Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Bond Financing topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

School bond advertisement contained wrong figure; board to meet Jan. 27 to correct it

Carlynton School District Board of Education · January 20, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Bond counsel told the Carlynton School District board the public advertisement for an upcoming bond used an incorrect maximum amount; the board scheduled a special meeting for Jan. 27 to re-advertise and vote. Officials said the district expects to borrow about $20 million for planned renovations.

Bond counsel Anthony Ditka told the Carlynton School District board on Jan. 20 that an incorrect number was included in the public advertisement for a planned bond issue, and the board will hold a special meeting next week to correct the record and vote on the matter.

"We pulled the wrong number and that we anticipate the 20,000,000 trades would have not issued authority," Ditka said, explaining the advertisement showed a figure larger than the district intends to borrow. Acting on the discrepancy, the board agreed to schedule a special meeting for Tuesday, Jan. 27, at 6 p.m., to re-advertise the correct maximum and consider the bond vote.

Superintendent Dr. Kreider said the special meeting is intended to ensure transparency and public notice. "That meeting will be at 6PM," he said, and staff will publish the corrected advertisement in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ahead of the meeting. Ditka added the district still anticipates borrowing in the roughly $20 million range, rather than the higher amount that appeared in the prior notice.

The bond would support several capital projects discussed at the meeting, including a roofing project slated to start in April 2026 and a shop/STEM renovation described later in the agenda. District officials said proposals for bond-related work are due Feb. 19 and could be brought back to the board for consideration at a March meeting if appropriate.

The board did not take a bond vote on Jan. 20 because of the discrepancy; members said the Jan. 27 session would provide a clearer record for the public and allow the district to proceed in compliance with state advertisement requirements.