Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

Below is an article you may find informative when next the PLSD comes to you for renewal levies or replacement levies for operations:

Originally published January 25, 2006


Pickerington considers redistricting as school-crowding solution
By ALAINA FAHY
The Eagle-Gazette Staff
afahy@nncogannett.com

PICKERINGTON - During the two Pickerington high schools' graduation ceremonies in June, seniors giving speeches talked about the heartbreak of being separated from best friends as one high school became two.

The Pickerington Local Schools Board of Education is considering moving students and faculty again.

At a meeting Monday night, school board members discussed short-term options for coping with growth during the 2006-07 and 2007-08 school years.

One option was redistricting. The board talked about dividing at least 251 fifth- and sixth-grade students at Heritage Middle School between Diley and Harmon Middle Schools. The board predicts about 32 additional students at Heritage Middle School by next year.

''It's a difficult situation,'' Pickerington Schools' Superintendent Robert Thiede said about the growth in the district. ''There are no clear-cut solutions.''

The redistricting would help provide the 19 to 20 additional classrooms needed to accommodate kindergarten through fourth-grade students at Heritage Elementary School.

Diley and Harmon middle schools would need a total of five modular classroom units to accommodate additional students from Heritage, Thiede said.

Board member Jim Brink said he thinks new modular units cost about $75,000 to $90,000. And set-up for electricity and heat per unit can cost about $20,000.

Heritage Elementary and Heritage Middle are next door to each other at 100 East St., Pickerington.

Brink said the two schools could combine to be one elementary school if plans are made to redistrict.

Brink said the board is only beginning discussion on redistricting. No plans are official. He said students' home addresses would determine whether they go to Diley or Harmon middle schools.

He was not sure how the teachers would be reassigned to other schools.

No lines for redistricting are in place right now, Brink said.

Correction

Sorry, I pasted the wrong information in the previous posting. Here is what I meant:

School levy literature not the total
Replacement levy handouts only list additional amounts
By LAURA VAN HOUTEN
Eagle-Gazette Staff
lvanhout@nncogannett.com
LANCASTER - Frank Middaugh wants information concerning Lancaster City Schools' replacement levy to be more clear to taxpayers.
He wants district residents to see the total amount they're going to pay if the 10-mill replacement levy passes Feb. 7. The issue would replace the 1977 levy.

''It needs to show how much they're paying now,'' the 73-year-old Lancaster resident said, referring to campaign literature. ''It says the additional amount, but it doesn't say the total amount of how much we're going to pay.''
The amounts on information distributed by the levy campaign committee show what homeowners will pay in addition to their current bills. A total amount of what homeowners will pay is not given.
For example, if you own a $100,000 house, then you now pay $57.47 per year. With the replacement levy, your total bill would be $306.25 per year. You would be paying an additional $248.78.
Steve Messerly, co-chairman of Citizens Committee for Children, said the committee is aware the campaign information given out only includes the additional payment.
''It's the first I've heard about someone calling on this,'' he said. ''I thought we made it clear it would be an additional cost.''
Messerly said he plans to speak with other committee members to see how they can make the information more clear to voters.
''We don't want to confuse people,'' he said. ''We want the information to get out there and to make it clear.''
Part of the campaign committee's information outreach plan includes calling each registered voter in the district.
''We're starting that next week,'' Messerly said. ''We're going to do everything we can to pass this.''
Door hangers and note cards bearing information about the levy should reach voters within the next week as well, Messerly said.
The school district now is collecting 1.88 mills of the 10-mill levy passed in 1977. District officials want voters to pass the replacement levy to begin collecting the entire 10 mills.
School districts only can collect the total amount of money per year initially approved under a levy. As property values rise, the number of mills collected decreases.
The district now collects $1.58 million per year from the 1977 levy. The replacement levy would bring in $6.8 million in new revenue for a total of $8.38 million per year according to the levy committee.
The taxable value is 35 percent of the market value of a resident's home. For example, if your home is worth $100,000, then you're taxed for $35,000. Middaugh said since he has to live within a budget, he wants the school district to do the same.
''You can't spend more than you make,'' he said. ''They'll get along OK. Then say they need more and more. If it's going to cost that much more, then I can't afford it.''
He also is concerned about the district possibly asking taxpayers to approve an income tax in May. District officials have discussed an income tax in addition to the replacement property tax scheduled for a vote next month.
''It's double jeopardy if you ask me,'' he said. ''There needs to be some better money management.''
Board members have reviewed a list of proposed budget reductions if the levy passes - $700,000 worth - or if it fails- $4 million worth. The list of reductions is part of a draft of a corrective action plan, which is required when a district is placed in fiscal caution by the state.
The district received a letter Monday from the Ohio Department of Education recommending the state superintendent put Lancaster in fiscal caution. Once local officials receive a letter from the state superintendent, they'll have 60 days to get the plan to the Ohio Department of Education.
Originally published January 27, 2006

Replacement Levies are Confusing

Replacement levies, which are on our agenda for later this year and apparently are on Lancaster's as well, can be very confusing.

What is being replaced is a temporary levy, usually for 5 mills or something of the sort, that the voters approved only for a period of years, perhaps just 5 years. However, under Ohio's confusing property tax laws, the voted rate and the effective rate for an operating levy are seldom the same.

Under Ohio law, whenever properties are reappraised, the county auditor is prohibited from collecting any more, in aggregate, on properties on the tax roll during the last tax year than was collected on those properties during the last tax year. Thus the auditor is required to compute what that amount was, and then to divide that amount by the new appraised value of that ''carryover'' property. Invariably this turns out to be less than the voted millage. But that becomes the rate at which the millage is collected going forward, on new properties as well as old. If I've already lost you, my apologies. It's mighty hard stuff to grasp.

After 5 years, the effective rate of a 5-mill operating levy could be as little as 3 mills. Thus, when it comes time to renew such a levy, it makes a great deal of difference whether it is renewed at its original voted rate, or at its then-current effective rate. Renewing a temporary levy at its original voted rate will almost always result in a tax increase, often a substantial one. That, I take it, is what's going on in Lancaster right now.

That's also why school districts have to keep going on the ballot for additional operating millage. From the moment it passes, the effective rate on an operating levy begins to erode. This is why it is almost impossible for a school district to keep up with inflation, still less with enrolloment growth.

One can endlessly debate the pros and cons of this Ohio property tax practice. I do not propose to do that here. But all can agree that it is extremely confusing.

MRDD did it last election?

Bruce,

I believe the MRDD renewal this past election doubled or more its revenue thru a renewal of the original millage. It unfortunately permits the politicians to trumpet a 'no new taxes' pitch for the renewal when it actually is a substantial dollar increase.