makes the right point.
No one is talking about long term tangible impacts on Lebo households. I'd like to see real numbers...financial impact scenarios (best/worst case for each option) if you will. I fear the comment about folks moving out is a real potential impact.
Dave's fourth question is one I've raised with my fellow Lebo friends...how did we get here? Seeing the highschool is like "Back to the Future". Have they/we really not done a thing in there since I graduated in 1984 (except paint over my Latin mural in the hallway from Bldg B to the Auditorium)? My daughter is in swimming. The doors in the locker room restroom and to the locker room are rotted. As an alum it saddens me to think of visiting teams thinking "this is Mt. Lebanon?" more important the things are dangerous with sharp splintered edges everywhere. At what point in the past 25 years has someone made the decision to not repair/replace the doors. Add all the other repairs...and the cost of fixing up the place is obviously overwhelming.
I'm glad to see the college building point made because that's been on my mind too with the calls for a brand new building and the notion a student's learning environment is the "third teacher." This third teacher concept has been a part of the argument for the new high school. I went to Indiana University (Bobby Knight U. not the other place). My favorite buildings were the older more historic buildings. They were much more academically inspiring. Somehow the university was able to upgrade and make them work while also adding new as needed.
With the cost issue aside (as if it could be put aside) I am leaning toward the option that maintains the old and adds the new along Horsman. It's based on preserving a bit of the history of Mt. Lebanon, maintaining the Cochran Road front, and yes pure sentimental reasons.
I have a couple of other questions to throw out. Does the group "Build Our New School Now" have a website? I searched but couldn't find it. If Building C is demolished what will become of Mt Lebanon's planetarium? And for sentimental sakes can we all agree that the bank of wooden phone booths in Building B be preserved...forever?
" White House spokesman Joshua Earnest said Wednesday that after she spoke, the administration connected Hughes -- who did not vote in the 2008 election because she didn't have a home -- with local housing officials, who happened to be in the crowd.
On Wednesday, the head of the local housing authority, Marcus Goodson, said he met with Hughes. He said he's working on finding her a housing unit with a shorter waiting time and that he's emailed a White House staff member with the update.
But it wasn't just officials reaching out.
Chene Thompson -- the wife of state Rep. Nicholas Thompson, R-Fort Myers -- offered Hughes and her son a house in nearby La Belle rent-free, according to a spokeswoman, and she is interested in taking it.
"Basically, I offered Ms. Hughes and her son the opportunity to stay in my home rent-free for as long as they need to," Thompson told WBBH-TV in Fort Myers. "I'm not a millionaire, I'm not rich, but this is what I can do for someone if they need it."
So Obama connected this woman with someone who could help her find a place to live. Oh my god, what a socialist!!
That comment is from Marjie Crist, author of Suburbia Calling.
Whoops...my Blogger Id is "Marjie" Keeping with BlogLebo protocol I'll make sure to add a siggy to future posts :)
(Chuckling at Schult's commentary)
Marjie Crist
Mr. Franklin, check out the agenda for Monday's meeting. There are three options:
(7) High School Project:(Alternates):
RESOLVED, that the Board directs the architects to proceed to the schematic phase of
the High School Project based on the assumption that a portion of the High School will
be renovated, and a portion will be new construction (known as Option 2 but subject to
changes in that plan as directed by the District as the project proceeds), or
RESOLVED, that the Board directs the architects to proceed to the schematic phase of
the High School Project based on the assumption that a new high school will be built
(known as Option 3, but subject to changes in that plan as directed by the District as
the project proceeds), or
RESOLVED, [insert other options that may be proposed and approved by the Board]
Two of the three I mentioned, the Silhol/Remely and Fraasch plans, fit into the third alternate on the agenda, excerpt shown above.
The district is not stuck with choosing between a rock and a hard place as reported in the Post-Gazette.
Sure, Shultz. Nothing to be afraid of here in the good ol' USSA....
http://www.winknews.com/news/local/39518252.html
Post a Comment
<< Home