Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

2 more districts will go to voters

By Bill Bush and Kevin Kidder THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH


Two more central Ohio school districts decided last night to seek November bond issues.
Worthington schools began the process of putting a $37.5 million bond issue on the ballot that, if passed, would pay for building repairs and buy computers and buses.
Treasurer Jonathan Boyd said the district still would need to ask voters for more operating money next year.
The Pickerington board chose the larger of two bond options: a $59.9 million issue that would pay for two new elementary schools and a middle school. The other alternative, which would have cost $38.3 million, would have paid for only the two elementary schools.
Worthington and Pickerington join a growing number of local school districts seeking November tax issues. In Franklin County, Canal Winchester, Groveport Madison, Reynoldsburg and South-Western schools are placing requests on the ballot.

Worthington


The Worthington Board of Education voted 5-0 to ask Franklin County Auditor Joe Testa?’s office to estimate the millage required to repay $37.5 million in bonds, which Boyd said could be issued in phases over a number of years. Each bond issued would have a life of no longer than 15 years, officials said.
The district would refinance current district bonds set to expire by the end of 2013, lowering the millage required to make debt payments, board member Marc Schare said. It would then issue new bonds, but in increments that would keep the total millage below 3.8 mills, he said.
''If (interest rates) for whatever reason suddenly go sky high, if we can?’t keep our promise, we won?’t issue the debt,'' Boyd said.
It?’s not yet clear how much the bond issue would cost residents.
The board will meet Monday to finalize putting the levy on the November ballot, board President Gary Tyack said. The board will discuss a resolution, drafted by Schare, that will set target goals on how much of the bond money is to be spent on each of the district?’s problems to be addressed, including additions and renovations to schools, purchasing new school buses and buying textbooks.
''It will also deal with the oversight,'' Tyack said. ''It will try to set up a method for spending such funds as we decide to borrow.''

Pickerington


In Pickerington, the vote was unanimous to put the larger of two bond issues on the November ballot. The bonds would be paid off with a property tax collected at an average annual rate of 3.8 mills, and would cost the owner of a $100,000 home $116.38 per year in taxes.
If the bond isn?’t approved and new schools not built, it could mean split sessions by 2008, said board member Jim Brink. ''If we don?’t get this passed, everyone in the community will be hurting, not just the kids.''
Pinched by overcrowding, Pickerington has asked residents for money to build more elementary schools for four straight elections. But voters have turned the district down each time.
In May, 51 percent of voters rejected a $36 million bond issue that would have paid for two schools, land and several improvement projects.
Officials say they have little to no room to expand at the existing schools.
Earlier this year, they informed parents that drastic action would be taken if two new schools can?’t open by the 2008-09 school year.
''We need these schools,'' said Vice President Gail Oakes, who said the bond issue, if passed, would allow the district to not have to play catch-up with enrollment.
''We either move forward together as a community or we continue to founder.''
Pickerington averages 425 new students a year and is about 750 students over capacity at its five elementary schools.
bbush@dispatch.com
kkidder@dispatch.com

WE are to blame


So let me get this straight. We continue to fail a levy for two supposedly much needed elementary schools and now they say ?“OK, put this in your pipe and smoke it.?” We see your two schools and raise you one more. We?’ll see your $36,000,000 and raise you $22,000,000. Talk about high stakes poker!

Hey school board, WE?’RE NOT BLUFFING!

Since the levy for two schools continues to fail, you have to expect that during that time the growth continues to rise thanks to Pickerington City Council and the Violet Trustees so naturally the need for the third school will eventually rear its ugly head. But $22,000,000? What are you looking for? Another Lakeview or North debacle? And where are you planning to build it (not that this will ever pass)?

OH ?– MY ?– GOD, when will this madness end?

Now we?’re faced with paying for three schools; we have some operating levies coming due and NOW you want us to also look forward to passing more operating levies for these three new schools??

Someone please tell me how much this will all eventually end up costing me? I have kids in elementary and I am stuck here for the long term. You say this will cost me $232 a year on top of what I am already paying PLUS operating levies. How much total? If you obviously have plans for this middle school that you can put a price to then you must also know how much it will cost to operate all these. Come on, for my sanity?’s sake, please tell me how many cups of coffee I have to give up a day to pay your price!

For God?’s sake folks, why did we not elect anyone who can control this growth? Why did no one who could come up with better options than $60,000,000 options not run for school board? Why did we let the trustees run off all their competition? Why, why, why?
Why do we keep letting this happen to ourselves? We are mostly to blame!

Knock the price down!!

$18 million for elementary schools, $22 million for a middle school. $4 million is renovations. Must be luxury accomodations in my estimation. We need the school space, no denying that, but the construction costs are beyond reality.

How about a better breakdown of what the $4 million is going for? I hope not an eighth lane at Central.

How much is overhead for the general contractor? My friends in the construction industry tell me things are extremely tight for bids right now. Why are we paying full freight at the normal 10% for the GC and architect?

Is this a prevailing wage contract? If so, open it to competitive, market-based bidding. That knocks another 15% or more off the tab.

Make this a private industry contract and the savings could be significant. Stay with a normal government based contract and the waste is enormous.

Sorry PLSD Board, you're still spending money you don't need to.

By Construction Guy

Where have you been?

How can you make this uniformed comment?

''So let me get this straight. We continue to fail a levy for two SUPPOSEDLY much needed elementary schools and now they say ?“OK, put this in your pipe and smoke it.?” We see your two schools and raise you one more. We?’ll see your $36,000,000 and raise you $22,000,000. Talk about high stakes poker!

Have you been to any of the elementary schools while they are in session? I doubt you have or you would not have made the uninformed commment above. You are just a typical ''no person''. You are going to say no to all of the bond or levies because that is who you are. It would be a great deal of work to go out and actually get informed on the issue and then make a decision.

I was at a freshmen orientation meeting at Central High last night and they stated that in the last five years PLSD has added 2116 students. The average school district in the state is 2180. That is like adding 100 classrooms of children. PLSD has more than 750 elemntary children in portable classrooms. The PLSD has only built one elementary school in the past 22 years. I could go on and on about the over crowded schools because I have two kids that are in them. I respect your right to vote either way on the issue but I do not respect that fact that you an many others do not take the time to get informed.