Help Replace One of Ohio's Oldest Schools?

This was a quote from earlier in the discussions. OSFC doesn't pay for auditoriums or gyms. I'm guessing that might make up a difference in the projected match? 

Acclaro, bear with me on a summary of the history that should answer your recent questions:

 

The State of Ohio received a very large settlement in a multi-state class action lawsuit against against tobacco companies.  Ohio decided to put the tobacco settlement money in a fund to pay for new/renovated K-12 school buildings in public school districts in the state.  Ohio created a list ranking all school districts by total assessed property value.  This list both created priority, with the "poorest" districts by property value getting the first chance to access State money, and also established the percentage of the capital cost that the State would pay.  The State "match" varied by district property wealth. 

 

In 2004, Middletown City School District ranked in the richest third by property value of its taxpayers, putting it towards the bottom of the list, with the State share at 26% of project cost.  Total tax valuation for MCSD in 2004 was approx. $1 Billion.

 

Districts that did not want to wait for their number to come up on the priority list could choose to build/renovate in two stages, funding the first stage with a local bond levy and then, when the district's "number" comes up on the priority list, passing a second bond levy, with the State's share of the whole project not coming in until the number comes up AND the local community passes the second bond levy; and also conditioned on the district complying with the OHio School Facilities Commission's rules and guidelines for all phases of the project.  This early start option was called the ELPP and part of the agreement between the district and the State is that the District is locked in to their State/Local share split at the time of the agreement (2004). 

 

Middletown chose this early option, entered into an ELPP with the State, passed a bond levy, and built 6 new elementary schools and fully renovated 2 (reducing the number of elementaries from 10 to 8).  MCSD's State/Local share was locked in by this agreement at 26% state/74% local.

 

MCSD established a Facilities Committee to figure out what Middletown needed and wanted in new schools and to oversee the design and construction of the schools.  The Facilities Committee has members who are school employees, architects and other professionals, parents and other community members.  The membership has changed over the course of 10 years but it has always been open to anyone who is willing to participate.  The Facilities Committee has held numberous open houses and informational meetings and conducted surveys over the years, in a good faith effort to determine what the majority of Middletonians want in terms of location and functionality of the schools.  The master plan they came up with has been modified a few times over 10 years. 

 

A few years later, the State unilaterally and dramatically reduced MCSD's tax valuation base by eliminating tangible personal property tax on businesses.  The TPP taxed inventory and equipment on the same basis as real property, with the money going to schools and local government.  Because Middletown has AK Steel and other industry, it was hard hit by this change, with a reduction of almost 30% of our tax base.  With that, and some recent market devaluation, Middletown's tax valuation base is now about $700 Million.  Based on this current valuation, the State/Local share split would be 64% State/36% Local. 

 

The school board has tried to correct what we see as an injustice to Middletown tax payers caused by the unilateral action of the State wiping out close to 30% of our tax base.  We worked with Tim Derickson, our state representative, who three years in a row introducted legislation that would allow districts like Middletown, which had entered into a ELPP before the elimination of the TPP and who had a large percentage of their tax base in TPP, to modify the agreement they entered in the ELPP and have the State's share re-calculated based on the current tax valuation.  Three times, Derickson was successful in passing his legislation in both the House and the Senate.  Three years in a row, Gov. Kasich line-item vetoed this legislation.  So we are still locked in to the 26% State share.  If Kasich had not vetoed it, the State would have to fund the full cost of the middle school and high school, with the only exception being the Locally Funded Options.

 

The 26% state share for MCSD is 26% of the overall master plan, both first and second phase, but does not include items that the state does not believe are necessary; these items are called LFI or Locally Funded Initiatives.  The State-approved project budget for both phases of the project combined is approx. $156 Million; 26% of that = $40 Million.  Because we already built the first phase and paid for that out of local bond levy, all $40 Million of the State match would be applied to the second phase, for the middle school/high school.

 

I do not have in front of me a list of LFI elements or their cost.  They include the portion of the new competition gym that is bigger than the number of seats determined by OSFC; renovations of the auditorium and additional band/orchestra space (as the OSFC in its wisdom does not believe instrumental music instruction or performance, or theatrical performance, are essential to a good high school education, but the Middletown community believes otherwise); any square footage above the OSFC formula per student; any choices of more durable or higher grade materials than those specified by the OSFC.

 

The OSFC has set aside funding for Middletown's $40 million in this year's budget. If the bond levy does not pass in May, we lose the state share.  The board already determined not to try again in a special election in August -- the way the state laws work, we would have to start the process to be on the August ballot before the May election.

 

If we do not pass the bond levy and therefore lose the state share, we may "get back in line."  There is no guaranty that our number will come up again ever, although it is possible, and certainly no guaranty our chance would come up again within 3 years. 

 

 

fellow Bloggers,

all of this specific information reflects the bureaucracy your state government has put in place  so not only do you rent the car and pay to operate it but you buy it as well. ( avis and hertz loves you ) Since this form of funding is unconstitutional we should be reviewing the options on how to become legally correct in fund raising for schools. To believe in the concepts and ideas that it is acceptable for local lobby's and state wide representatives to continue to ROB the citizens of ohio who have worked for their property (every nickle and dime ) through out their life is reprehensible, and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of constitutional law.

DeRolph v. State was a landmark case in Ohio constitutional law in which the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the state's method for funding public education was unconstitutional. Handed down on March 24, 1997, the 4-3 opinion said that the state funding system "fails to provide for a thorough and efficient system of common schools" as required by the Ohio Constitution and directed the state to find a remedy. The court would look at the case several times over the next 12 years before relinquishing jurisdiction, though the underlying problems with the school funding system were never fully solved.

this is the problem that needs to be solved. Keep your eye on the ball. Or sit in the stands and eat popcorn and get FAT!!!!  (make sure there is plenty of butter on it )

research in sales tax & income tax option for equality in public school funding. 

Overview

First the schools would have to quit operating in the mindset that they have to spend their entire budget each year that is raised from fund raising.

Second each school district would have to have a general fund trust for surplus for the purpose of renovation of any type or educational improvements.

Third the state would fund all 615 school districts equally so they had a common thread as the supreme court ruling ask for . For this they might use the cost per student locally plus a % of the share of funds raised by the state as to allow savings for future development of the district. Over time all districts would have significant savings and could with out bonds, levys , or property tax improve what ever they could agree upon as a school board that is in compliance with state regulators.

 Funding

If the state would increase by 3 % sales tax and income tax to include corporate income tax the numbers are substantial.

In 2012 ohio collected $25,924,024,000.00  tax data from

                                     http://www.governing.com/gov-data/state-tax-revenue-data.html

add 3 % and you have  additional $777,720,720.00

divide that by 615 school districts’ and each district gets $43,417,171.08

subtract yearly operating cost and start the district trust fund for physical facility improvement and other deemed important developments in education.

 While my arithmetic was done with a simple calculator and one could say I raised it to much, you can see that with some thought the state economist and bookkeepers could help legislators come up with a algorithm that would provide for schools to have the resources needed with out unfair taxing of property owners private or commercial. Since land tax funding of public education has been deemed unconstitutional .(DeRolph v. State a landmark case in Ohio constitutional law) a system that reflects the above specifications in one way or another would solve the problem.  Land tax funding of public schools would be abolished. The tax would be spread over the entire population more equally.

Yes we would still have to pay, however with schools saving for future generations threw their own state regulated trust funds it would bring a new dynamic to the table where education was the focus not the budget. The state allows state funded retirement funds for their state funded employees. This is a propagating account with the purpose of distribution to a set goal. What I suggest is similar in nature for our public school institutions.

chmoore1  you have asked What can we do to fix the schools real estate property. I posted the above with no answer from you so I can tell you are truly not interested in fixing the problem. since the propagation of the current system is unconstitutional  you would still at this point prefer to violate constitutional law.  These facts cannot be negated since you continue to post on this blog with the inability to compromise and be constitutionally legal.

its your duty as well as the governments constitutional duty to “provide for a thorough and efficient system of common schools" common denotes that the school in Indian hills should be a carbon copy of the school in middletown. They are not because people like you and the lobby you represent continue to violate our constitutional freedoms by propagating a illegal form of funding schools.

please don't hesitate to tell me your opinion as

Brevity is the soul of wit   /  and with out laughter over the kinks in society anarchy might prevail.

and that's the rest of the story , good day ( Paul Harvey 1946)

land tax is unconstitutional

it taxes  some twice if they own more than one pice of property

dual taxation is illegal for the same purpose

that is not right

and it dose not address the issue that the schools dont have a common thread

that rich neighbor hoods get better schools than poor

that property owners pay for all citizens children education

that they continue to propigate a illegal system of funding

it taxes residents that do not participate in public education

private shcool , home schooling  ect.

 

 

education is an elective in this country , even teen agers can opt out of the system with parental concent.

i will think of some more things as time passes and hope is that you and your lobby are defeated.

that you find a way to fund your public schools with out unfair taxes to the property owners.

 

no im not the smartest monkey in the barrell but i did get out and am unwilling to think you just have to do the same old thing to passifie the grind on goverment waste.

 

may be you should consider living in westchester or lakota where there is plenty of money for goverment as usual.

 

land tax to fund schools is not fair to the childeren. the children of indian hills get all the good stuff , while other communitys suffer as the gap in the middle class widens and people have a hard time affording gas to get to work.

 

if you would like to increase the exedus from your community (middletown) continue to raise taxes and fees .

most people I know cant move out of here because they live week to week and cant afford to move.

 

economic slavory - where is the justice in that ??

 

whould you like to increase foreclousure of propertys and then have the city pay to tear them down ?

raise taxes is your awnser !!

reast ashured any property owner i have talked to dose not want to pay any more regardless of the doom you predict.

 

look at the bright side you dont live in somalia , and have to fight over bread with a weapon.

you dont have the russians trying to take your state by force

you dont live in a arab country where the sword might be your demise.

 

there are pleanty of good things with out haveing the best money can buy for phisical facilitys in public shcools.

 

did you wake this morning ? that was not beacuse you are happy about taxes .  it was beacuse____________

fill in the blank as your faith dictates.

 

count your blessings and  be happy your not dead. shcools come and go, but your lifes finances should not be didctated by laws that are unconstitutional.

 

 

 

 

 

 

as a matter of fact the building i went to school in was over 100 years old in 1976 when i graduated. steam heat , no air , ibm electric typerwriters , you know with the ball!!  that was high tech back then.  To me it was the relation ship with the teacher that gave you a interest in learning. If teachers dont like the lack of air they should teach in a private shcool  - saint x  ect-  fenwick - or others.  if a teacher is commited it has nothing to do with the enemitys of the facility they work at .  As a adult I have mentored many young adults to a productive life style. We do this outside in the balzzing heat every summer. Some call it work ethic. Not all graduate from this mentoring .Some just expect  a paycheck with out showing progress with their own walk in life.  Failure is in the eye of the beholder as some are content with just the basics of life not aspiaring to any productive level in society.  you will still have thouse kind of students in your new shcools. I remeber back in the 80's when schools just bought trailors (monroe)and made class rooms of them. That inexpensive , you can rent lease, or get a donation for things like that.  Just buy some cheap trailors and make some air conditioned class rooms.  then studdy the results. Air will not make better students. it will just put them to sleep in a confort zone.  lots of schools in oklahoma are trailor style.