Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

Operating Levy

Please do not forget that if this issue passes it will be followed immediately by a request for an operating levy.

Per questions asked of Dr. Thiede in his community meetings, the operating levy request will not just be for the additions, etc. paid for by this bond issue but will also include monies for existing schools.

When pressed for an approximate amount of the operating levy, he said that it would be at least as much as, OR MORE THAN this bond issue.

For those of you voting yes for this bond issue, take the estimated cost per year for the value of your house and DOUBLE IT. Then you will be closer amount that this school board is going to cost you.

Lastly, and I have said this before, most to all of you should have received this year?’s reappraisal from the County Auditor. If that wasn?’t sticker shock enough, remember that the first big payment on the $77 M levy passed last time will kick in against the higher appraised amount. Also, technically, for this bond issue, the schools were only required to provide the cost per $100K based on the numbers in hand at the time. Since then, you received your reappraisal, so if this passes and your actual tax increase far exceeds any estimates, you now know why.

Not completely true......

I have been to an informational meeting and asked about the portables. As a parent that is an important issue to me - I would like to see the kids out of them. As a taxpayer I would rather spend money on permanent solutions than to continue to dump money into trailers.

The answer was pointed to within the brochure - it states that attendance boundaries will shift - I was told the Board does not intend to house children in portables. Instead of stating ''apparently'' on his website - shouldn't Dr. Brink be talking with the Board to understand what specifically the intent is?

He has also left off the increase in the capacity at Heritage which goes up for K-4 when the additions at the middle schools open.

I have yet to see an alternative plan from teachers or Dr. Brink that the community can afford or implement. We want small schools isn't enough. I'd like a summer home in the south of France but instead live within my means.

This school district has to start. We as taxpayers on this website have been disappointed with the ''excess'' at North and Lakeview. It started with teacher involvement from the beginning & everyone's wishlists were incorporated into those buildings. The community was clearly dis-satisfied with those results. Now we have an option that is not outlandish and we still aren't happy.

Do you ever start to wonder if we ever can be happy ?? Or is all we are capable of is complaining?


By Violet Mom

Important questions need answers

It seems to me that Dr. Brink has brought up important questions that need direct, detailed answers. In fact, he has pointed out several inaccuracies with the financial as well as capacity numbers that do make this plan look more expensive than it should be, if in fact the excess cost stated fi we do not build this plan is really the total costs to build three more schools when in fact only two would be needed to meet the same needs as this plan with accurate capacity numbers.

I think the cost difference data should be in writing, not estimates from a potential contractor, and I am seeking such information.

I think Dr. Brink's idea of a committee to plan for these facilities, adopted by the board recently, should have been done first before any issue was put on the ballot. I believe many intelligent people have ideas from all sides of the table, ideas that will not rape the taxpayers with excess like we have seen, but still ensure a quality educational environment for our children.

Much of this planning should have been done 17 years ago or later. Creating permanent facilities modeled after the mistakes of the past and present is not the answer, and is certainly not the answer if the long term financial costs are higher than alternatives as Dr. Brink has asserted! To me that is penny wise and pound foolish to the taxpayer. It appears that Dr. Brink has an ability to get into the details and put forth a coherent arguement against this issue. I do think these talents are probably not limited to this task and he may have been able to come up with a better plan....had he been consulted....why was he not consulted? Why were other board members not involved in the details. Why didn't the board prepare this plan in a series of workshops....open to the public?

I thik the taxpayers deserve better. WE deserve detailed analysis of all alternatives in front of the public, especially when it involves public money!

Why the rush....the board has known this was an issue for a long time, why did the board whip this plan together using limited input and railroad this through without getting everyone on board.... especially the professionals they employ who spend their lives and livelyhoods educating themselves to serve our children? This is not about some teacher contract disatifaction, this is about putting a stop to the slow destruction of the quality of education in this district and not allowing it to be institutionalized in this manner.