Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

Issue 28
Voters should support school bond issue

Thursday, October 21, 2004

What ought to be a good time for the two groups that are primarily in charge of the Pickerington Local School District seems instead to be a difficult one.

The teachers think they have been disrespected by the board of education and are making that known to the community.

The board of education has worked hard to keep costs low and to maximize the state funding available to it from the Ohio School Facilities Commission, but seems to feel these accomplishments have done little but make it a target for criticism.

Part of the board's cost-control effort led to a teacher contract, narrowly approved by the teachers, that extends for only two years, this year and next, instead of the traditional three.

Effective this year, base pay rises 1.5-percent. Next year, base pay rises 2.0 percent.

Of course, that's base pay. Real, actual pay is an additional 2.1 percent on top of that. (This is an average, with some teachers receiving more and some receiving less, but even so, by definition, whatever they get or don't get this year will be made up next.)

That means raises this year of 3.6-percent and next year of 4.1 percent. Private sector raises usually are less, and teachers' membership in the state pension system is worth a great deal in addition.

These numbers are important because they are the be-all and end-all of school operating budgets. Teachers' salary alone, without benefits, accounts for about 60 percent of Pickerington's expenses. Adding administrators and staff pay, and benefits for all of them, raises the account to 80 percent.

Everything else - transportation, pay to play, utilities, etc., etc., etc. - is window dressing. Yes, with a $70-million budget, the remaining 20-percent, or $14-million, is expensive window dressing, but in proportionate terms, you have to go where the money is, and the $56-million paid to personnel - teaching, support and administrative-dominates the picture.

At this point, you could be forgiven for asking, what does any of this have to do with a bond issue?

As the board and administration will tell every voter who says, ''I just voted you money last year! Why are you back again?,'' operating money is entirely separate from building money. State law distinguishes the two quite clearly, for good and sufficient reasons.

But this is a false distinction. For one thing, each time the board, the administration and the teachers say bond issues and operating levies are different things, there is another time they will tell you how important a good physical classroom is to a student's learning.

More important, in terms of the ballot, is voter perception. How are you, as a voter, more likely to think about your tax bill? That you have 10.80-mills in bond issue due plus 28.98-mills in operating levy? Or are you more likely to just total it up (including a 0.43-mill permanent improvement levy) as 40.21 mills?

Most voters probably just look at their actual dollar figure. If you have a $200,000 home or condo, you pay $2,460 in property tax each year to support Pickerington schools.



By Conservative Taxpayer

Support Issue 28 - continued

So, finally, we reach the big question: Do you want to make it $2,625?

Posed that way, the answer of course is ''No.'' No one wants to pay higher taxes. Such voter reluctance is the heart of the Ohio Supreme Court's DeRolph school-funding case and the bane of every elected and appointed bureaucrat.

''Too much reliance on property tax!'' they all say, which is code for, ''Give us a sneakier way to raise taxes.''

Fortunately, voters are smarter than these officials, and they don't give an automatic ''no'' to every tax increase. Instead, they ask themselves, should I support these buildings? Am I willing to give the teachers this raise?

That's why Pickerington voters should say yes to Issue 28. For $165 a year (for a $200,000 homeowner), schools will receive construction valued at $36.2-million.

Few if any people disagree that the middle schools and elementary schools are overcrowded. Aging trailers are everywhere, and if capital money isn't spent on expanding real classrooms, it's going to be spent adding new portables.

The board examined more-expensive alternatives, including new, smaller schools, that would have cost $50-million, or $228 a year for the $200,000 homeowner. They rejected this, reasoning that voters were more likely to approve the same classroom space for nearly 30 percent less money.

Given the size of the schools, the district has already built, this was a smart choice. It's true the middle schools will grow larger, but they'll be similar in size to the elementary schools, which are quite large themselves and yet seemingly satisfactory.

The Pickerington Education Association, almost inexplicably, has opposed Issue 28, saying it wants smaller buildings.

Maybe so, but they've got 800 students more or less at Pickerington, Tussing and Violet elementary schools now. This district is not built on the smaller-is-better model.

And when you consider that the board's reconfiguration committee, which included strong teacher representation, spent a year coming up with arguments not to change anything, but to instead keep the large schools that already exist configured as they already are, it's hard to credit the teachers with anything but anger over raises they think are too small.

Pickerington's financial state is not a happy one. It already faces a looming operating deficit, for which it will need a new operating levy in 2005 or 2006. This dim assessment doesn't include money for raises the teachers will be seeking in 2006, when this year's two-year contract expires.

Making things worse, an existing 5.0-mill operating levy is due to expire in 2006, putting the district at risk of losing some of the already-insufficient revenue that exists now.
To top it all, the district must have new buildings, which means that if this bond issue fails, it will be back. The next time, the board might well ask for more than 2.7-mills, when there will be greater pressure to pass the issue.

That's three money votes in less than two years. It's a lot to ask. Do the teachers or the board expect them all to be approved?

In sum, the only people who should oppose this bond issue are those who want three things: (1) The district to engage in a massive philosophical change about building size, (2) Voter approval of significantly higher taxes to go along with the change, and (3) Voter approval of a great deal more operating money for teachers and buildings than is already being asked for, or will be asked for soon.

This won't happen.

Issue 28 is about as responsible as the district can be. Voters should say yes.




By Conservative Taxpayer

Errors deserve answer

Dear conservative taxpayer:

Why would you want to pay more money for space that only provides capacity for two more schools? Read below:

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.

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

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.

Brink's motives are union driven

Dr. Brink has made it clear - he supports special interests - NOT the community. If I remember correctly he received more votes than only the teacher's union could produce - has he forgotten?

I've heard he spends more time with Carla Faultz than the Board he claimed he could build consensus with. Where is his leadership now?

He has not presented a plan to accomodate the same student population until 2012 that he would consider worthy. He sits back and throws stones. Anyone can do that - there is some real talent right here on this website.

Let's see some alternative solutions with a price tag I can afford!



By No Union's for Me