ShareThis Page
Plum high school project will cost district more than it thought |

Plum high school project will cost district more than it thought

| Thursday, March 8, 2007 12:00 a.m

The Plum School District will not be getting any money back from a $10 million bond issue in 2003 because the district had reached its reimbursement limit before the bond was issued, the state Department of Education said Thursday.

Interim Business Manager Sheldon Berk said the $10 million bond issue that was taken out to wrap up the $57 million remodeling and expansion project at Plum Senior High School will cost the district the amount of the bond issue, plus $6.5 million in interest until 2032.

“Perhaps if the district had not gone quite as extravagant with the high school, this would not have happened,” said school board member Paul Olijar, who chairs the board’s finance committee. “It is very disappointing.”

The high school project, which was completed in 2005, initially had been estimated at $47 million. The project was plagued with cost overruns, however, and came in at $57 million.

Berk said the approved reimbursement amount on the high school project is $9.8 million. That amount was reached between 2000 and 2002 when the district issued three separate sets of bonds.

Berk said he discovered the district wasn’t receiving reimbursement for the $10 million bond issue from 2003 while preparing a preliminary budget for the 2007-08 school year.

Olijar had theorized that planning and construction documents were not submitted to the Department of Education in Harrisburg.

Mark Lukacs, the school district’s business manager, who since has been suspended by the district for matters not related to the bond issue, said Wednesday through his lawyer that he filed the proper documents with the Department of Education.

Berk confirmed Lukacs’ assertion. “The proper paperwork was filed,” he said.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.