Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

I believe we can do better than Issue 28.... better for the taxpayers and certainly better for our children. Please read the following:

The following is cut and paste from Jim Brink's web site www.jimbrink.org on the page titled Bond Issue 2004 (#28) - Finances

this issue. The title of the web page is

Bond Issue 2004 (#28) - Finances

Summary
?• Levy supporters claim their approach is ''most affordable'' and ''most efficient''. But, a detailed look at the finances suggests their approach has no short term financial benefits, and is likely to cost much more over the long term (5 years to 20 years).

?•Levy supporters used one set of student capacity to justify construction claims and ''cost effectiveness'' assertions, but a different set of capacity numbers to describe resulting school sizes to the public.

?•The proposed building program, based on student capacities told to the public, may see just one year without the use of portables.
Comparing Levy Supporter Assertions with Facts


The following items were taken directly from literature provided. The numbered items (in black) are the assertions in levy supporters' literature. The lettered items (in red) are my analyses of those claims.

1. Supporters' assertion: Issue #28 will provide the same number of classrooms as building three new 750 student elementary schools, but for $19M less (i.e., $55M versus $36.2M)

a. Three new schools designed to hold 750 students would hold 2,250 students. The issue #28 was placed on the ballot with the claim that the new elementary would hold 1,000 students, Pickerington Elementary and Violet Elementary would have 12 new classrooms each, and Harmon and Diley Middle Schools would have 14 new classrooms each. Assuming 25 students per classroom, that comes to a capacity of 2,300 students. So, it would appear the claim is true.

B.However, the literature and statements all emphasize that some of the new space will be common space, and the expanded buildings will not be increased to the maximum levels in the paragraph above. When using the low range of their numbers, the increased capacity is only 1,225 students. Using their high range, the increase is 1,575. At most, this plan provides space for 1,500 more students, which is just two 750 student schools.

C. Two 750 student schools should cost less than $30M, based on historical numbers. Even according to literature provided that the board used to pass 5 Resolutions of Necessity on August 9, the two schools should approximate $34M. (Click here for that table). So, when comparing EQUAL student populations, building new buildings is LESS THAN the plan in issue #28.

D.Conclusion: the supporters are using much higher student capacity numbers when comparing building costs to new buildings, but using much lower student capacity numbers when describing how these buildings will be used. I call that misleading!
Don't believe me? Click here( ON jIM'S SITE ONLY) for the detailed numbers in table format.

2. Supporters' assertion: All district students will be ''under roof'' (as opposed to portables), eliminating 30 portable classrooms housing over 700 students.

a. Supporters' literature states that Tussing Elementary ''Future Capacity is 750-850''. The current enrolment is 831.

b. Supporters' literature states that Fairfield Elementary ''Future Capacity is 625-650''. The current enrolment is 644.

c. Construction for Tussing Elementary and Fairfield Elementary are NOT part of the Issue #28 plan.

d. Apparently, the 4 portable classrooms at Fairfield Elementary and the 6 portable classrooms at Fairfield Elementary will continue to be used.

oppose 2

3. Supporters' assertion: Heritage 5th and 6th graders will ''return'' to Harmon and Diley middle schools. ''Heritage will revert back to the K-4 building for which it was remodeled.''
a. The school was remodeled with a capacity that was not to exceed 450-500 students. That is what that board committed to doing (of course, no board has control over a future board's actions).

b. The current enrollment is 681 students, 463 of whom are in K-4.

c. In addition, 4 classrooms are being used for preschool (note: the district must provide this preschool by law, it is not optional).

d. Conclusion: the ''return'' will not result in additional capacity at Heritage.

4. Supporters' assertion: Issue #28 handles growth through 2012

a. If we follow the supporters' logic, 700 students will be moved from portables to ''under roof''. As mentioned above, 200 students will be moved from Heritage to the expanded Harmon or Diley without increasing the capacity of Heritage.

b.As described in point 2b above, the real increase in capacity for this new construction in issue #28 is 1,500 students at most.

c. Using the same projections that the supporters used, the real capacity will be consumed in the 2007-2008 school year, that is, when the new construction opens. (Supporters' projections are: 235 additional K-6 students in 2005; 339 in 2006; 188 in 2007).

d. Conclusion: The portables will continue to be used.
To get to 2012, each of our 7 elementary and middle school buildings must hold at least 100 more students than the maximum quoted in their literature. (Using the supporters' population projections, there will be approximately 1,600 more K-6 students by 2012. But as noted, the real capacity increase without portables is just 600 more students than we have in 2004.)

5.Supporters' assertion: Administrative and support staff savings

2 fewer principals

a, The implications: (a) adding staff and students doesn't increase their workload, or (b) they don't have enough to do now

b. In reality, administrators will be added to handle the increased workload, but their title will be dean or assistant principal.

c.With the added problems caused by crowding and handling larger buildings, this cost will go up.

2 fewer cafeteria staffs

a.The cafeteria staff are paid via lunch fees. It is well known that the district actually collects more money from lunch fees than it pays for food and salaries.
There are no taxpayer savings from this item.

Fewer secretarial staff

a. The implications: (a) adding staff and students doesn't increase their workload, or (b) they don't have enough to do now.

b. In reality, there won't be space for additional secretarial staff and the workload will be picked up by teachers and administrators, at a much higher rate of pay.

c. Net effect: increased staff and parent aggravation, along with added costs overall.

Fewer custodial staff

a. The implications: (a) adding staff, students and space doesn't increase their workload, or (b) they don't have enough to do now.

b. We aren't manufacturing students on a production line. The number of teachers, administrators, assistants and staff is proportional to the number of students, no matter where you house them.

c. The increased levels of crowding mentioned (click here) is more likely to cause a greater increase in these staff than new, properly sized buildings.

oppose 3

6. Supporters' assertion: Fewer buildings to heat

a. This is probably true to an extent, but the amount of space is also being increased. So, this is not likely to be significant (although neither I nor anyone else has done actual estimates to my knowledge).

7. Supporters' assertion: Inventory savings: libraries, science equipment, physical education equipment, cafeterias

a. These items tend to be proportional to the number of students. So, savings in this category means these items will be denied to the students.

b.See my comments about the effects of crowding. We'll save on libraries because the students will have less access and fewer materials there to access. The effects will be similar for science equipment and physical education equipment.

Supporters' assertion: Reduces green space to maintain

a. True, resulting in decreased playground space for an increased population of students.

Supporters failed to mention: Transportation costs

a. These costs will go up because larger buildings require increased busing due to distance.

b. Increasing these buildings by just 150 students will result in busing this increase - forever. That will increase transportation costs by at least $125,000 per year-- forever, and continually adjusted higher due to fuel costs.

Supporters failed to mention: Long term construction costs

a. If we permanently move to 800-1,000 student elementary and middle school buildings, all future buildings must be of similar size. This will force an even greater use of portables to handle growth between times when buildings are constructed.

b. In effect, this plan will relieve the use of portables for a year or two. But, they will necessarily become a permanent part of the district's housing plan.

c.As population shifts (naturally), the larger buildings will be further away from the students. Either the buildings will become partially unused, or we will increase the transportation costs.
Why the Discrepancies and Misleading Statements?
Time. This plan was rushed through the process. Two board members spend two months, part time, creating this plan.
Building administrators (principals) were not involved in the planning. When asked, they mentioned reasons for their opposition (see my remarks in the crowding area which I summarized from conversations with them).
Teachers were not involved in the planning. In fact, it was summer when most teachers were off AND they were in contract negotiations with the board.
Other board members were not involved in the planning. In particular, I was not involved. This plan took the first step toward the ballot on the SAME day it was introduced to the whole board.
The community was not involved. In fact, in two prior public committees, other plans were recommended.

The old adage that Haste Makes Waste applies here. Please vote against Issue #28 and enable the board and the community to put forth a well-considered, reasonable long-term plan. My assessment is that a cheaper per-taxpayer plan can be offered for approval (the reconfiguration committee's plan was cheaper). Over the long term, significantly cheaper per-taxpayer plans are available.

I must agree

I think Mr. Brink has succinctly stated a number of very good reasons why this issue should be defeated. His arguments are sound. We CAN do better.