posted by Tom Moertel at 2:42 PM /
Update 2010-10-18: As expected, the school board voted at tonight’s meeting to extend the superintendent’s contract by one year and raise his salary by 4.5 percent. The first vote was unanimous; the second 8-1, with James Fraasch dissenting.
[There’s been a lot of discussion about whether giving the new school superintendent a raise and a contract extension is a good idea, given the school district’s well-publicized problems of late. The Blog-Lebo portion of that discussion has occurred, so far, as an off-shoot of a completely unrelated story. But it’s clear that there’s interest enough in the topic to merit a story of its own, so here it is. —Tom]
On Monday, 11 October, 2010, the school board revealed at its discussion meeting that it intends to extend the contract of the new school superintendent, Dr. Timothy Steinhauer.
Steinhauer was hired by the school board on 8 June, 2009, to replace superintendent John Allison, who had left the school district after receiving an attractive offer from Wichita Public Schools in Kansas.
Steinhauer’s contract was to expire on 30 June, 2013, but the school board, expressing praise for Steinhauer and his performance, intends to extend it by one year at the school-board meeting on 18 October, 2010. The extended contract will expire on 30 June, 2014.
“I have been pleased with [Steinhauer’s] performance... We have suffered from a little uncertainty in the superintendent’s position in the previous couple of years, and I hope that by the contract extension and other provisions we can secure the position for Dr. Steinhauer, for the foreseeable future,” said Ed Kubit, president of the school board, during Monday’s discussion meeting.
The school board also intends to give Steinhauer a 4.5% raise, increasing his starting salary of $140,000 per year to $146,300.
What do you think?
I’ve already revealed that I’m taking a favorable view of the raise and contract extension, a view I expect many people to find surprising. Based on the emails I’m getting, I know many of you don’t agree with me. So if you have something to say, either way, now’s your chance: Let’s hear it.
Updated 2010-10-17 15:20 with quotation from Ed Kubit, school board president.
[There’s been a lot of discussion about whether giving the new school superintendent a raise and a contract extension is a good idea, given the school district’s well-publicized problems of late. The Blog-Lebo portion of that discussion has occurred, so far, as an off-shoot of a completely unrelated story. But it’s clear that there’s interest enough in the topic to merit a story of its own, so here it is. —Tom]
On Monday, 11 October, 2010, the school board revealed at its discussion meeting that it intends to extend the contract of the new school superintendent, Dr. Timothy Steinhauer.
Steinhauer was hired by the school board on 8 June, 2009, to replace superintendent John Allison, who had left the school district after receiving an attractive offer from Wichita Public Schools in Kansas.
Steinhauer’s contract was to expire on 30 June, 2013, but the school board, expressing praise for Steinhauer and his performance, intends to extend it by one year at the school-board meeting on 18 October, 2010. The extended contract will expire on 30 June, 2014.
“I have been pleased with [Steinhauer’s] performance... We have suffered from a little uncertainty in the superintendent’s position in the previous couple of years, and I hope that by the contract extension and other provisions we can secure the position for Dr. Steinhauer, for the foreseeable future,” said Ed Kubit, president of the school board, during Monday’s discussion meeting.
The school board also intends to give Steinhauer a 4.5% raise, increasing his starting salary of $140,000 per year to $146,300.
What do you think?
I’ve already revealed that I’m taking a favorable view of the raise and contract extension, a view I expect many people to find surprising. Based on the emails I’m getting, I know many of you don’t agree with me. So if you have something to say, either way, now’s your chance: Let’s hear it.
Updated 2010-10-17 15:20 with quotation from Ed Kubit, school board president.
Labels: dr. timothy steinhauer, mt lebanon school district, mt. lebanon school board, superintendent
58 Comments:
This new is tragic, but given the other decisions of this Board the news is not surprising.
We need a new Superintendent. We need a person who has the managerial talents that will help the new leaders to transform their vision for our school district into a strategy and an organizational design that meets the needs [within reason] of all of the stakeholders in the community.
Given the challenges that the District faces my personal preference is that the new Superintendent have a compensation structure that is based on significant cost reductions while maintaining educational quality goals.
$140,000/year is not a lot of money for someone that oversees the current astronomical budget and horrendous staffing levels for the ant house on the hill. Therefore, I propose that we find a manager with the managerial qualities that I mentioned, pay him a $150,000 annual base, and augment the compensation with a structure that will provide a permanent increase of $10,000 annually for each $1,000,000 in cost reductions PROVIDED that the educational achievement goals are attained while the reductions take place. Ideally, as a first step, we'll have a Superintendent that makes $250,000 - $275,000 annually and we'll have a much smaller organization with lower costs, greater agility, a higher quality of education for our children, and an increase in the tangible value in the community as our taxes decline.
I don't know, John (Kendrick). If by “new leaders” you mean the school board, maybe you have your causal arrow backward. The superintendent works toward the school board’s vision, not the other way around. And as long as that vision is essentially to preserve the status quo, I don’t see any school superintendent enacting much reform.
1) Did the school board or the superintendent establish the 2009-2010 performance goals for the superintendent...hopefully measurable goals that would become a basis for a formal performance review which could lead to condideration of compensation and employment terms ? Superintendent goals were posted on the website.
2) Were these goals the bases of a formal performance review ?
3) Did these goals relate or tie directly to the expressed vision of the board and/or the strategic plan of the district ?
4) Did the superintendent meet the goals...any, some, most, all ?
5) Which goals were met; and, which were not and why ?
6) Were the goals prioritized or weighted, and how did this affect the outcome overall ?
7) How did the outcome translate into a 4.5% salary increase when all subordinate bargining and nonbargining staff (except for clerical office staff) received lower % increases ?
8) What was the driving force(s) and justification for a 1-year contract extension ? Securing the position...does that mean he will not seek or entertain other employment in education ? It sure did not work with Alison !
Unless and until the school board will address and answer questions such as these publicly, which they will not, it is next to impossible for the public to make any fact-based situational comments. A 4.5% increase in a zero inflation economy with 9.6% (but really 15%) unemployment rate seems ridiculous on the surface. And a 1-year employment contract extension after only the 1st. year of a 4-year contract is not normal or recommended HR or personnel practice in the public sector.
Bill Lewis
Mr Kendrick, you've mentioned "new leadership" a few times in the last week. Who the hell are you talking about?
Bill, as always, you’ve got the facts and the relevant questions. The trouble is, the school district doesn’t behave like a rational organization where facts and relevant questions matter.
Yes, the school board set goals and established a review process for Steinhauer, but when it came time to review him, only one thing mattered: Did they want him to stick around?
And they did. The alternatives to keeping Steinhauer are ugly, and the board knows it.
Further, by rational standards, Steinhauer did a pretty good job for being in such a screwed-up situation. And the board knows that, too.
After all, it was the board, through their mounting demands, that had pushed him to focus on one goal above all others – a high-school project that shambled toward fiasco status and required increasingly intensive interventions to remain viable. Knowing all that, the board couldn’t judge Steinhauer by the very same goals that they had pushed him to neglect.
So, in the end (and again I’m just guessing) the board quietly set aside its review process and just did what was necessary to retain the new superintendent: extend his contract and give him a raise. Anything less would have signalled to Steinhauer that he should start looking for other opportunities. And once he started looking, it was only a matter of time before word got out and Mt. Lebanon was – once again – in the s potlight for not being able to retain its school leadership.
What's with all the "start the dig" signs around town? Are they trying to influence a county judge who, from all appearances, is just upholding the law as written?
To those of you in favor of spending $113,000,000 on a new and renovated high school I can only ask you this.
What part don't you get?
Your 'side' won. The side I was on (cap at 75 million) lost. The first half of the bonds were floated and your (and mine) tax bill reflects that. The second half will come, presumably, sometime mid-construction. Maybe the focus of your angst should be against the leadership of your own school board and the architects they hired to design the new facility. You see, they screwed up. They designed something outside of the prescribed variance. I might want the speed limit to be 75 mph on Route 79 but if I'm caught going 75 mph I'm probably going to get a ticket. The onus is on me, as someone who's been driving for 27 years, to know the law. You would presume that a professional architect would know the specs involved from the get-go when designing a building for, again, $113,000,000. But I guess that's too much to ask.
So, in short, either take your signs down or change the message. Because I'm pretty sure that trying to influence a judge is against the law.... But I'm sure the lawyers in the crowd will weigh in on that.
Tom, and Mr. Franklin:
When I am referring to the new leaders, I am referring to the next generation of Board members. We obviously don't know who they will be and since the terms do not end simultaneously the new leadership will be phased in.
The superintendent was selected by the school board and is, or ought to be, the chief managerial officer for the school district. In contrast, the Board members, are, or ought to be, the leaders.
I think that part of the problem in the MtL SD is that there is confusion over the role of management and the role of leadership.
We select leaders based on their beliefs, values, and guiding principles. The leaders form a vision and work with the management team to develop a strategy.
The management is, or ought to be, responsible for translating the strategy into a set of specific actions.
I could continue but I hope that this clarifies any comments that I made.
All of this being said, Bill Lewis has raised an interesting and an important set of questions that I'd like to know the answers to also.
- and I'd like to add another perspective...
If we can't find any single person who has the understanding of education and the ability to manage the organization as a business, then we need to think about breaking the role of a single Supt. into two seperate roles with an individual assigned to each.
Dear Bob,
Mt. Lebanon will miss you when you move! By the way, I walked my dog down your street today and there were only three such signs in a row out of several houses on the street - hardly a community consensus! Too bad the school board lacks insight regarding fiscal responsibility, the utilization of readily available volunteer expertise, and the ability to identify when their engaged solicitor has failed them. How unfortunate and the construction delays cannot be attributed to the community’s voices of reason, as some folks would like you to believe.
-Charlotte Stephenson
I guess I'll add my two cents worth. On Dr. Steinhauer, based solely on whether he met his published goals, its a little premature to be talking raises or contract extensions in my opinion.
What has me more concerned though is the high school project has been discussed, examined, fought over for well over ten years.
It would be interesting to see an accounting of exactly how much money the district has burned through in that time.
Here's just a few items off the top of my head. If I had an accurate total, I woldn't be suggesting a tally!
We have the '02 survey... $20,000?
We have the Horsman Field Natatorium which also didn't meet zoning codes... $250,000 in drawings etc.
We have the DeJong sessions... $100,000+
Then we countless hours of staff time, printing and surveys.
We have the FAQ mailer at what... $10,000-15,000.
Then Celli's time at what $300,000 per month.
And lastly, we've paid attorneys and tied up a judge to determine if "we" (residents of the municipality) should allow "we" (residents of the school district)to build "our" modernizided high school.
So, rough estimate we've burned through a couple of million dollars that hasn't contributed one thing to our kids education.
The district hasn't hired one teacher, bought one book, one paint brush, aone sheet of music, one computer or one whiteboard with those funds.
We haven't fixed one leaky roof or sealed one drafty window in all that time.
We haven't taken care of one special need or bought one foot, basket or soccer ball.
Five superintendents, a buyout, expensive candidate searches and we're still stuck in 1999.
So back to the Steinhauer topic. If he can step up, stop the bickering among residents and get this project done so we can get back to the primary task of educating students he might be worth a whole lot more than we're currently paying him.
Dean Spahr
Mr. Franklin,
If it helps you to understand my perspective I am looking beyond the current Board. The current Board is a lost cause. The only question in my mind is the extent of the damage that they will leave us with and how we can try (and I emphasize TRY) to fix it.
Bob Reich,
Charlotte is correct. The political landscape of our community may have permanently changed because of this project. In the past our community had a single entity that selected a slate of candidates, presented them to the community, and placed them in political office. As a long-term resident we both can remember not that long ago when an endorsed candidate could capture 98% of the popular vote in a general election without campaigning.
That day is gone.
The problem is that the same machine began providing us with RINO's. The democrats have organized because of the machine's failure to produce the correct candidates and the democrats have been able to make some penetration into the school district board.
This episode was a significant political event because the community now has three, and perhaps four, formidable political groups. Will they consolidate? Perhaps, but if they do the will of the people that Charlotte mentioned and the vast silent conservative Republican majority that I mentioned will have a voice once again.
This Board is a lost cause. God only knows what other damage they will cause before their terms end. As a community we need to hang on and look towards the next generation of leadership that will have the challenge of trying to repair the damage.
Dean,
Don't forget the accrued interest on the bond issue. That's a good chunk of change.
Dean,
As of the end of August, Jan Klein said that $4.4 million was spent in architect fees. For all the things you said and more, the Board wants to give a raise to our Superintendent and extend his contract. He hasn't met his goals and thinks nothing of suing moms who want answers. He lied under oath at the Zoning Hearing Board and we are going to give him a raise. We have a school board that is out of control and our reputation is going down the tubes. I had an eye opening experience last week. I was at a social event which involved women from all over the south hills area. I was the only one from Mt. Lebanon. The topic of conversation was how they heard that people are pulling their kids out of Mt.Lebanon Schools because they were dissatisfied with the education that their children were receiving. All I could say was that I knew that we were dropping in the rankings. This high school renovation has caused the School Board and Superintendent to concentrate more on interior colors (taupe)of the building and take two months to pick the right shades of blue and gold for the turf and have forgotten about why they are there. Their priorities are all wrong. At tonight's meeting, we get to see the Board extend this man's contract and give him a 4.5% salary increase. For what? As I had said in a previous post, what's the rush?
Bob, be careful what you say about the dig in signs. You may be accused of removing their signs. That is their latest complaint on their website. Clearly, their new sign campaign is not helping their cause. Early on, we were told that the community is evenly divided on this renovation project. I am not seeing almost 4,000 Dig signs, are you? Stealing signs is the best excuse they can come up with? And tonight, at 7:30, we get to hear an out of touch school board continue making bad decisions.
Elaine Gillen
What evidence is there that the superintendent “lied under oath” and didn’t just have his facts wrong?
Elaine, I have no skin in the game anymore. And even if I did I don't know what sense it would make to steal the signs since I don't know what sense it makes for them to have them up! Again, sign-pluggers, what is your intent? Are you trying to influence a judge? He is the only thing holding things up. Remember, your side won.
John Kendrick: I'll pose the same question to you that Dave Franklin has and to which you haven't responded. Do you intend to be a part of the "new generation of leadership" or not? I suppose I should throw my hat in the ring, though. Because with 50 houses for sale in our price range it doesn't look like God has it in his plans for us to leave anytime soon.
Somebody buy our house. Please....
We are realizing that the high school discussion started in 2001.
June of 2001 is when the Teacher’s Contact was settled. We had a contract EXTENSION in 2004 that was openly disclosed near the front of the contract. That Contract was extended a second time in 2010 with the EXTENSION only mentioned way back in Article 81.
Is there any relationship between the TWO EXTENSIONS of the 2001 Contract and the High School Building?
Who knows? The Board won’t release the lined version of the Contract they voted on in clear violation of the Right to Know Law. Is the Board hiding something again like they hid something when they sued a mom?
Just a thought, but perhaps people are leaving Mt. Lebanon because it appears that many discussions we attempt to have degenerate into name-calling and accusations of lying and cheating.
Oooh, I like that! He didn't lie. He just had his facts wrong. Give that man a raise!
I have been looking over the transcript to the Zoning Hearing Board meeting of 3/11/10. On page 128/315, Dr. Steinhauer sees open spaces every day. Yet, Bill Matthews showed photographs of illegal parking. Visit page 153/315 - it starts on page 152/315of the transcript, Dr. Steinhauer made statements and he wasn't even there. Go to lebocitizens.com, under "The Facts" to read the transcript of the hearing.
Just as I gave the link to his goals for 2009-2010, I am asking you to look for yourself at the transcript. I don't make these things up.
Elaine Gillen
Influence a judge? What judge? The decision has been made. Its over. And besides, Judge James probably didn't even know that some 250 signs even existed, let alone were planted in an effort to influence him. Someone could have planted a billboard in Judge James's own front yard and it wouldn't have made a difference. The School Board and its Solicitor made it impossible for him to rule any differently.
Whatever the motives, I still don't understand the sign campaign. As others have noted, they WON. I have the tax bill to prove it. The SB will craft some resolution with the Commissioners over parking and the project will move forward. I would sincerely hope that those who still have any energy or interest left to fight this fight would stop acting like they haven't won, and start demanding movement from the SB. For heaven's sake, if you want to protest something, protest the SB's handling of the variance request and the appeal. Protest the SB's ignorance in failing to craft a variance request that satisfied the well-settled, unambiguous standard. Or protest their arrogance for assuming that the standard didn't or shouldn't apply to them.
The way I see it, the Build it Now folks should STOP trying to convince those of us who think that $113 million is too much, and start directing their energy/efforts to getting the SB to do what they set out to do - what they voted to do! And please, any agreement with the Commission over parking should be accomplished before February. Seriously, it should. If it can't we're more dysfunctional than even our biggest critics claim.
To clutter the high school project with a debate about Dr Steinhauer's performance is short-sided, irrational and foolish. For the record, this SB won't fire him so why even debate it? Futher, make no mistake about it, firing Dr. Steinhauer won't un-do the many votes and approvals that have already set the high school project in motion.
There's one issue that I think everyone can and should rally behind at this point and that is getting the high school built for the lowest amount possible and as quickly as possible. All 9 SB members are on record as saying that it can and should be built for something in the $90's. Let's just get on with it.
Kim Ressler:
Have you forgotten your comments of February 10, 2010 2:53 PM which included the statement, "We all need to question our elected representatives at every turn,..."?
I thank God every day that I live in a free country. Men gave their lives so that we can exercise our right to free speech. Men died to free our country from tyranny and give us the right to choose how we want to govern ourselves. These are the values that are the foundation of our great country and for the vast silent conservative Republican base that is the foundation of our community. We wouldn't be having this discussion right now if the machine would have produced the proper candidates and our community hadn't elected democrats and RINO's to the Board!
I am sensing from your posts that you would prefer to stifle any dissenting viewpoints, and that ultimately leads any free nation into Totalitarianism - or is that what you really want to see?
John Kendrick wrote in reply to Kim Ressler:
"We wouldn't be having this discussion right now if the machine would have produced the proper candidates and our community hadn't elected democrats and RINO's to the Board!"
Mr. Kendrick is advocating an authoritarian approach to governance, yet at the same time selling the virtues of democracy:
"I am sensing from your posts [Kim Ressler's] that you would prefer to stifle any dissenting viewpoints, and that ultimately leads any free nation into Totalitarianism - or is that what you really want to see?"
Which is it John? Have open, democratic elections where all interested citizens of Mt. Lebanon can participate or have a Secret Council of Elders make backroom deals in approving candidates for office, thereby stifling the dissenting viewpoints of Democrats and RINOs (I'm at a loss as to what this stands for) and return Mt. Lebanon to the glory days of a Totalitarian suburb?
I'm not sure of the school board's partisan make-up, but I know Republicans and Democrats in Leno that opposed the decision to spend $113 on a new school and Republicans and Democrats who favor that construction start now. I'm not sure you can swing the partisan broad brush on the school construction issue.
Michael Goodin
Mr. Franklin,
I think that the project would gain greater support in the community if the athletic supporters could produce cash up-front before any construction begins.
I also think that you should stop blaming the solicitor. The simple fact is that the project is stuck in neutral because this Board behaved like Fascists and the community reacted.
In my previous comment $113 should read as $113 million and Leno should read as Lebo. Sorry for the fast typing!
Michael Goodin
Michael Goodin,
Your perception of reality is distorted and your interpretation is flawed.
What you are seeing is an overwhelming proportion of the community that shares a common political perspective and an efficient process to select and place candidates that share the beliefs, values, and guiding principles of the vast silent overwhelming Republican majority that is the foundation of our community.
Lebo's problems started when we allowed the local machine to select individuals for elected office that don't represent the majority of the community. Consequently, our Board has become nothing but a mouthpiece for the Teachers union!
Mr Kendrick, repeating the same nonsense over and over (like a mindless gerbil on a wheel) doesn't make it true - no matter how many times you say it.
I think it's fair to say that you have officially made yourself irrelevant.
John Kendrick,
I do not think my perception of reality is distorted or my interpretation is flawed. I do not think my perception of Mt. Lebanon as a politically diverse community is distorted or flawed. I do that all five wards of Mt. Lebanon voted for President Obama in 2008. Four the five wards voted for Sen. John Kerry in 2004. To say that there is a vast silent majority of Republicans in Mt. Lebanon is a distortion of reality.
I do not think my interpretation of your remarks favoring a "machine" (whether that be party hacks, secret council of elders, etc.) that selects the "proper" candidates being Totalitarian is wrong. This is how it is done in authoritarian societies. Democracy is messy and dysfunctional, but it does allow everyone (not just those who happen to agree with my position) to have a say in what goes on in their community and country. If you are going to wave the flag of freedom, you have to wave it in favor of all those who hold elective office, whether you agree or disagree with their positions and policies.
Mt. Lebanon may have once been a bastion of Republicanism, but like many inner-ring suburbs throughout the country, Lebo has become more politically diverse.
BTW when pushed on your arguments, do you normally resort to ad hominem attacks?
Michael Goodin
Mr. Goodin,
Tell it to Mr. Franklin - the two of you seem to have a lot in common.
Keep yapping Mr Kendrick, because you continue to prove my point. I don't know Mr. Goodin from Adam, but I sense that my political leanings are probably more in line with yours than his. Unfortunately, your mindless dribble about athletics andsome make believe political "machine" have made you irrelevant to all sectors of the community - except perhaps in the hearts and minds of Ewing and Huston. You hide behind this blog and take shots at people while offering nothing of value yourself.
There was a time when I just wanted you to stop commenting, but now I want you to continue. The more people who read this nonsense, the more who will come to the same conclusion that I have.
Ah! More personal attacks from a deadbeat athletic supporter again. Poor Dave Franklin just doesn’t have anything of value to say anymore.
Well, the difference between us Mr. Franklin is that I won't cry to our hosts for help.
Please continue, I am enjoying watching the steam blow from your ears. I rather enjoy hearing what comes from your tongue.
Mr. Franklin, you make a living as a "transfer agent". Party A has it, Party B wants it, and you siphon a percentage for yourself. Have you ever built a business from the ground up, or only criticized the architects after it was built? I have never heard a single constructive suggestion from you, just a lot of blubber.
So tell me Mr. Franklin, are you an athletic supporter? What does that mean? Do you exercise yourself, or do you just stand on the sidelines with all of the other frustrated middle aged men holding a can of beer while telling the poor kids to work harder, jump higher, and run faster?
Remember Mr. Franklin, Mr. Huston and I both told you that I would not argue with you in public anymore.
Hey, folks, let's try to stay on topic, okay? Less heat, more light – that kind of thing.
Cheers,
Tom (your friendly moderator)
Ah yes Mr. Ewing, right on cue.
And Mr. Kendrick, on the subject of doing rather criticizing, please re-read your last 75 posts.
No, Dave Franklin, I won't argue with you in public.
John, Dave, John, in case you didn't hear, Dr. Steinhauer's contract was extended for another year. It was a unanimous decision. The vote for his increase was 8-1 with J. Fraasch voting against it.
Elaine Gillen
Let me clarify that. Dr. Steinhauer's contract was extended another year. The extended contract will expire on June 30, 2014.
Elaine Gillen
The extension of the supt. contract is very unfortunate for our community.
I would rather rule the wreckage, pick up the pieces, and begin the process of rebuilding a great school district and a great community before I'd take one more second of crap from this Board.
We need to look forward to finding the next generation leaders who will select a new supt. Maybe it will simply be "a supt." that we as a community will work with and bring along as we build a new school district and a stronger community.
I'd like the new supt. to have a contract structure with a $150,000 annual base from which we would augment his pay with a permanent $10,000 annual increase for each $1,000,000 in permanent cost reduction. The organization will continue to need his management expertise after the transformation so I would propose a 10 year contract. In the interest of protecting both parties, I would propose that in the event of an early termination the district would agree to present value the augmented pay portion of the contract for the remaining term with a discount factor of 10% per year. This protects him in the event of an early termination, and it gives the community an out - but the truth is, of he can begin with an initial cut of $10-12MM from the budget while maintaining the educational quality goals, why would we or any district want to get rid of him?
John K.-
We're locked into an extended contract now. Unless we have a Steinhauer buyout, we have to wait a long time.
Bob-
At the podium, I asked to have the signs taken down and was shot down by Ed Kubit while hearing the VOICE group behind me (all ten or so of them)carry on. I said that there was no need for them anymore. I guess by their reaction,there is still a need for the signs. The only thing I can think of is that they want to try to influence the Commission now. The next step is for the School Board and the Commission to enter an agreement to use the Commissioners' Lot and then it is over. It is unfortunate that the District wasted $19,000 to appeal the decision and six months, when they could have taken this route to work with the Commission back in April when they decided to go to court. Maybe it was a humbling experience for the Board. It is unfortunate that they are not listening to four thousand people who signed the petition and the ones who work for the District or Municipality who couldn't sign it. Elaine Gillen
Elaine,
It's over? It's never over...
They can build the building, and it looks like they have the funding for the construction; but the bonds still need to be paid-off.
Remember what I said, tax policy can always be changed. I think that the beneficiaries of the project should pay for it.
Mr. Kendrick, let's flush this out a little more. We know that you believe that seniors should get a pass on property taxes and anyone who plays a sport should pay double. But how about some other categories of residents - should renters with kids pay a higher income tax since they don't pay property taxes? Should single people without kids get a pass just like the seniors? What about married couples without kids? Why make them pay for the high school? To use your word, they aren't a "beneficiary".
And when we stop collecting property taxes from seniors (who probably own a majority of the homes and condos in Mt. Lebanon), who picks up the difference? And how?
And if we're going to tax the snot out of our 30-somethings with kids, who will buy the homes of those seniors when they want to downsize or move into a retirement community?
Mr. Franklin,
You've tossed the 50% senior property ownership statistic around before; are you sure that the percentage is that high?
I outlined by plan for tax equity. Simply put, any Mt Lebanon residential property owner over the age of 65 will not have to pay a school district real estate property tax. The revenue shortfall would be made-up through an increase in the wage tax. The tax incidence would shift closer to those who consume these resources. I've also outlined a high level plan to reduce school district expenses.
Your comments in your opening paragraph strongly suggest that you do not support any effort to address tax equity. I never suggested that a single, never-married person without kids [like me] should be exempt from paying any school taxes because it is not practical. It would be nice, but it is not practical.
Tax equity is one area where we will probably never agree. I believe that the people who consume the goods and services should be the ones to pay for them. You don't share that belief. Your perspective is more "communal" - an, "everyone should pay for the good of all mentality"; or perhaps a, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Frankly, I accept your political perspective. I wouldn’t care to share it with you, but if you believe that way – fine. However, I don’t care to pay or live what is left of my life under a red flag, so that brings us to the discussion at hand.
Finally, I will address the comments in your last paragraph. I personally don’t discriminate against people on the basis of age. Older people are just as capable of being a loving and contributing member to our society as a young child. My personal vision is that we can use our tax policies to encourage seniors to relocate to Mt Lebanon and provide a win-win environment in some of the following ways:
1. We can help our senior citizens can off-set any income loss from means-based testing for social security benefits by 50% or more if we exempt them from paying school district real estate taxes. We can’t influence the outcome of social security reform, but we can help to mitigate the effects.
2. We can stimulate Mt Lebanon property values by creating incentives for older citizens to locate in our community. Yes, I would like to see the younger families move out and I would like to see the older aged people move it. This would diminish the demand for many community services that are [financially] breaking the back of the municipality. One good example is the commitment of our municipal resources to deal with the youth drug problem. Senior citizens will also need city services, but the cost to our community will be less.
3. If the younger families move away, then the need to educate their kids leaves also. This means that we can build a smaller, more agile school district that maintains a very high quality of education for those that remain.; and the cost to operate the school will decline.
4. I want to hear long term residents say that they want to retire in Mt Lebanon. I lived in Oak Park, Illinois an extremely similar and affluent Chicago suburb (http://www.oak-park.us/ ), where over 80% of the residents remain after they retire. In the process they are committed to building and maintaining a world-class community. People will invest in the community if they feel that there is a benefit for them. Our community is broken. People move in, grab what they need, invest almost nothing, and run! We need to change or we will die.
These are some of the thoughts on my mind. I sincerely doubt that we will agree, but these are my views.
Sincerely,
John David Kendrick
Mr. Franklin,
You've tossed the 50% senior property ownership statistic around before; are you sure that the percentage is that high?
I outlined by plan for tax equity. Simply put, any Mt Lebanon residential property owner over the age of 65 will not have to pay a school district real estate property tax. The revenue shortfall would be made-up through an increase in the wage tax. The tax incidence would shift closer to those who consume these resources. I've also outlined a high level plan to reduce school district expenses.
Your comments in your opening paragraph strongly suggest that you do not support any effort to address tax equity. I never suggested that a single, never-married person without kids [like me] should be exempt from paying any school taxes because it is not practical. It would be nice, but it is not practical.
Tax equity is one area where we will probably never agree. I believe that the people who consume the goods and services should be the ones to pay for them. You don't share that belief. Your perspective is more "communal" - an, "everyone should pay for the good of all mentality"; or perhaps a, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Frankly, I accept your political perspective. I wouldn’t care to share it with you, but if you believe that way – fine. However, I don’t care to pay or live what is left of my life under a red flag, so that brings us to the discussion at hand.
Finally, I will address the comments in your last paragraph. I personally don’t discriminate against people on the basis of age. Older people are just as capable of being a loving and contributing member to our society as a young child. My personal vision is that we can use our tax policies to encourage seniors to relocate to Mt Lebanon and provide a win-win environment in some of the following ways:
1. We can help our senior citizens can off-set any income loss from means-based testing for social security benefits by 50% or more if we exempt them from paying school district real estate taxes. We can’t influence the outcome of social security reform, but we can help to mitigate the effects.
2. We can stimulate Mt Lebanon property values by creating incentives for older citizens to locate in our community. Yes, I would like to see the younger families move out and I would like to see the older aged people move it. This would diminish the demand for many community services that are [financially] breaking the back of the municipality. One good example is the commitment of our municipal resources to deal with the youth drug problem. Senior citizens will also need city services, but the cost to our community will be less.
3. If the younger families move away, then the need to educate their kids leaves also. This means that we can build a smaller, more agile school district that maintains a very high quality of education for those that remain.; and the cost to operate the school will decline.
4. I want to hear long term residents say that they want to retire in Mt Lebanon. I lived in Oak Park, Illinois an extremely similar and affluent Chicago suburb (http://www.oak-park.us/ ), where over 80% of the residents remain after they retire. In the process they are committed to building and maintaining a world-class community. People will invest in the community if they feel that there is a benefit for them. Our community is broken. People move in, grab what they need, invest almost nothing, and run! We need to change or we will die.
These are some of the thoughts on my mind. I sincerely doubt that we will agree, but these are my views.
Sincerely,
John David Kendrick
- and another comment concerning seniors and real estate values...
Actually, it is more expensive for a senior to downsize and move into a retirement community that it would be to simply remain in their home. Home care health services are also available for most senior citizens and that provides them with the opprotutiy to spend their remaining days in the peace and tranquility of their private residence.
Renters already pay property taxes - it's included in their rental rate and paid by the property owner.
So basically you want Lebo to become the Villages – North. After decades of success as a community for everyone, you’re looking to flip it to a community that caters to the seniors. A township that focuses less on a broad sense of community (regardless of age), education and families to one that focuses on one sector of our current population. That’s fine, and you’re correct in that we won’t agree that such a shift is a good one. Frankly, I view it as virtually impossible to accomplish, but hey it’s your battle not mine.
I disagree with your assumption that most folks “move in, grab what they need, invest almost nothing, and run.” I disagree with this theory for a variety of reasons. First, what do we offer on a short-term basis that our neighbors to the North and South don’t (and often at a much lower price)? Our education system – in your opinion - is broken. While I won’t go that far, I do believe that we are no longer the leader. So, if they’re not moving in for a quick and solid education before moving out, what else is there? Certainly not our aging housing stock, right? People aren’t moving in just for our great police and fire departments are they?
Second, I can’t say as that I have met anyone who moved into Lebo, overpaid for their house, shelled out thousands in taxes, stayed for a few years, all with the intention of moving out. You seem familiar with this process and seem to suggest that it occurs rather frequently. I assume then that you have an understanding of why these short timers come here and then leave. What are their motives? I would agree that if we force all of the younger families out, the cost of our education system would decline significantly (that’s not exactly rocket science), but I’m not willing to accept the leap of faith that suggests that a small school system in an anti-family community would be the model for anyone. I would offer the public education system many “retirement” states as a perfect example. Seniors love Florida, South Carolina, Georgia and Arizona, but their public schools stink.
I also fail to see how we increase our property values by over-taxing families with school aged children and encouraging seniors to move here. Most seniors are looking for less house to take care of, not more. Most seniors that I know (who don’t live here) aren’t looking to buy a 70 year old, multi-level house with significant maintenance headaches, even if the taxes are lower. Most seniors that I know aren’t looking to buy houses period!
Lastly, in my experience, Lebo is a community in which many people remain forever. If they leave in their post-high school or college years, they return to raise a family and grow old. I can only speak from experience, but I’m not seeing the mass post-retirement exodus that you describe in your comment. Sadly, many folks leave our region because of job opportunities, but I don’t see that as Lebo’s fault. Other retirees leave to be closer to family or warmer weather. Are you certain that a significant percentage of our retirees are moving out? Are you certain that they are doing so without having invested anything here? Personally, I have a higher opinion of our senior population. They “built” Mt. Lebanon with a solid foundation – rooted in family, community, faith and education. It’s impossible not to recognize that if you spend any amount of time here. I doubt that any of this would be possible if we lived in the sort of part-time community that you suggest. Those same seniors understand and appreciate that those elements should remain for future generations. The solid residents that I know and who have spent decades here believe that there should still be a significant investment in education, recreation and other services. Sure, they (like me) recognize that belt tightening and pay-to-play policies are inevitable and in many instances wise. But make no mistake about it; none of the seniors that I have talked to are ready to implement the scorched earth policy that you have advocated.
First of all, I didn't say that the school district was broken; I said that the community was broken.
I wouldn't call what I am advocating a "scorched-earth policy", it's a differentiation strategy that will lead to gentrification.
We just have different views Dave.
Mr. Kendrick:
Perhaps I'm splitting hairs, but Oak Park, IL has a population of roughly 52,000 people, only 4,700 of which are over 65 (about 9%). I would have assumed that with an 80% retention rate, the senior population would be much greater.
On the other hand, in the cut and run world that is Mt. Lebanon, we have a population of roughly 33,000, 5,800 of which are over 65 (or about 17.5%).
In an earlier post, you stated that you "would rather rule the WRECKAGE, pick up the PIECES, and begin the process of REBUILDING a great school district and a great community."
I apologize for interpreting these words to suggest that you thought the school district was broken.
Okay, Mr. Franklin: The school district is broken also.
I'm offering an approach that would place our community on a trajectory that would lead to realizing many objectives that most residents have expressed. Our economic development initiatives have not been stellar and I am suggesting another approach.
I have told others, even the members of your party, that I feel that our region will continue to decline economically. In that environment, it is likely that the region will continue to bifurcate into "haves" and "have-not’s". I would prefer that our community be the "haves", and I have proposed a differentiation strategy that will enable that outcome.
Now you've heard my proposal on how we can build tangible value in our community. I'd love to hear your ideas.
Do you have any suggestions on how we can improve our community, or are you completely satisfied with the community in its current form and status?
Honestly, like my views or not, I've projected my vision and I've suggested specific actions that we can take [as a community] to translate my vision into a reality.
I am open to hearing your vision and the specific actions that you'd take to make your vision a reality; or if you are completely satisfied with the status quo then I'd like to hear that also.
The ball is in your court...
I keep reading about the "vast silent overwhelming Republican majority that is the foundation of our community," mentioned in passing as if that were not the writer's main point, as if it is an axiom that we all agree upon as we debate broader issues. It is, rather, only a fantasy.
One can debate "vast," "silent," and "overwhelming," and can easily refute "majority." But I am most concerned with the part where it is said these people are the "foundation of our community."
That assertion is the local version of Ms. Palin's claim to represent the "real America." Such claims are the political equivalent of public self gratification, and so would be merely comical or pathetic, if they weren't dangerous. People uttering this kind of speech betray a profound misunderstanding of what it means to be a real American or to be part of the foundation of a community.
When one part of a group claims to be the soul of that group, it intentionally portrays the rest of the group as soulless. That is outrageous, arrogant, offensive, juvenile, and un-American. It is a common precursor to fascism, hatred, ethnic cleansing, pogroms, and all manners of oppression. It assaults one's nation and undermines the foundations of one's community.
To my Republican friends I would like to say that I am not attacking them or their party, only on the idea among some extremists that Republicans have a monopoly on everything good and true. I will not let such claims pass unchallenged in my home town. I, my family, and my friends are every bit a part of the heart of this town as anyone else, and I find it hard to believe that I even have to say that.
Mr. Franklin,
Consider this perspective -
The athletic supporters have advocated expenditures by the municipality and the school district that were designed to encourage younger families to move to Mt Lebanon. They argue that having these facilities will keep our community competitive with other suburban communities. The athletic supporters argue that their facilities will support our property values.
When you total all of the money that has been spent by the municipality over the last 20 years for the provisions of the athletic community, and the money that our school district that is about to spend on athletic facilities, we could have repaired or replaced all of the municipal roads and sidewalks! The question is, has this expenditure brought about sustainable economic growth and built tangible value in Mt Lebanon?
I don't think that it has.
My proposal is different. First, I am targeting a different group. You have effectively endorsed a differentiation strategy that targets young families. In contrast, I am advocating a differentiation strategy that targets older citizens.
You have endorsed expenditures from the school district and the municipality that you felt would meet your economic objectives.
In contrast, I am advocating tax cuts that will lead to gentrification and bring about sustainable economic growth in Mt Lebanon by stimulating investment.
Many Mt Lebanon economic development initiatives have moved in the direction that I am suggesting.
The idea of increasing the senior population to offset the school tax burden was in vogue around 1980 and we saw various developments built around town that were designed for senior housing with the idea that they'd pay a school tax but not have any kids in need of education.
Like I said, we just have different views on how to accomplish the same objective. You advocate taxing, spending, and marketing the community to younger families. I am advocating tax cuts, stimulating sustainable private sector investment, and marketing the community to an older segment of the population.
Look at the characteristics of each group more carefully, think about the economic objectives, and then you'll see what I am saying - you guys are targeted the wrong group!
Mr. Kendrick:
I know you hate answering direct questions but let me try any way:
(1) How does catering to the senior population “encourage sustainable economic growth in Mt Lebanon by stimulating investment?” Aren't most seniors living on a fixed income? Can you identify a group of seniors outside of Mt. Lebanon who are looking to take on the maintenance obligations and expense of buying a house in Mt. Lebanon, even without a property tax? I would offer that in most instances the annual utilities and maintenance expenses exceed the property tax so buying a tax free house in Mt. Lebanon is hardly a win-win for them. (and that’s without even addressing the reality that many seniors move out of their homes because of these burdens, because of their inability to care for their property, and because of their inability to live independently (climb stairs, handle chores, drive to grocery store, etc.)
(2) What developments did we witness in the 1980s that were we designed for senior housing? Main Line started in 1989 and was probably designed in some measure for senior housing, but probably more so to take advantage of the proximity to the T for working singles and young people.
(3) You suggest that “many Mt Lebanon economic development initiatives have moved in the direction that [you] am suggesting.” Can you identify five of the many?
Also, I'm not advocating taxing and spending as you suggest, but instead more critical decision making. If you've read anything that I've written, you'll know that I fully accept the fact that we don't have enough money to support everything. Not once have I suggested that we raise taxes to pay for everything that we currently enjoy. I also supported Mr. Miller's recent proposal to include street repairs in the operating budget, rather than through blind, repetitive borrowing. However, my view is and remains that we need to invest in those resources and services that make Mt. Lebanon unique and appealing to those who live here and those who may one day live here. In my opinion and (I think) in the opinion of thousands more, our green spaces, our recreational facilities and the associated programs are an integral part of our community. You don't use them and you don't have kids, so I accept that they serve no purpose or offer no value to you. However, I would acknowledge that if we take those elements out of our community, people will indeed move and it will be increasingly difficult to attract newcomers.
Perhaps a different way of looking at it is in the context of the new high school. I think it is safe to assume that the high school project will move forward, either at the $113 million price tag or at least some significant portion of that amount. I don’t think we can stop it at this point. In that case, wouldn’t you prefer that we retain and attract as many active families as possible to make good use of the facility? Wouldn’t you prefer that we retain and attract as many active wage earners and property owners to help pay for it? Personally, I don’t see much hope in the long term prospects of paying off a high school in a community with no “extracurricular” services, no unique resources and only a portion of the residents being asked to pitch in.
I think you are completely off base to suggest that many in our community are unwilling to invest in this community. However, I would acknowledge that most in our community have yet to be asked to do more. Make no mistake, cuts are coming. Increases in the cost of services are coming. Some services will likely disappear. I’m just hoping that I have a better sense than you do of what the majority of our residents will be willing to fight to and pay to keep.
So when will I hear your suggestions on how we can make Mt. Lebanon a better community?
Mr. Kendrick, your question incorrectly assumes that I share your opinion about the state of our community. I have no plan for "fixing" something that I don't believe is broken.
I do, however, await your answers to my questions that were based upon the assumptions made in your comment.
Your response is very disappointing. I hoped that we could have exchanged constructive suggestions that would have improved our community for the benefit of all of our residents. Instead you've decided to exercise your well trained talents to orchestrate a public deposition where you probe and fish...
I can understand your motivation - if I were a Democrat then I would be very worried also. In fact, I'd be scared to death!
It seems that you are completely satisfied with our community as it is, and with that I think that we have nothing left to discuss.
I'm offering a plan and a way forward. You are offering nothing.
That's very sad.
Sounds great Mr. Kendrick. You've indicated here that you have no intention of running for office (although word on the street suggests otherwise), so I'm sure your postings on this blog will go a long way in changing the world. Either way, I wish you luck as you try to convince our fellow residents (young and old alike) that we've got it all wrong and it's getting worse.
If you do plan to run for office, please know that the list of questions will only grow. I trust you'll be a little more confident and adept at answering them by then. I didn't mean to scare you by asking for examples in support of your assertions and assumptions. I wasn’t fishing at all Mr. Kendrick. Instead, I was just asking you to measure the fish that you were so proudly showing us. My questions came directly from your comments. I apologize for assuming that you could support your statements in furtherance of your “plan”.
By the way, if it makes a difference, I'm a Republican. I'm not sure what that means in the context of Mt. Lebanon since I view local government more as an exercise in hard work, good judgment and common sense and less about philosophical partisan politics.
Mr. Kendrick
Why should a Democrat be scared to death? Are there trained ninjas at the ready assassinate registered Dems? Do you have information that you are not sharing with law enforcement about the pending murder of US citizens? Should I be prepping my bunker like some stock character in a bad Ayn Rand novel? Or will I still have to go to work on November 3rd, pay my taxes, keep up my end of the social contract and contribute to the common good?
All kidding aside, I do not think fruitful dialogue is possible because you are not interested in a dialogue, just your one sided monologue about the evils of young couples having children to educate.
Michael Goodin
Finally . . . I was beginning to think I was stranded alone on Kendrick Island!!!
It is clear that this blog can be a helpful tool, even if it allows a cathartic release for those frustrated with whatever is happening (left or right, Dem or Rep, Dig or Remodel).
That being said, we need to recognize that we each moved to Mt. Lebanon for various but complimentary reasons, geographic convenience, reputable education system, effective police and fire services and the comfort that provides, diversity (political, age, race, etc.), green spaces, athletic facilities, a sense of community, sidewalks, a central business district (maybe that would be a positive blog topic - Why did you move to Mt. Lebanon?).
Whether you use the fire department (fortunately most of us don't need to) or not, the fact that we have one (and a superb one at that, from personal experience), the fact that it is there provides all of us with some incremental value to our homes and some utility in that we have the comfort of knowing that they are there.
Likewise, even if you do not have school-aged children and you never intend to have school-aged children, the simple fact that our school district, although not perfect, is reputable and probably the envy of many other communities, benefits all of us. It benefits us not only in the value of our homes but also, absent a global economic crisis, the ability to sell our houses quickly.
Personally, I have bought 3 houses and sold 2 houses in Mt. Lebanon, each sale was quick (15 days in 1999 without a realtor; and a month or 2 in 2008 with Howard Hanna) both with a decent profit; each buy was in a competitive bidding situation. If you are willimg to sell your house for a reasonable price, you will likely be able to sell it quickly (reasonableness has nothing to do with your mortgage and everything to do with the market - one of my buys was a competitive low bid for a house that was way overpriced (by at least $100k) and sat for a long time on the market. It did not get many bids because of being way overpriced and folks being unwilling to present what may be perceived to be a low bid because of its relation to the ASK, not its relation to the MARKET; when we bid on it, they had a mini-auction and it sold over the weekend.
Seniors benefit also, because I suspect that many seniors in Mt. Lebanon moved to Mt. Lebanon to be close to their children and grandchildren (or vice versa, the children moved to Lebo to be close to their parents/grandparents). So when a senior in a "senior community" wants or has to sell their house/unit, buyers are there.
Nobody likes to pay taxes, and many think that government is an inefficient but necessary mechanism for securing the public welfare. However the decision was made and by whomsoever made it, I am not so cynical as to believe that those leaders made their decision based on anything other than what they truly believed was in the best interest of the schools, students, and community.
What concerns me more than whether to go ahead with the High School is that our collective obsession with this one issue, which as some have said has for all practical purposes been decided, begs the question: Why is our school district's rankings dropping as compared to our peers, notwithstanding the substantial funding from our taxes.
I don't think building the high school will raise our rankings. If it is true that Mr. Steinhauer's time has been subsumed by this issue as the rankings are falling, then we are in for a world full of hurt because we will be paying for this for the next several decades, and we won't have school kids in the building and our home values will drop.
Lets spend more of our energy on improving the school district and not going on ad nauseum over a ship that has already set sail.
Many Emamzadeh
Post a Comment
<< Home