loss or need?
This is what frustrates many of us. The school board has an operating levy of the books for current effective millage at 2.8 mills. This levy is do to expire at the end of this year (December 31,2007). If this operating levy is not REPLACED with either a permanent levy or another 5 year levy then it will expire and the district will lose $2.8 Million.
So my question has been why didn't the school board just simply put a permanent operating levy on the ballot for 2.8 mills which ironically would have produced the $2.8 million that is potentially going to be lost by asking for more than they currently need?
What I am hearing is that if the levy fails the district loses $2.8 Million but I hear very little about the NEED for the additional $2.2 million being requested.
What is this additional $2.2 Million needed for?
Now if you all have had the opportunity to read Katelyn Sattler's letter to the editor (Southeast Messenger) this morning she is concerned that the school board has refused to address the ever increasing health care costs. She is questioning why the teacher's (81% of the operating budget) aren't paying more for their health care?
I have a neighbor that works for the City of Pickerington. The employee's share of the health care costs continues to increase every year for the last few years. He said that they also recently changed health care companies and the City of Pickerington saved over 10% in costs over the previous year. They also got better coverage with the new company. I will check with the city to find out who that company is.
The point is that the city has a much smaller staff and if they had the power to leverage down the costs of health care then a school district with over 700 employees could certainly do the same. The City also has two unions to deal with.
So the question is if the school board had actually asked for a 2.8 mill replacement operating levy would the voters have been more inclined to support it or not?
If there is a need and the school district actually needed an additional $2.2 Million then shouldn't they be making the case for additional funds separately?
The proposed cuts in class rooms numbers and size are because of what? The loss of the $2.8 Million or the fact that we need $2.2 Million more?
By LH
This is what frustrates many of us. The school board has an operating levy of the books for current effective millage at 2.8 mills. This levy is do to expire at the end of this year (December 31,2007). If this operating levy is not REPLACED with either a permanent levy or another 5 year levy then it will expire and the district will lose $2.8 Million.
So my question has been why didn't the school board just simply put a permanent operating levy on the ballot for 2.8 mills which ironically would have produced the $2.8 million that is potentially going to be lost by asking for more than they currently need?
What I am hearing is that if the levy fails the district loses $2.8 Million but I hear very little about the NEED for the additional $2.2 million being requested.
What is this additional $2.2 Million needed for?
Now if you all have had the opportunity to read Katelyn Sattler's letter to the editor (Southeast Messenger) this morning she is concerned that the school board has refused to address the ever increasing health care costs. She is questioning why the teacher's (81% of the operating budget) aren't paying more for their health care?
I have a neighbor that works for the City of Pickerington. The employee's share of the health care costs continues to increase every year for the last few years. He said that they also recently changed health care companies and the City of Pickerington saved over 10% in costs over the previous year. They also got better coverage with the new company. I will check with the city to find out who that company is.
The point is that the city has a much smaller staff and if they had the power to leverage down the costs of health care then a school district with over 700 employees could certainly do the same. The City also has two unions to deal with.
So the question is if the school board had actually asked for a 2.8 mill replacement operating levy would the voters have been more inclined to support it or not?
If there is a need and the school district actually needed an additional $2.2 Million then shouldn't they be making the case for additional funds separately?
The proposed cuts in class rooms numbers and size are because of what? The loss of the $2.8 Million or the fact that we need $2.2 Million more?
By LH
