Shaky Ground

It’s a position that should be non-partisan. People have said that. I have maintained for the last three years that there was a place for political parties at the school board level. This high school project was to me the perfect opportunity to be able to demonstrate the kind of unity and communication that can come from being part of a Board majority . For me, one of my most important guiding principles has been fiscal responsibility. I have tried to demonstrate this principle and vote this idea with every opportunity I have on the Board. Being fiscally responsible doesn't mean cutting programs, cutting staff, and cutting everything. It is about maximizing efficiencies and, most importantly, making long-term financial decisions that will put this Board on better financial footing in the future. These ideas to me have represented the best of what the Republican Party has to offer.

Understand that this Board is on shaky ground. One could legitimately argue that the next few years and their forthcoming tax increases will define the next generation of our residents. Under the school board’s current path the high school construction project will raise taxes between 15-20% alone. When looking out a bit further we can see more tax increases for PSERS, staff salaries, health benefits, and more. This will be coupled with possible lower revenues from earned income taxes and investments income. An unconstitutional real estate tax system here in Allegheny County only adds to the uncertainty of future taxes in Mt Lebanon. Add to all this an article by the City Manager down in Johnstown, PA where he points out that more than 50% of the municipalities in the 10 county Pittsburgh region have experienced structural deficits between the years of 2000 and 2005 and you can see that the financial footing out there is rather treacherous.

I have posted before regarding some of the effects of higher taxes here and here. I have posted on the options that potential residents have (here and here) when comparing tax rates of similar communities. The fact is that people have choices. I WANT people to choose to live here. We have a lot to like. Mike Madison over at BlogLebo has posts about what he loves about Mt Lebanon. I'd encourage people to go over there and post what they love about Mt Lebanon as well. The tree-lined streets aren't going anywhere. Snow being off the road about five minutes after it hits the ground will most likely stay as well. Hopefully, we can maintain and even increase the achievement levels of our students here in Mt Lebanon. I think we have the right superintendent in place to make this happen. Mt Lebanon is a great place to live. Will it still be that kind of place when folks are paying $7000 a year in real estate tax on a $200,000 home and 1.9% in income tax in three years? My fear is that people in Mt Lebanon and beyond will soon come to realize that living in another community with half the taxes and a similar educational experience will allow them to save enough tax money to pay for their child's college education. There are great things about Mt Lebanon but every current and potential family must weigh those positives against a tax structure that penalizes residents more than surrounding communities.

We have seen communities fall. The City of Pittsburgh has tried for years to tax its way to prosperity and to what avail? From the same article listed above there is the following line:

All the research shows a majority of the municipalities in Pennsylvania are on a path to fiscal distress, with many already there. Currently, 18 municipalities in Pennsylvania are in Act 47 status and an additional 39 in the Early Intervention Program, which means they qualify for Act 47 status but haven’t yet officially entered the program.

The City of Pittsburgh has had to resort to gimmicks like forgoing real estate tax receipts for a number of years to new homebuyers in the City to attract people back to the downtown real estate market. However, the never ending cycle of tax increases to fill budget gaps simply pushed more and more people away from downtown and out to the suburbs. The result has been a net population decrease for the Pittsburgh region that was second only to New Orleans between 2000 and 2006. The point is this; the road to prosperity for Mt Lebanon does not include spending as much as possible on a high school and asking our taxpayers to pick up the bill. Not when we are already taxed at a high rate. Not when there are options on the table that would cost significantly less and give us the same student outcomes. And especially not in an economic environment that is so severely disrupted.

These last points are the ideas that I have brought to my fellow Republicans on the Board. I have brought these ideas to them thinking that if nothing else, as Republicans they would have to agree that being fiscally responsible does not include proposing and approving a project that is less than 1% under a voter referendum limit. Instead, that is exactly what has happened. I had conversations with my Republican colleagues on the Board prior to this past budget to suggest ways to improve the budget in order to offset part of the cost of the high school project. Instead there were no changes. I had hoped that at least my Republican colleagues on the Board would agree with me when I suggested this past spring to invest all our surplus from the 2008-2009 budget into the high school project so as to avoid interest expense on 25 years of borrowing that same amount later. Instead, we set aside less. To me these suggestions were mostly common sense. It is quite possible that I am the worst salesman for my own ideas but for each of these suggestions I always had at least one other Board member who was right there with me.

I am not so sure why my expectations were much different on Monday night. But, I showed up on Monday hoping to have a good discussion about why floating the $69 million worth of bonds right now doesn't make sense. I was also willing to compromise and try to find a way to come to the middle with the rest of the Board if they could meet me in the middle on some issues as well. Instead, I got more of the same. I was against spending almost $1 million in interest on bonds that would be floated months before we actually needed the proceeds. It had previously been suggested by members of the Board that floating the bonds now would allow us to pre-buy things that we need anyway. This idea was shot down by our construction manager who suggested that doing the project this way would instead add cost. I was against floating bonds for a project that did not yet have a firm budget associated with it. I was also hoping that the Board would finally adopt a "not to exceed" number on this project. This point became particularly important as we found out that we would be able to borrow over and above the $115 million debt limit that had been previously established. The idea of setting a firm budget did not gain traction. Unfortunately, each of these ideas was shot down by the majority of the Board. In fact, tonight, not only did we vote to begin funding the project with $69 million worth of bonds, but the majority of the Board voted in favor of issuing bonds that in the long run allow us to borrow even more money (scope creep) and will cost us at least $3 million more in principal and interest payments. Between floating the bonds months before we need them and approving the sale of the premium structure of tax-exempt bonds, we just passed $4 million in additional expense on to the taxpayers that will result in absolutely no net benefit to them. I was willing to give on floating bonds earlier than we needed them but I at least would have liked to see the Board take advantage of the Build America Bond program to reduce future tax strain on our residents.

What I don't think has gotten through to some in the party is that one of the reasons Republican's were so resoundingly thrown out of office in 2006 and 2008 is because people absolutely do not trust elected officials who spend tax money recklessly. The Democrats picked up so many seats that they now control both houses of Congress and the Presidency. I, and many of my fiscally conservative friends, could not tell the difference anymore between the elected Republicans of the early 2000’s and the “tax and spend” Democrats that were the nemesis to Reagan when I was growing up. So at this point I have to say I have had enough of the party politics. If the Republican leadership on the Board cannot find a way reduce costs on this project or is unwilling to do so, then any possible argument for party membership is lost.

With that said, I will be leaving the Republican Party and joining a growing number of Independent voters in this country. It is from this position that I will bring my fiscally conservative principles to the Board and will try to govern in a party-neutral manner. This has been a difficult decision for me with the more recent actions of the GOP finally pushing me over the edge. The high school project and the inability to form a cost-saving consensus even among Republicans over the last two years has been frustrating and started this ball rolling. The straw that broke the camel’s back was the nationwide Republican political opposition to the President of the United States giving a speech to our school children about the importance of staying in school and working hard. I will never understand why there was an organized email campaign against this speech and its supposed “indoctrination”. We have ONE President folks and he has earned the right to address our children. If you don’t like what he says then you have the other 23 hours and 40 minutes of the day to “unindoctrinate” your kids. I disagree with our President as much as the next person, but I also respect his office.

Thanks for reading.


James

Keystone Exams Update

There have been a lot of twists and turns to this story. After the PA legislature voted not to fund the exams last year, the Governor and Secretary of Education went ahead with their planning anyway. There is no question that the majority of the legislature does not want these exams to go any further as evidenced by 145 of 203 house members that have signed onto a bill asking that the plans be stopped.

Please see the article below from PennLive.com:

Move to stall Keystone Exams faces uphill fight
House education chairman says he has no plans to take up a resolution to hold off high school graduation testing.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
BY JAN MURPHY jmurphy@patriot-news.com

The proposal to attach tests to high school graduation continues to stir controversy in the state Capitol.

A House resolution introduced this week calls for slowing the plan's approval and requiring it to gain House and Senate approval before any more money is spent on it. The resolution has the backing of 145 of the 203 House members.

Rep. Paul Clymer, R-Bucks, who sponsored the resolution to slow the plan, said the strong backing of Republican and Democratic House members reflects widespread opposition to moving ahead with the initiative. The state plans to invest $18.3 million this year to implement the initiative, and $176 million through the next five years.
Advertisement

"We need to take another look before the Keystone Exams" are approved, Clymer said.

The State Board of Education approved the statewide graduation requirements last month to ensure graduates leave high school with skills needed in college or the workplace. It requires students pass either state exams, advanced placement or international baccalaureate exams, or a state-approved local assessment in four core subjects to graduate. Students who fail can complete a project instead.

The plan is now making its way through the state's regulatory approval process, which does not include a vote by the full House or Senate. The Senate Education Committee endorsed the plan last month.

In his resolution, Clymer cites education groups that oppose the plan or have withdrawn their support. It also mentions the Pennsylvania State Conference of the NAACP's position that the change could lead to higher dropout rates and increase the prison population.

At a Wednesday meeting, Clymer informed the State Board of Education of his resolution and asked for a response. Board Chairman Joseph Torsella, who led the effort to strike a compromise with education groups and legislators on the initiative, said the resolution raises no new issues.

The resolution has been sent to the House Education Committee for consideration. That committee's chairman, Rep. James Roebuck, D-Philadelphia, said he supports the Keystone Exams and at this point, has no intention of bringing the resolution to a vote

"I'm not quite certain what the intent of the resolution is," Roebuck said.

He noted Clymer did not participate in conversations that Torsella orchestrated to address concerns about the plan. Furthermore, Roebuck said he told Clymer that he would consider having the committee discuss the resolution after the 2009-10 state budget is finalized.

House Republican spokesman Steve Miskin said that timing makes no sense because funding for the initiative is part of the budget discussion.

Clymer and Rep. Rosita Youngblood, D-Philadelphia, sent a letter Wednesday to Roebuck asking him to reconsider his position on taking up the resolution.

"With overwhelming support for our resolution, we hope that you will allow the committee to act on this legislation and provide answers and accountability to the people of this state," it states.

Given how this process has gone so far, I am not optimistic about this move working. There has been widespread opposition to these exams from the outset and somehow the Governor and a few members of the legislature have been able to shield these exams from being shut down.

Please consider giving your state representative a call to voice your opinion on the matter. State Representative Matt Smith is a co-sponsor of the current bill (HR 456) that would prevent any further tax dollars from going to these new high school graduation requirements.

Thanks for reading.

James

Tax Rates and the Local Economy

Some of the issues I pound on when it comes to the school board have to do with fiscal responsibility. With that comes the desire to reduce or lessen the growth of the tax burden on members of our community. That is not to say that the Board has the ability to reduce property taxes, I would never make that promise- not in an environment where property assessments are frozen at 2002 levels and where the District has contracts that increase every year. When I look out 2-5 years it is pretty easy to see what is coming down the pike. When you look at the more than $100 million high school, PSERs (which I will give an update on soon), and the contracts mentioned above, it is easy to see larger than 30% increases in property taxes here in Mt Lebanon. The only reason I say it probably won't be more than that is that I expect the State legislature will come up with a solution to address much of the PSERS expenses coming due in 2012. Call it wishful thinking if you like, but elected officials are in the business of getting re-elected and if they can't come to a solution on that single issue, there won't be many people getting re-elected in 2012. On many occasions I have opined about the coming tax increases and how we will compare to other Districts across the State. I have only touched on what the implications of such high taxes will be. It is those implications that I wish to address here.

To that end, I came across a speech given by Calvin Coolidge on February 12, 1924 in front of the National Republican Club. I don't know if I have ever read a speech by a President that so clearly illustrated the effects of high taxes on economic activity. While President Coolidge's speech was addressing the national economy, the effect of high taxes is the same whether at the federal level or local level. Below are some excerpts with my comments on sections that I think need highlighting:

In time of war, finances, like all else, must yield to national defense and preservation. In time of peace finances, like all else, should minister to the general welfare. Immediately upon my taking office it was determined after conference with Secretary Mellon that the Treasury Department should study the possibility of tax reduction for the purpose of securing relief to all taxpayers of the country and emancipating business from unreasonable and hampering exactions. The result was the proposed bill, which is now pending before the Congress. It is doubtful if any measure ever received more generous testimony of approval. Opposition has appeared to some of its details, but to the policy of immediate and drastic reduction of taxes, so arranged as to benefit all classes and all kinds of business, there has been the most general approbation. These recommendations have been made by the Treasury as the expert financial adviser of the Government. They follow, in their main principle of a decrease in high surtaxes, which is only another name for war taxes, the views of the two preceding Secretaries of the Treasury, both of them Democrats of pronounced ability. They are nonpartisan, well thought out, and sound. They carry out the policy of reducing the taxes of everybody, especially people of moderate income. They give to the country almost a million dollars every working day.

During World War I, taxes were raised to help fund the war effort. The United States still ended up borrowing billions of dollars to help fight the war, and we were also a major credit provider for our allies in that war. However, after the war ended, tax rates were not reduced to pre-war levels. President Coolidge in this speech is essentially calling for a return to the normalization of pre-WWI tax rates. As he said in his opening, he had no problem with financing a war with higher taxes, but in times of peace, he felt differently.

The proposed bill maintains the fixed policy of rates graduated in proportion to ability to pay. That policy has received almost universal sanction. It is sustained by sound arguments based on economic, social, and moral grounds. But in taxation, like everything else, it is necessary to test a theory by practical results. The first object of taxation is to secure revenue. When the taxation of large incomes is approached with that in view, the problem is to find a rate which will produce the largest returns. Experience does not show that the higher rate produces the larger revenue. Experience is all in the other way. When the surtax rate on incomes of $300,000 and over was but 10 per cent, the revenue was about the same as when it was at 65 per cent. There is no escaping the fact that when the taxation of large incomes is excessive, they tend to disappear. In 1916 there were 206 incomes of $1,000,000 or more. Then the high tax rate went into effect.

The next year there were only 141, and in 1918 but 67. In 1919 the number declined to 65. In 1920 it fell to 33, and in 1921 it was further reduced to 21. I am not making any argument with the man who believes that 55 per cent ought to be taken away from the man with $1,000,000 income, or 68 per cent from a $5,000,000 income; but when it is considered that in the effort to get these amounts we are rapidly approaching the point of getting nothing at all, it is necessary to look for a more practical method. That can be done only by a reduction of the high surtaxes when viewed solely as a revenue proposition, to about 25 percent.

I agree perfectly with those who wish to relieve the small taxpayer by getting the largest possible contribution from the people with large incomes. But if the rates on large incomes are so high that they disappear, the small taxpayer will be left to bear the entire burden. If, on the other hand, the rates are placed where they will produce the most revenue from large incomes, then the small taxpayer will be relieved. The experience of the Treasury Department and the opinion of the best experts place the rate which will collect most from the people of great wealth, thus giving the largest relief to people of moderate wealth, at not over 25 per cent.

This part of his speech perfectly illustrates the soundness of the Laffer Curve which was "discovered" in the 1970's by economist Arthur Laffer. The Laffer Curve suggests that there are two tax rates that will produce the exact same revenue. Think about it this way, at 0% tax, the government realizes no revenue and at 100% tax, there is no incentive to work and therefore the government again realizes no tax revenue. At various points along the graph coming down from 100% and up from 0%, there are points at which government can realize the same revenue. This is illustrated perfectly when Coolidge points out that tax receipts at the 65% tax rate were the same as when tax rates were at 10%.

A very important social and economic question is also involved in high rates. That is the result taxation has upon national development. Our progress in that direction depends upon two factors; personal ability and surplus income. An expanding prosperity requires that the largest possible amount of surplus income should be invested in productive enterprise under the direction of the best personal ability. This will not be done if the rewards of such action are very largely taken away by taxation. If we had a tax whereby on the first working day the Government took 5 percent of your wages, on the second day 10 per cent, on the third day 20 per cent, on the fourth day 30 percent, on the fifth day 50 per cent, and on the sixth day 60 percent, how many of you would continue to work on the last two days of the week? It is the same with capital. Surplus income will go into tax-exempt securities. It will refuse to take the risk incidental to embarking in business. This will raise the rate which established business will have to pay for new capital, and result in a marked increase in the cost of living. If new capital will not flow into competing enterprise the present concerns tend toward monopoly, increasing again the prices which the people must pay.

Taken altogether, I think it is easy enough to see that I wish to include in the program a reduction in the high surtax rates, not that small incomes may be required to pay more and large incomes be required to pay less, but that more revenue may be secured from large incomes and taxes on small incomes may be reduced; not because I wish to relieve the wealthy, but because I wish to relieve the country.

President Coolidge here is suggesting that allowing people to keep their surplus capital (and not the government) will lead to better economic growth. People will employ this capital in the most efficient way possible, in a way that gets them a return on their investment. His stated goal is to secure the largest possible amount of revenue to the federal government but not at the expense of stifling production. His plan to do this, under the guidance of Treasury Secretary Mellon, is to reduce the top marginal tax rates to 25%.

This legislation was past shortly after this speech and so began the "Roaring 20's". There were tremendous increases in overall GNP from just under $70 billion to over $103 billion in just over five years. And this happened without a jump in inflation, indeed, prices actually went down while GNP increased.

The point of this is to say that for decades (perhaps more) we have seen the impact that high taxes have on consumption and production. Many of those in favor of a large high school project here in Mt Lebanon like to say that an extra $60 per month is just a cup of coffee a day, or that its just one less dinner out per month. If that is the case then let me ask the obvious question. What if this actually turned out to be true? What if the residents of Mt Lebanon decided to give up their morning cup of joe or their monthly night out at dinner? What is the impact of that decision? How many people from Mt Lebanon do you think go to Aldo's or the Uptown each morning for coffee? How many people hit one of the restaurants on Washington Road or Beverly Road once a month or even once a week? What happens if all of these people actually DO reduce how much coffee they drink or how often they eat out? An increase of $60 a month in tax has the potential to take money directly from the productive part of our local economy (the coffee shops, the florists, the restaurants) and places it directly in the non-production part of local economy (debt service for a high school construction project).

This money will not go to hire more teachers to reduce class sizes. It won't expand programs. It won't make the District magically find ways to become more efficient. There most likely will not be an increase in student achievement and/or test scores due to a newly renovated building- although with our new Superintendent I hope this will happen anyway. The fact is that research does not show that constructing a new building will add anything to our ability to ready our kids for college and life after school. Isn't that what this should be all about?

The question that needs to be addressed has to do with how best to prepare our students for a constantly changing and ever more demanding future. Spending $100 million on bricks and mortar does not seem to be the best answer.

Thanks for reading.

James

August 10 Meeting Summary

There were a few interesting topics discussed at last night's board meeting. The Board was given some high school financing options and we also discussed the possibilities of relocating the 6 tennis courts that will be displaced.

During the architects update we were given a presentation on the Mechanical, Plumbing, Fire Protection, and Electrical Systems. You can find that document here. There was some good information in this presentation regarding some of the technologies we are expecting to use. Other than that, it was a nuts and bolts type presentation.

We were also presented with four options to relocate the tennis courts that will be displaced by the current design. You can view the entire document here. There are good pros and cons presented for each option. Please look through that link yourself and think of what you would prioritize. For me, the top three priorities are to 1) keep the courts on the high school campus, 2)keep the courts together as a unit, and 3) to have parking spaces next to what should be the main building entrance on Horsman.

Option One separates the courts on either side of Horsman Drive and does not allow for much parking near the new main entrance on Horsman. Option two keeps the courts together but has them facing a non-optimal direction while eliminating all parking near the main entrance. Option 3 keeps the courts on campus by moving them behind the rockpile and also allows for maximum parking spaces near the main entrance. However, this does eliminate a number of parking spaces and potentially reduces the area in which our marching band practices. Option 4 relocates the courts to Markham Elementary school.

Given the above options I would choose option 3. If this is the option chosen then I would expect that we are early enough into the design process to figure out a way to add back as many parking spaces as possible through this project while also figuring out an alternative practice space for our marching band. The combination of having parking where we need it (near the main entrance), having the tennis courts all together, and keeping the courts on campus make me believe that this option is the best one. During the meeting last night I asked Dr. Steinhauer to take the lead in figuring out alternative practice spaces for our teams during the construction phase of this project. Hopefully we will have some options shortly.

The other topic of interest was the financing options for the high school project. You can view the presentation here. As you may know, this project is too large to fit under our current debt limit. This requires us to do two floats of bonds to fund this project. In 2006 prior to Act 1, the Board passed a resolution to allow for the floating of $69 million of pre-Act 1 Debt. This means that when that bond is floated, the millage increase required to pay for that debt will not be counted against our Act 1 maximum allowable millage increase (which has been about 4% per year). The structure and payment of those bonds has already been set. The only thing about those bonds not set is what interest rate we would get when we go to auction.

The second set of bonds is where things get a little trickier. The presentation linked to above really is a discussion of the options regarding floating these bonds at a level payment (like your mortgage) versus a wrapped issuance (like an interest only loan for the first number of years). It has been my contention from the start that we ought to have a level payment of the debt. Pushing out the principal payments simply burdens taxpayers with $10 million in additional interest payments (see page 5) and burdens future boards with lowered borrowing capacity since the debt would be repaid at a slower rate.

Having the bonds wrapped simply puts us in the same position where we are now. In 2005 we wrapped the $55 million in elementary school construction bonds. To this date we have paid down very little in principal on those bonds. If memory serves me correctly we still have almost $54 million in outstanding debt on those bond floated back in 2005. This means that our current borrowing ability has been restricted by that wrapped bond schedule. It also means that our taxpayers will be paying excessive interest on those bonds because the principal has been pushed back to the later years of the debt service. As long as we keep wrapping bonds, the district will continue to burden taxpayers with millions of dollars of unnecessary interest costs.

While I have no doubt that we will have the ability to go to the market for the first $69 million in bonds and also the second $47 million, I do have concerns about the Act 1 limitations on the second bond issuance. As I mentioned before, the first bond float is exempt from Act 1. Even if millage needs to increase above an Act 1 limit, we will not be forced to referendum. However, with the second float, that might not be the case. If we did a straight float at $47 million that resulted in over a 1 mill increase, then along with any other kind of budget changes, I would expect that our 2011-2012 budget would be over the Act 1 millage increase limit. It would be the worst of all scenarios to have to go to referendum at that point in the high school project to get the final $47 million to complete a two-thirds completed project. I did ask our financial adviser about this and he admitted that it "could" be an issue. But he also said that there are ways around this. Essentially, what he said is that there are ways to avoid the Act 1 referendum at that point which would include structuring the bonds in such a way that they have minimal up-front impact on millage- essentially recommending that if we were expected to exceed Act 1 limits then we should just wrap the bonds to avoid a referendum.

Why are we trying so hard to avoid a referendum every time we turn around? It seems to me that if we know that the taxpayers would vote down a project of this size (or $500,000 more), then we ought to be planning to do a project of significantly less size and scope.

More on that in a future post.

Thanks for reading.

James

Response to Constituent Email

First, let me take a moment to thank all my friends around the area that helped with a job search that was recently completed. Losing a job is a humbling experience, however, the compassion and willingness to help shown by my friends and neighbors was even more humbling. This experience has forever changed me for the better. On to the blog.

As has been recently blogged on BlogLebo, there is much public discussion about an analysis of the Mt Lebanon High School project that was done by structural engineer and Mt Lebanon resident Dirk Taylor. The documents have been posted by BlogLebo on the link provided above.

As one of the two members of this Board that have over the last year been consistently voicing a dissenting opinion in the pursuit of such an expensive and questionable project, I have been silent about the Taylor Report in the hopes that other Board members would take the opportunity to publicly respond to its content and questions. Perhaps other members will choose to respond at a Board meeting, perhaps they will respond later, or perhaps they will not respond at all. I will take this opportunity to give some feedback on the report. As always, the opinions are mine and may not reflect the opinions of others on the Board.

First, it is important to understand who the author of these documents is. Dirk Taylor is not just a regular structural engineer that happens to live and work in Mt Lebanon. Mr. Taylor has done extensive work for the District over the last number of years. He understands the needs of the District and more importantly understands the architecture and the guts of our buildings. I believe he fully understands the risk he has taken in putting this type of a report out into the hands of the public.

On the functionality of the School:
Mr. Taylor points out some of the biggest misconceptions that I believe the public has had regarding the need for this project. Information has been given to the public that says that our high school buildings are falling down creating a safety issue for our kids and that our current building is not able to adequately educate our students. On both counts I agree with Mr. Taylor. One cannot prove that these statements are true. The public has been shown pictures of broken pipes and has been given tours of the building that show where water has been leaking and where ceiling tiles are missing and these visual anecdotes are used to convince the public that the need for new construction and huge expense is great. However, our architects came back and said that they were perfectly willing to renovate Building B at an EXTREMELY reasonable cost of about $14 million. B Building is the second oldest building at the high school and is also the building that contained some of the oldest plant (water and electric) in the complex. With proper repair and maintenance over the years we might not have some of the issues that are presented as being dire today. Despite its age and its antiquated plant, we have been assured that this building will be renovated in a “like-new” fashion that will better prepare our students for the future at a cost that is far less than construction/renovation at any of the other buildings. Think about this renovation of B Building the same way we thought about renovating our elementary schools a few years back. As for how well our students are performing in our existing buildings, what more do we need to look at than our test scores. We have consistently been comparable to other high-performing districts in both SAT and state standardized tests. While we do have room to improve in areas, I have complete confidence in our new superintendent to take us in the right direction on this front no matter what decision is made with the high school construction project.

On Travel Distance:
I went through the most current drawings and tried to figure out exactly where this design criteria has been met. I didn’t see it and this topic makes for a great question to present to the architects.

On Classroom Size:
Pennsylvania Department of Education says that a classroom needs a minimum of 25 sq ft per student. That is their standard. Apparently the renovation of B Building will meet this standard. Mr. Taylor’s description of how the walls are reconfigurable in C Building is new to me. If I did hear it before, I didn’t put much thought into it. Mr. Taylor’s description of how things can be reconfigured in this building to meet PDE standards is very intriguing and has the potential to significantly impact this project in my opinion. Mr. Taylor does address the issue of asbestos later in his report and I think it important to get the facts on what condition ALL of C Building is in from our current architects. I think many in the public and on the Board have been convinced by the architects that C Building needed to be torn down because it has too much asbestos and because it would be more expensive to renovate than it would be to simply replace it with a new academic wing. Mr. Taylor’s report at the very least raises some good questions that ought to be asked of our current architects with regards to the possible re-use of C Building.

On Building Size:
What more can I add? The building size we are being shown today is much larger than other area projects at Bethel Park and Baldwin despite us not having many more students. It is much larger than what has been recommended for the number of students we have. I have pointed this out on my blog on more than one occasion. Mr. Taylor’s comments regarding ways to manage the construction of a renovation project using underused or unused space seems very logical to me. Since eliminating temporary classrooms has been a top priority of the design team to this point, perhaps there is a way to incorporate Mr. Taylor’s suggestion into the renovation of the building.

On the Sports Facility:
There is a pedestrian walkway connecting the new academic wing to the sports wing because the property is zoned for a single building. I know, a pedestrian walkway doesn’t seem to be part of a contiguous building but according to the law it is. It is my understanding that without the pedestrian walkway the sports facility would be in violation of current zoning laws. But, that is small potatoes. Mr. Taylor’s suggestion about re-orienting the pool and then building additional levels for wrestling and fitness on top of the extended pool complex seems very well thought out. Can it be done? It’s another great question for our current architects. If by chance this solution is selected, we cannot ignore the need to then do upgrades and/or expansions to the current field house and locker rooms. I understand the design team is working on figuring out where to put the two displaced tennis courts under the current design. I have not seen if there was a similar effort underway for the softball field. If you have followed the Board and Commission closely, you know that we already have a rather serious issue with having enough field space for our athletes. Removing another practice field from the mix will simply complicate things further.

On LEED:
Again, great points on destroying a perfectly good building to build another like-use building. I can see how that defeats the spirit of LEED/Reusable design.

On Some Omissions:
One omission was mentioned above. What the new athletic complex would have given us is some new locker rooms and space that would have taken the place of the field house. Without that complex we would then need to do something with our existing field house and locker rooms. This work could end up being significant. The second difficulty is figuring out how to improve band/music instruction in the building under Mr. Taylor’s solution. While our current staff and students seem to make the current environment work, I wonder if there is any way to improve it outside of a simple stale renovation of existing space

Conclusion:
All in all I find the report very helpful in trying to determine what direction to take the high school project. The report confirms some of the concerns I have had for some time. I trust Mr. Taylor’s experience and insight and hope the rest of the Board will not take this analysis as simply another email from a disgruntled resident.

Thanks for reading.

James