posted by Mike Madison at 6:07 AM /
I've been away for a while. But I've been reading the blog and the comments, and as I approach re-entry (I'm in town only briefly), my general sense of Mt. Lebanon today is this:
I am more discouraged about the town, its governance, and its finances than I have been at any other time since I moved here in 1998. When it comes to neighborliness and neighborhood charm, there are few communities in the Pittsburgh region that can compete with Mt. Lebanon. And we appear to provide ourselves with high quality public services that are the best in the business.
But.
The elephant in the room is the ballooning cost of the high school renovation / reconstruction. The School Board is determined to proceed with this project, and it is equally determined not to submit it to a public referendum, no matter what the cost, and no matter that the cost is all but certain to exceed the borrowing threshold beyond which a referendum is required by PA law. Read Dave Franklin's typically acute recent comment at this post.
The problems here are two-fold.
First, the School Board seems bizarrely indifferent to the fact that this is a project that the District simply cannot afford, at this scale ($115 million and growing and growing) and at this time.
Second, the citizens and taxpayers of Mt. Lebanon seem to be bizarrely indifferent to the massive tax increase that the project represents. The School District has now publicly acknowledged that taxes will rise by as much as 45%. (In a comment there, Bill Matthews points out that the District is lowballing the number; the 45% figure is closer to reality.) In a comment on a recent post, School Director James Fraasch confirmed that on an "average" Mt. Lebanon house, current $5000/year school taxes are likely to go up to $7000/yr -- within three to four years. I was wrong when I wrote way back in January -- that any of the school renovation options on the table at that time was going to bring a 20% increase in school taxes. I was low, by half.
Unsurprisingly, both the Board and the District have been soft-pedaling the financial implications of the renovation project. Because they must know that if the taxpayers knew how hard this is really going to hit, then the taxpayers would say "no." Will a new high school bring 45% more value to the quality of a Mt. Lebanon School District education? Will a new high school bring 45% more value to the worth of the typical Mt. Lebanon home?
I have my answers to these questions. Yours may be the same, or they may be different. But speak up! My casual, around the neighborhood polling continues to run 100% against a massive tax increase to fund this project. The GOP candidates for the Mt. Lebanon Commission are dipping their toes tentatively into this water, but their strategy is upside down. If you want to get elected, don't promise to cut costs and save services; instead, tell us just how bad things are. The GOP seems to be trying to win an election. It should be trying to save Mt. Lebanon.
How bad are things?
Like the School District, the Municipality is effectively out of money. If the town were an automobile, then it would be running on fumes. The recent mini-flap over issuing a $2 million bond to pay for street and sidewalk repairs is, as I wrote recently at Pittsblog, the proverbial canary in the coal mine. Read comments at this post and this post, and read not so carefully between the lines at the toe-dipping GOP survey. Or call up your Commissioner and buy him a cup of coffee. You'll hear the truth. They know what's happening, even if they don't write about it for MTL magazine.
What's happening is that Mt. Lebanon is entering an era of rising costs (many of them fixed, like the pension obligations coming due at the School District) and limited or falling revenues. The town cannot afford to buy the best of everything -- best schools, best library, best leaf and snow removal, best public safety, lively retail districts. Mt. Lebanon residents either are going to be asked to pony up more money in the form of direct contributions, or are going to be asked to pay more in taxes -- both of these things so that residents can continue to receive something approximating the *current* level of services and benefits. And Mt. Lebanon residents likely, eventually, will say "no." Sure, it would be nice to shop local and maintain a lively set of retail districts. But if I can economize by growing my own and buying more cheaply elsewhere, I may do that. Do I understand that I'm not internalizing all of my costs? Sure. But cash is cash, and I'm economizing.
The result of all of this (not just the shoplocal point)? Our local standard of living is likely to go down. Just as Mt. Lebanon's costs are going up and revenues are falling, its residents' costs are going up and their revenues (incomes) are falling. There's a fixed amount of money to go around; the pie is not growing. There are hard choices ahead. Right now, local government either is ignorant of them, is ignoring them, or is failing to share their decisions with us. But these will be our choices to deal with in the end.
I am more discouraged about the town, its governance, and its finances than I have been at any other time since I moved here in 1998. When it comes to neighborliness and neighborhood charm, there are few communities in the Pittsburgh region that can compete with Mt. Lebanon. And we appear to provide ourselves with high quality public services that are the best in the business.
But.
The elephant in the room is the ballooning cost of the high school renovation / reconstruction. The School Board is determined to proceed with this project, and it is equally determined not to submit it to a public referendum, no matter what the cost, and no matter that the cost is all but certain to exceed the borrowing threshold beyond which a referendum is required by PA law. Read Dave Franklin's typically acute recent comment at this post.
The problems here are two-fold.
First, the School Board seems bizarrely indifferent to the fact that this is a project that the District simply cannot afford, at this scale ($115 million and growing and growing) and at this time.
Second, the citizens and taxpayers of Mt. Lebanon seem to be bizarrely indifferent to the massive tax increase that the project represents. The School District has now publicly acknowledged that taxes will rise by as much as 45%. (In a comment there, Bill Matthews points out that the District is lowballing the number; the 45% figure is closer to reality.) In a comment on a recent post, School Director James Fraasch confirmed that on an "average" Mt. Lebanon house, current $5000/year school taxes are likely to go up to $7000/yr -- within three to four years. I was wrong when I wrote way back in January -- that any of the school renovation options on the table at that time was going to bring a 20% increase in school taxes. I was low, by half.
Unsurprisingly, both the Board and the District have been soft-pedaling the financial implications of the renovation project. Because they must know that if the taxpayers knew how hard this is really going to hit, then the taxpayers would say "no." Will a new high school bring 45% more value to the quality of a Mt. Lebanon School District education? Will a new high school bring 45% more value to the worth of the typical Mt. Lebanon home?
I have my answers to these questions. Yours may be the same, or they may be different. But speak up! My casual, around the neighborhood polling continues to run 100% against a massive tax increase to fund this project. The GOP candidates for the Mt. Lebanon Commission are dipping their toes tentatively into this water, but their strategy is upside down. If you want to get elected, don't promise to cut costs and save services; instead, tell us just how bad things are. The GOP seems to be trying to win an election. It should be trying to save Mt. Lebanon.
How bad are things?
Like the School District, the Municipality is effectively out of money. If the town were an automobile, then it would be running on fumes. The recent mini-flap over issuing a $2 million bond to pay for street and sidewalk repairs is, as I wrote recently at Pittsblog, the proverbial canary in the coal mine. Read comments at this post and this post, and read not so carefully between the lines at the toe-dipping GOP survey. Or call up your Commissioner and buy him a cup of coffee. You'll hear the truth. They know what's happening, even if they don't write about it for MTL magazine.
What's happening is that Mt. Lebanon is entering an era of rising costs (many of them fixed, like the pension obligations coming due at the School District) and limited or falling revenues. The town cannot afford to buy the best of everything -- best schools, best library, best leaf and snow removal, best public safety, lively retail districts. Mt. Lebanon residents either are going to be asked to pony up more money in the form of direct contributions, or are going to be asked to pay more in taxes -- both of these things so that residents can continue to receive something approximating the *current* level of services and benefits. And Mt. Lebanon residents likely, eventually, will say "no." Sure, it would be nice to shop local and maintain a lively set of retail districts. But if I can economize by growing my own and buying more cheaply elsewhere, I may do that. Do I understand that I'm not internalizing all of my costs? Sure. But cash is cash, and I'm economizing.
The result of all of this (not just the shoplocal point)? Our local standard of living is likely to go down. Just as Mt. Lebanon's costs are going up and revenues are falling, its residents' costs are going up and their revenues (incomes) are falling. There's a fixed amount of money to go around; the pie is not growing. There are hard choices ahead. Right now, local government either is ignorant of them, is ignoring them, or is failing to share their decisions with us. But these will be our choices to deal with in the end.
24 Comments:
I could not agree with you any more than I do on this subject. It is embarrassing to me to think our supposedly "fiscally conservative" community is being run no better than the city of Pittsburgh four miles to the north. (Remember how they owed more on Three Rivers Stadium - in real dollars - than they spent building it when it was imploded?)
What I am most fearful of, at this point, is that when we go to sell our home this tax reality will not be lost on potential new buyers and they, in turn, will look elsewhere. It is not a "chicken or the egg" argument. One can still live in suburban Pittsburgh and find great schools, great community amenities and great neighbors without a 15228, 15243 or 15216 zip code. As Dave Franklin mentioned in a post a few weeks back, it is no accident that there are now 320 homes for sale in Mt. Lebanon right now. Aside from being close to their grandchildren (which is a wonderful reason) why any empty nester would stay in a single family home and pay the current taxes they are paying and then pony up 45% more in a year is beyond my limited intellect to understand!
We will not be a part of this nonsense. If we decide to stay in Pittsburgh a year from now it will not be in Mt. Lebanon. It will either be in another Pittsburgh suburb with great schools, great community amenities and great neighbors or it will be in another state altogether with all of the above but also great weather. My strong sense it that there are many others in our similar demographic with the same sentiment.
"The GOP candidates for the Mt. Lebanon Commission are dipping their toes tentatively into this water, but their strategy is upside down. If you want to get elected, don't promise to cut costs and save services; instead, tell us just how bad things are. The GOP seems to be trying to win an election. It should be trying to save Mt. Lebanon."
I am sure this is overstating the obvious but the GOP has the majority on the commission and has a huge majority on the school board. As such, I am confused about their approach to this issue. If they truly want cost savings, they should have the leverage to do it. Are there internal issues within that party that may be compromising their ability to govern effectively?
I usually agree with James Fraasch, but his argument that spending $375,000 now to get LEED certification is a good investment because the district will receive $70,000 per year for 25 years from the state ignores that fact that Pennsylvania is billions of dollars in debt and continues to look to cut funding in all areas. The idea that we can 'book' this reimbursement is almost comical. $70,000 for 25 years adds up to $1,750,000. The near term cost of this "investment" will be $875,000, which means that the district MAY net $875,000 over 25 years - IF the state keeps its current reimbursement formula. Doubling your money over a ten year period results in a 7.2% annual return. What is the annual return of doubling your money over 25 years? Not much. And how much will that reimbursement really be worth in greatly deflated dollars? James assertion that the district will get its investment returned in "just over five years" ignores the $500,000 cost of commissioning, bringing the ROI to 12 1/2 years. Mike is right. This is a project that we simply cannot afford at this time, and the school board seems to know that the community would agree with this because they have done everything possible to keep from putting this issue to a referendum.
Spending money we don't have, and ignoring the future consequences leads to nothing but big trouble - the impending teachers retirement pension shortfall is but one example. What's next? Issuing bonds to pay teachers salaries and benefits?
I have never understood, or believed, the argument that building a new high school will increase the value of my home, but as Bob Reich said earlier "this tax reality will not be lost on potential new buyers". Property appreciation is a wish, increased taxes are a reality.
Joe Wertheim
Several years ago, a weekly newspaper received a series of back and forth "letters to the editor" from residents of Upper St. Clair.
By way of background, Upper St. Clair used to be a sleepy little town. No one went to school board or commission meetings. All the elected officials voted "aye," and there was nary a peep of opposition from any quarter. In 1996 that all changed. The 350- foot cell tower went up, and all hell broke loose. It hasn't totally come together yet, but in some ways it has. Spending is higher than ever before and the electorate is more docile than ever before.
Most folks there must be content with how things are going, thus the deafening silence and low voter turnout. They must be doing something right, I suppose.
Which brings me back to the letters. I don't recall the exact issue, whether it was the high school renovation, the elementary school renovations, the recreation center. I suppose it really doesn't matter the issue.
Anyway, a senior citizen from Upper St. Clair sent a letter to the paper saying that spending and the ever-increasing tax rates were driving them from their home and that the government entity should slow down.
A week later, there was a letter sent in reply.
I'm paraphrasing, but the essence of the reply was this: leave then.
Move out. We have a standard here and if you can't afford it, move on. A younger family will buy your house, a working family which will contribute to both the earned income and property tax rates. You will sell your home for vastly more than you paid for it, and you can take that profit and move on.
We can maintain our standard, and newer families with higher incomes will wash across our shores. And the children will dance in the streets and sing a song of great joy.
Hmmmmm, I thought...Darwin's theory as applied to the housing market.
Very cold, this.
But true?
Perhaps.
You've got a similar situation in Mt. Lebanon. The school board has already decided: the high school will be renovated come hell or high water. They will spend at least $115 million and there won't be a referendum. In fact, they can spend up to $125 million and there won't be a referendum. Next year, maybe they'll be able to spend up to $130 million and there won't be a referendum. On paper, the law will be on the side of the school board. Legally, they'll be under the debt cap. Never mind how, just know it is so.
The die have been cast. It is done.
And there will be nary a peep from the electorate.
Later, like salmon swimming upstream, the ones who can pay the extra $100 or $200 a month will keep on swimming in Mt. Lebanon. The ones who can't? They'll just move off the trail silently in the night. It will be as if they never existed. See all those "For Sale" signs popping up all over the municipality? There will be more. A lot more.
For the folks sitting on the school board now who approved all this hope and change for the kids of the class of 2017, the karma won't kick in for another 20-30 years. Maybe a few of them will remain in Mt. Lebanon as retirees.
Perhaps the elected school board in 2030-2040 will decide the high school, middle school or all the elementary schools must be renovated. By then maybe it will cost $200 million. Or more.
For retirees, maybe the pinch will be a bit much. Maybe some of these retirees will be former school board members. Not to worry though--the Mt. Lebanon school board or the school board of whatever town they happen to settle in 2040 will have some wisdom for them:
"Move out. We have a standard here and if you can't afford it, move on. A younger family will buy your house, a working family which will contribute to both the earned income and property tax rates. You will sell your home for vastly more than you paid for it, and you can take that profit and move on.
We can maintain our standard, and newer families with higher incomes will wash across our shores. And all will be right with the world."
What do they say about karma? Yessiree it is. Just like Eliot said in "The Hollow Men." Let's roll.
What happens when the retirees move out, but the younger working families choose to live somewhere like Peters instead; a place with great schools that cost $5000 less per pupil?
My parents are a perfect example of the problems facing Mt. Lebanon. They were both raised here, went to school here and settled here after getting married in 1964. They've owned 2 homes here and they've raised two children who graduated from Mt. Lebanon.
They are now retired. Their home is paid for and they enjoy spending time with their friends, children and grandchildren who live in Mt. Lebanon. Ideally, they'd stay in their house or downsize and remain in Mt. Lebanon forever - after all there's no reason for them to leave.
They don't need the extra space or the upkeep that comes with their current home, but unfortunately the fall of the real estate market makes it a less than opportune time to sell it. As retirees, maximizing the return on the sale of this large asset is critical for their golden years.
Equally unfortunate, if they wait it out (and the high school project and the increased taxes become a reality), they will be trying to sell a house that is accompanied by taxes that are not remotely competitive with surrounding communities. After all, their incredibly well maintained and updated 3 BR brick house with a big family room on a great lot is a dime a dozen in USC.
And lastly, if they choose to keep their home they will be saddled with a 40-45% tax increase on a fixed income.
While my parents' situation is not unique, they are the lucky ones. They have some nice options (including a home in Florida) and no one is going to lose sleep worrying about them. But should they really be taxed out of the home that they've owned since 1976 simply because those who run Mt. Lebanon insist on spending beyond their means? And what about the fixed income retirees who aren't as fortunate as my parents? And worse yet, what about the working folk with school aged children who simply can't afford the anticipated tax increase?
We are at a crossroads indeed.
Stories about retirees and folks living on fixed incomes make compelling anecdotes, but I don't want to frame the issues around seniors alone. The fiscal impact on taxpayers hits everyone, but differently.
If you're a young family just moving to town, then you may have bought (literally) into the idea that you have access to excellent schools at a reasonable price, while still saving for college tuition and taking the occasional vacation. Careful buyers do research on their new communities, but lots of buyers only read what's printed in MTL magazine. If they do, then they are in for some nasty sticker shock.
And there are those of us with kids in high school or recently graduated from high school, who are looking squarely at college costs.
This is simply a question of good government. Resource allocation. Fiscal responsibility. Transparency and accountability. Planning.
Mike:
I suppose there will always be an argument between those who see the glass half empty and those of us who see the glass half full. Like most of the people in Mt. Lebanon, we have lived in a number of places and have some basis of comparison. Even now, the differences of cost versus value in different communities are startling and eye-opening. In order to put the property taxes we pay in perspective, one can take almost any similar community in the U.S. and look at what the home owner gets for their money. Since the real estate values and commensurate taxes in California have no basis in reality, I suggest looking at bedroom communities surrounding Dallas, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Denver, Atlanta and a host of other similar size towns. In each case, the taxes paid for the same comparable property value as Mt. Lebanon, are the same or higher; in some cases much higher. Many of these communities have excellent school systems and other amenities that draw people to the town. One of the things about Mt. Lebanon that is not possible in Peters Township or Upper St. Clair, or most of the other Pittsburgh area communities, is that one can walk to almost anything, including, and particularly the schools. We have been here 30 years and God willing, will be here 30 years from now. The taxes we pay are roughly 50% more now than the day we moved in. Would we sell our house for 50% more than we paid for it? Of course not! Although some of the comments suggest that it would be horrible if one cannot afford to live here and had to move because of the taxes, I am not of the school that says I am “owed” something because I have lived a long time or lived in Mt. Lebanon a long time. I would suggest that your income or the value of your house is not the same as it was 10 years ago or 20 years ago. Why should we expect our taxes to be frozen? It appears as though, you and some others, have taken a number that Jan Klein suggested might be a worst case scenario and used that as a hard fact. You also avoid mentioning that whatever number comes up in 2015, only a small percentage is attributable to the cost of a new high school. Most of the increases will come from mandates that the school district has no control over. Whether a new high school is built or not, the chance that our property taxes will increase is a given, unless some other government bodies, e.g., state and federal governments, change their system of mandates without funding. You seem to be frustrated by the lack of public outrage. Perhaps you should recognize that Mt. Lebanon has one of the highest educational levels of any community in the country and that the vast majority of the people are not sheep and can actually think for themselves and do not agree with your assessments. It appears as though most Mt. Lebanon residents have enough wisdom to recognize that nothing remains static, particularly an economy and everything that includes, like taxes.
Jim,
Whether Mt. Lebanon's costs are of its own making or not (and they largely are), they are costs that have to be dealt with. As for the 45% tax figure, I haven't grabbed it out of the thin air of Jan Klein's statement; I'm relying both on my own analysis of the figures presented to the Board and piggybacking on the conclusions of others who have studied thsoe figures more closely than I have and who have posted their thinking in comments here.
Is Mt. Lebanon, on balance, a pretty good deal financially for residents compared to comparable cities elsewhere? It has been.
Will that continue to be the case in the future? There is no assurance at all that this will be the case.
Am I making a mountain out of the arguable molehill that is fluctuations in taxes, that are little different than fluctuations in income and property values? That's for the community to decide.
I am persuaded that in this case, the past ("everything will work out in the end") is a very, very poor guide to the future.
It is comforting, I know, to look at the last several decades of modest change, then look around the community as it is today, and conclude that the future looks reasonably good, even taking some likely bumps in the road into consideration. In that scenario, I come across as a kind of Chicken Little.
Personally, I think that view is completely mistaken. Will household income continue to rise regularly as it has for the last several decades? I think that is doubtful. Will property values continue to rise steadily as well? Doubtful again. Yet if costs continue to risse, someone will have to pay, somehow. Who? With what?
I know that I am not alone in my conclusion. Both before and since posting the main item, I have heard from current and former Commissioners and School Board members who share my view and who have thanked me for trying to raise an alarm, even if it's only in this small way. It would be nice if they would identify themselves by name here or elsewhere. They have their own reasons for not doing so.
Finally, are Mt. Lebanon residents a bunch of thoughtless sheep when it comes to municipal governance? "Sheep" is too strong, but "uninformed" is an accurate term. Both the School Board and the Commission do a terrible job of keeping their constituents informed about current issues. Some of that is inadvertent, the product of carelessness and lack of skill and resources. I have come to the conclusion that some of that, particularly in the context of the high school renovation debate, is the product of deliberately obscuring the true costs and choices involved in the project. If the Board were truly interested in the community's opinion, then the project would be put to a referendum.
Mike
My prediction. The school board will float upwards of 90 million in bonds by the end of this year which will keep them under the debt limit and no need for a referendum. Since the balance will not be needed till near the end of construction, the remaining 25 million will be issued 2 year later.
However, construction will start, and as in all of the past projects (middle school, elementary schools) actual costs and over-runs will balloon. The board will also decide to add in extras (parking lot, turf, road work, etc) and instead of 25 million, they will need to float much more. That will bring them in well over the debt limt and a referendum will be needed in 2 years to finish the project.
Nobody on the board wants a referendum now because they know it will not pass and the high school will not be done. However if they start construction, and have a half finished building, the public will have no choice but to pass the referendum to finish the project. Nobody wants a half finished eye sore in their community.
All legal, but a slimy backhanded way to go about business.
Andy Vines
Here's a question for which I've yet heard answer.
Throughout the DeJong sessions it was argued that our current building at 545,000 sq. ft. was to large.
Student population in district budget projections point to a continuing declinein enrollment.
So, DeJong/Celli presented that the new HS, whether renovated or new need only have 440,00 sq. ft.
According to last week's Almanac article, the project now stands at 550,000 sq. ft. or 5,000 SQ. FT. LARGER THAN THE EXISTING BUILDING.
Looking at the budget projections, the cost of educating a student goes from approximately $13,494/yr in '08 to $19,720/yr in 2015.
District expenditures rise yearly from $73 million to $104.5 million in 2015. 7 years we will need approximately $31,000,000/yr more than we do today.
The community is borrowing, that's BORROWING... $2 million to pave some streets this year. Call me a pessimist, but I don't see an additional $31 million in revenues coming down the road any time soon.
D. Spahr
You get more square feet when you add a field house and three more lanes (from 5 lanes to 8) to the pool.
Please note: Even with the coveted LEED certification, the state will not reimburse for athletic (field house) or administrative (Building B) construction.
You're all scaring the hell out of me! I can't get outta here fast enough.
Dave, I know where the sq. ft. are, I'm trying to understand why it went from 545,000 down to 440,000 and its now back up to 550,000 sq. ft.?
D. Spahr
Jim:
Much like I thought that GM could never possibly go bankrupt in my lifetime, I too thought that Mt. Lebanon was immune to the worries of things like expenses and budgets. Things have clearly changed.
And as painful as it is to admit, BAA . . . BAA . . .BAA . . . we ARE largely a population of sheep and that's a big part of the problem. If you throw out the meetings surrounding Dr. Sable's firing, the swim team coach issue and perhaps some recent high school project presentations, I'd be willing to wager that about 90% of Mt. Lebanon taxpayers have never been to a School Board meeting. Similarly, unless someone has applied for a zoning variance or a stop sign or been worried about deer culling in their backyard, I'm sure the same can be said for attendance at Commission meetings.
Perhaps we are paying a large price for our apathy. Perhaps more of us should have gone to School Board meetings in 1985, 1995 and 2005 demanding that a plan be implemented and monies set aside to address our aging schools - certainly we should have been able to something in 25 years to stem the decline of these buildings. Perhaps more of us should have gone to Commission meetings questioning the absence of line items in the budget for little things like street repairs and sidewalks so that we wouldn't have to borrow these funds and leave the problem for the 2030 Commission.
Jim, I can also tell you that the current state of affairs has several of our elected officials squirming. They are squirming because they believe that the majority of Lebo residents don't understand and appreciate the gravity of the situation. No one is claiming the sky is falling . . . yet; however, they do believe that we are facing unprecedented economic concerns. Just read James Fraasch's comment from a few days ago. My Commissioner and I met informally about 10 days ago and one of the single biggest concerns *he* raised was how to get the message out. He knows firsthand how few people attend meetings, examine the budget, and frankly just appreciate the cost of it all. He also understands that for the quiet majority the upcoming fiscal wallop is going to hit like a swift kick in the teeth.
Jim, how many people in our community do you think appreciate (or even know about) the huge hole that we face heading into the 2010 municipal budget? There are significant increases for next year totalling well over $1 million with no corresponding increase in revenue. How do we cover that hole? And believe me, I'm not one of the perpetual malcontents on this Blog who believes that Lebo is damned to hell . . . honestly I'm not. But in the past year, partly out of an attempt to understand the high school project (I have 3 shool aged kids), I've learned a lot more about how we collect and spend our money and frankly it scares the hell out of me. We are doing things in Mt. Lebanon from a spending and borrowing standpoint that we have never done before. And while no one expects things to remain static, I would suspect that most would similarly not expect significant overnight increases brought about in large measure to awful (or no) planning.
The 440,000 square feet was for plan 3, the new construction in the hillside adjacent to the South parking lot.
We are getting a variation of option 2.
Problem is, we'll be paying more for a renovation than the $130M quote for option 3 new construction.
Two big reasons are LEED certification and the "NO TRAILER" requirement.
Other reasons are the field house/larger pool/bridge of sighs not originally planned,
and the extra $10,000,000 wrap-around bond.
I want to know what what is planned when the new building on stilts falls on Horsman Dr. after a stiff wind blows.
Also, how will that grass under it grow without light and sunshine?
David-
Its on stilts ala Outer Banks construction due to global warming fears and rising sea levels! Just some levity folks, we've scared Charlie F. too much already.
D. Spahr
While making my point to illustrate the impact of taxation on seniors, I believe you can certainly extrapolate the "end game" and apply it to any demographic.
Young or old, new resident or long-term, if someone can afford the extra $100-$200 a month they stay, if not...they go.
Mr. Cannon suggested the community does not "owe" any capital to long-term taxpayers, or anyone for that matter and I agree. I would only add that elected officials do owe the community due diligence and thoughtful use of the purse.
One cannot say due diligence didn't happen relating to the high school project.
Mt. Lebanon School Board conducted a series of public forums on the high school project. A consultant, DeJong, conducted many meetings with the community. These meetings were televised with the hope of generating still more interest.
In regard to public attendance in planning the project, except for the first forum, most were sparsely attended. The DeJong meetings were attended by 50-100 residents. As a school board member, that tells you something. The school board made many overtures to the community and asked for, even begged for comment well in advance of the vote. In public at least, the response was miniscule. I was never privy to the e-mail and letter submissions.
By way of comparison, I've seen over 1,000 people at one Upper St. Clair School Board meeting. That sent a message to the board there.
I've never seen over 200-250 at a Mt. Lebanon school board meeting.
And if I recall, one meeting was over whether high school trips abroad would be cancelled. This was shortly after 9/11. The others followed the abrupt termination of Dr. Sable.
Mt. Lebanon is certainly not "damned to hell." In fact, if I had my druthers, I'd settle there before moving further south. Also, from personal experience I can say Mt. Lebanon is very transparent, moreso than its neighbor to the south. MLSD provides extensive data on its Web site and so does the municipality. I have never had a problem receiving data or documents from any superintendent, Steve Feller or his predecessor Bill Baldwin.
And let's face it: the recent $2 million municipal bond boondoggle was argued in public, and the municipality provided citizens the ammunition they needed (in the form of documentation) to criticise the decision they were about to make. Commissioners, particularly Mr. Miller, publicly criticised the decision and argued for a conservative spending plan. About 15 residents attended.
Mt. Lebanon is no different than most other communities in the area. They are all at a crossroads.
But is it the government's responsibility to seek out and educate the ever-apathetic electorate? If I was cutting a tax check for $5,000 a year I'd be curious where those dollars were going. Unless I was pulling in $100,000 a year or more. In that case, perhaps I wouldn't be as concerned. Particularly if I had children in school.
After the tax increases are implemented, I assure you there will be wailing and knashing of teeth over the impact.
"When was this decision made?" the people will cry."This was never discussed in public!"
Oh yes it was. You just weren't listening.
The one point or position that has yet to be evaluated in this matter, is that we had a major economic downturn in late 2008. This factor will impact many residents for years to come. In ways they could not have known a year ago.
The question is, had this economic downturn occurred at the onset of the high school planning process instead of at its end, would the public input and feedback have been different?
On this I cannot say. Perhaps board members can chime in.
Two quick reactions to Bob's thoughtful comment, and I will probably post more and more details in the main blog.
Bob writes, "One cannot say due diligence didn't happen relating to the high school project." Yes and no. Yes, the School Board conducted an extensive series of public meetings and made extensive information available to the public regarding certain aspects of the options under consideration. Virtually all of the information sought and collected, however, had to do with construction issues; virtually none of it had to do with meaningful inquiry into cost and financing considerations.
Bob writes: "But is it the government's responsibility to seek out and educate the ever-apathetic electorate?" I think that he means this rhetorically, as in "the answer is obviously no." But I'll argue that the question should be genuine, and that the answer is really "yes."
In a more perfect world, the news media perform this function: folks like Bob cover governments, collect the data that Mt. Lebanon and the School District make available, translate what they do, and citizens and taxpayers all read his reports and form opinions. Our local governments don't hide much of the raw material(they hide some things, but not a lot).
But we live in an increasingly imperfect world, and right now that translation and explanation function is being performed, even more imperfectly, right here, at this blog by us, and by no one else. As the legendary Scoop Nisker says, "If you don't like the news, go out and make some of your own." That applies to governments as much as it applies to citizens.
The fact that 1,000 people show up in Upper St. Clair and 50 people show up in Mt. Lebanon does not, in itself, show that Mt. Lebanon citizens are more apathetic than their neighbors to the south. Everyone is apathetic. They just express their apathy differently.
Mike:
Please keep in mind that I was not the one to bring up Chicken Little. Now then…. It seems as though you and the other writers have adopted the traditional doom-sayers mantra of “the world is coming to end”, without offering any solutions. Like Thomas Malthus and Paul Ehrlich, you take a number of suppositions, some of them tenuous at best, and try to create a state of panic needlessly. For arguments sake, let’s assume that we are facing a looming financial crisis in the next five to ten years. What is your solution? Not build a new high school? Do we put it off until 2025 or 2050? Or perhaps we build a new school but only spend $50 million or $42 million or some other arbitrary number. Do any of these “solutions” solve the fundamental problem? I still firmly believe that our school board has acted in a responsible fashion and gone the extra mile in both fiscal responsibility and transparency. We are very fortunate that we have a number of selfless, concerned people who have volunteered their time and energy to serve on the various governing boards of the town. Because of the caliber of people in this community, we have levels of talent serving on our boards that any major corporation would love to have leading their team. If you are truly concerned and would like to come up with solutions instead of rhetoric, I suggest either taking on a position on one of the boards, or supporting those you trust and offering valid ideas. Anyone can play the role of Chicken Little. It’s a bit more difficult being a problem solver.
Jim,
No personal attacks, please; the comments on this blog have teetered on that precipice before, and we're not going there.
I know many of the Commissioners and School Board members personally. They are, as a whole, men and women of accomplishment, distinction, and integrity. They are also, in some cases, precisely the ones who have, in private messages to me, confirmed and echoed the comments that I've made above.
The problem here is not that I've engaged in reckless rhetoric that is somehow undermining the hard work of the people on the Board and the Commission. The problem here (in its best light) is that the School Directors and Commissioners are staggered by the scale of the problems that they confront, and they have not yet begun to figure out how, effectively, to community the scale of Mt. Lebanon's challenges to its citizens.
Solutions?
As to the high school itself, which is the largest but by no means the only large-scale problem facing the community, over the course of the Spring Director James Fraasch proposed a series of interim measures to deal with the most severe problems at the facility. My view is that those measures were appropriate at the present time. However, after due deliberation, the Board decided not to adopt them.
More broadly and strategically, I would do this:
Schools -- prioritize quality staff and staff compensation, and invest in facilities to the minimum necesssary to ensure their safety. Mt. Lebanon does not need the shiniest facilities available. It needs the best teachers available.
Municipality -- prioritize public safety (police and fire), then street and sidewalk repairs and clearance (in the Fall and Winter), then library and recreation services. If there is money left over (and the town may have run out of money by that time anyway), then support various other boards and community initiatives. These are hard choices, but First Fridays might get no town money (do they now?). ULTRA Party might get no town money (does it now?). MTL magazine might get no town money (it gets some, now). Nickel and diming things like these, and others that I haven't listed, may not get us to fiscal solvency. But looking at them with a critical eye is essential.
Mike
A wonderful, albeit sad article in today's Tribune-Review related to how our individual tax burden has risen so dramatically in Pennsylvania over the past ten years....
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/regional/s_635724.html
As to Bob William's assertion in a previous post about folks not worrying about where their school tax dollars going because they might be making "over 100 thousand dollars per year", I want to make one point.
As the article from the Trib points out, we are taxed pretty heavily on every front here in both PA and Mt. Lebanon. $100,000 gross is essentially - and I'm being generous here for math's sake - $72,000 take home. That is $6000 per month of spendable income. Take away $2000 per month for the average mortgage (including principal, interest, taxes and insurance), $400 per month (generous again) for ONE car payment and insurance, $600 per month for gas, electric and water, $100 for cable, $200 for numerous cellphone and landline bills, $600 for groceries, $100 for your EIT and on and on and on and you will see that a $200-$300 bump in your monthly tax bill for the new high school is going to put a serious dent in one's disposable income. We need to get over this assumption that somebody making six figures is "home free" when it comes to worrying about a pending (relatively) enormous tax hike in the coming years.
I've been following BlogLebo from my previous home in Texas for months now, and now I think, it's time I finally say something... if only to share my perspective here.
My husband and I just relocated from Texas and close on a house in Mt. Lebo August 7th. I did as much research as I could about the communities around Pittsburgh including statistics, taxes, community services, and blogs (as a side note- thank you Mike for starting this blog- it's been so helpful to get a good feel and voice for Lebo from afar). While the taxes are decidedly higher in Lebo, we still chose this place for multiple reasons- the small town feel, proximity to my husband's work, great schools, architecture, and most importantly- walkability (we only have 1 car). I'm well aware of the tax situation regarding both property assessments and the high school. We still chose to live here (it helped that by far we found the types of houses we wanted here and not elsewhere). We decided that we'd rather live here (even with projected tax increases) than the other options we were shown.
While we have prepared for the possibility of huge tax increases and know that they sure seem to be a reality, I cannot believe the actions the school board seems to be taking. As a newcomer, I'm shocked at how ignorant and invisible the rest of the community seems to be in this topic. I can only assume they'd rather not think about it and shove it out of their minds- but in this economic climate, I'd think most people have learned that's not a good idea! I'm also concerned that I seem more informed than many residents, and not only have I not even moved in yet, I'm only 23. While yes, we've accounted for the possible taxes, we do not think they are ok. If given the chance, I would vote no... strongly. I do not see where a new building increases the quality of education. My own (not that long ago) high school education has taught me that an old building doesn't mean poor education. I went to high school in a school with an equal rating as Mt. Lebanon High- and it was an older building. My master's in education has taught me that better teachers, happier teachers, and the more opportunities for exploration and experience make for a better education. A state of the art building does not. State of the art teachers and computers- I can get on board with that. A new building would be nice, sure- but in this economic climate we should be concerned chiefly with quality of education- not luxury and appearance.
tesskcarter@gmail.com
Since James Cannon is asking for solutions, here's my try.
I've been a fan of Fraasch's proposal from the beginning, but also see the need to move forward.
SO is it possible or is there any way to... make the renovations to Bldg. B which is in the current $115M proposal? As well as the renovations to the E & F wings which it looks like we're keeping.
In essence we cover all the bases. We keep the Fraasch supporters happy and new construction proponents get a start on the project. It takes a few years longer. Hey we may uncover some better design ideas along the way.
The pool isn't addressed, but with the current economy it just may not be financially prudent immediately.
Is it feasible, is it wise or does it blow costs sky high???
As for board members, who volunteer their time, whether we agree with them or not, they deserve respect and thanks!
D. Spahr
Post a Comment
<< Home