No Tax Increase

Have any of the potential NO voters that are fed up with the same ole, same ole from Middletown City Schools spent any time with the new Super to get a feel for what his plans are to make this a better school district? Or is your attitude same ole, same ole because that is much easier?

I would encourage any of you to meet the man - find out what he sees for the future of this district. I think you will be pleased with how different he is from the former Super and the direction Middletown City Schools is moving.

Bill and Vet, you both asked about negotiations with the unions. 

Love To Teach- you state (under the Governors plan) "the plan lowers what local taxpayers are expected to contribute to local schools from 23 mils to 20 mils". Does this statement imply that we taxpayers will be paying LESS to the schools in the future since the milleage is reduced?

Also, you state in your post under use of conversion levies.....will allow districts' revenues to grow- "Districts that use a conversion levy, and all districts whose tax structure already allows growth on 20 mils, will see their tax revenues grow with increased property value, helping schools to keep up with inflation". We all know that the probability of property growth here in Middletown in little to none for many years at the rate this town is progressing. That means, according to the above statement, that due to no property value increases, the schools will not see revenue growth through property value increases so will we be bombarded with levies to "help the schools keep up with inflation"?

It looks like, with the state contributing more in the future (up to 59% by 2017), the Middletown schools can get the bulk of their money from the state and won't bother us with levies all the time- right? OR, will they still keep asking for more even though their monetary appetite has been quenched by the state?

Tomahawk, the short answer is that a change in state law on school funding now allows school districts to be honest about the fact that there will always be a need for a basic level of funding for the schools.  If the need will always be there, and voters generally approve renewals that don't ask for new money, then why go through the disruption and bitterness and distraction from learning that happens every time we have to ask the voters to renew levies to continue the existing funding level?

Current formula to calculate tax revenue uses “phantom revenue”
• Currently, when the state calculates how much tax revenue a local school district has, the state
uses phony numbers, often referred to as “phantom revenue.”
o For example, in many school districts, rising property values do not produce additional
property tax revenue. However, the state formula for school aid assumes districts
receive additional revenue. This formula is not logical, and it results in many districts
being punished because the formula says they have an abundance of phantom dollars
that don’t actually exist.
Establish an effective system of funding that accounts for local resources
• Under the Governor’s plan, the state will no longer ask school districts to pay their bills with
phantom dollars
• Instead, the plan lowers what local taxpayers are expected to contribute to local schools from
23 mills to 20 mills.
o The state will assume responsibility for providing the difference between what those 20
mills raise and the cost of the full range of education resources our students need
according to our evidence-based approach.

Use of conversion levies will allow districts’ revenues to grow
• Districts will have the option of asking voters to pass a conversion levy, which maintains the
existing millage on residential property for a district currently above 20 mills.
• Districts that use a conversion levy, and all districts whose tax structure already allows growth
on 20 mills, will see their tax revenues grow with increased property values, helping schools to
keep up with inflation.

State share of education funding will reach unprecedented level
• In the upcoming two-year budget, the Governor’s plan will take the state’s share of education
funding to an unprecedented 55 percent.
• When the funding plan is fully in place by fiscal year 2017, the state’s share of local school
budgets will reach 59 percent.
• Upon full implementation of the plan, the state will have unquestionably met its constitutional
requirement to its children.

Well, Since nobody will approach this board and explain why a perament levy is wanted, I guess I will explain in my own opinion.

Hell Bill, I don't blame him if he is not looking to buy, I wouldn't buy a home here either under the current conditions and city operations.  I'd rent with an escape clause if I could.  Maybe he can rent Prices home?  To buy right now makes no sense for any professional in Middletown.  What with the city now hinting at Bankruptcy in 2 years if the Public Safety levy doesn't pass, which I personally won't vote for again.  The city needs to go into cutting mode and now not later.

While he seems like a nice guy, I fear the Super is doomed to fail.  He only has a three year contract, is not from here, and from what I hear is being very cautious about buying or renting a home.  He is understandably afraid of planting down roots and wants a quick exit strategy for his possible departure.  I wonder even if he is able to produce modest improvements in three years if, at the end of it, he'll be heading back home anyway after an interesting but frustrating three year Ohio sabbatical.

I really do want to know the reason why  the school feels compelled to ask for this tax to be forever.Is there any takers out there to  step forward and answer this simple request?.

It is apparent there is no rationale argued effctively as I have just stayed back and read for the past few weeks, there is benefit. sj states it will be worse, Ms. Andrews says it will be worde. The "catch all" phrases are "it may get better", "lets give the new superintendent" ergo, the new and improved model, a chance. Its humorius argument and presented poorly. I;m a stand up guy sj, have credibility with anyone who knows me, and have facts I rely upon in every decision. Your reference to a retired Fore Chief whom has a wife teach holds no more credibility than a neighbor who wants amortization of expense because his child attends school.

Well alright! Now, we have John Sauter joining in on the levy endorsement fun. He says they have been working on our trust issues with them. Don't know if you've succeeded as yet. John says there are many new exciting programs in place and they're leaving all the traditional teaching programs behind. It is small group, special instruction, individual responsibility type programs that are now in place. He says the discipline issues have been addressed also. Wonder when we'll see if that is working or not? Some of the data posted by Pacman, I believe, doesn't indicate that it is getting any better. He says there is no increase in taxes as all pro-levy folks say, which, may/may not be true.(See Mike Presta's posts) He, of course, fails to mention that this is permanent and can never be excised from the books on behalf of the property owner. You'll pay no matter how bad things get-forever. John also says they have cut some staff (still waiting on the school spokesperson Alberico to go John-can't we incorporate her "speaking" job into someone else's duties?) And, what about all the multiple assistant principals that have been retained? He says changes are coming and improvement will be made. Oh John.......can we give you money on promises alone? Haven't we been "promised" good things in the past and responded just to find out the new money has been squandered? Wish we could believe that it will improve but you saying it, doesn't make it so.

Mrs Andrew, While you are on the forum I would like to hear  the real reason why the school is asking for a forever tax.? What reason would I as a taxpayer be compelled to vote yes on a system( as been mentioned above) that has shown little forward movement in the past 25 yrs. I surely can't base a yes vote on the reason that there is a new Supt.( no past  track record in dealing with a situation that this school system generates).Why not a 3yr levy to give everyone an opportunity to make a sound e valuation on this hiring?. I believe this request is not one that should be presented at this time beause of past performance. We need a more solid foundation to invest our money in.

Pacman,