Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

Why would the school board knowingly spend $1.2 million more for operations than their revenue justifies? In my personal budget, my savings is used only for major expenditures i.e. a roof, a car, major appiance, etc. It is not used to pay my normal expenses like electric, water, gas, and food. Why doesn't the school board cut back now instead of dipping into ''savings'' for normal operating expense?

By ?

Cause & Effect

I'm not sure if the entire reason rests here, but believe a large portion does....

Last year the School District had a record number of students move into the district - I think the number was around 530.

While Pickerington has one of the lowest cost per student at ~$7500 - simple math points to the problem or at least a big portion of it.

530 students * $7500 cost to educate for 1 yr = $3,982,500 in incremental operating costs. I think the tax roles take a year to catch up so the school district gets these kids to educate but no taxes in which to do so the first year.

Someone jump in if I'm heading down the wrong path.

R.E. Taxes

Folks

It takes nearly two FULL years before the improved value of a new home is received by the school district. If it is a resale of an existing home that value is at the full value of the selling price the first year and after that it goes down to being assessed the effective millage rate of the appraised (market) value.

Another Question

So does that mean to maintain expenditures to the revenue level that does come in yearly that the PLSD should be using a two year projection (ahead) of new students & reduce services appropriately to cover the cost of the new kids?

Because the unfunded incremental operating costs should be (430 +530 students) * $7500 to capture the new students in year 2 & new students in year 1. That cost would be $7.2 M.

It sounds like we are lucky they are only $1.2M off. How do you get ahead of that?