I have read and saw a number of you asking questions about milage and for other information concerning our schools. When all is said and done the basic formula in determining the amount of money we can deliver to the school district is the ?“VALUATION PER PUPIL?” figure that is reported regularly here on this web site. Also it was reported in the ?“School Bell?” recently our valuation per pupil amount is around $94,000 (I rounded it off for explanation proposes). Many of the school districts in Ohio are considerably higher. I believe when compared to the state we rate near the middle of all school districts.
It is a very good indicator of how well we are doing in developing the school district and the tax base. So let me try to explain about this new proposal passed by the Pickerington City Council last week will work.
They are proposing to build 3000 homes in ten years at an average cost of $225,000 per home. What would these homes do to the above valuation per pupil number? First it would depend on the number of school age children moving into these new homes. Please note the builders will tell us anything about projected numbers of possible new students living in these homes just to get the project approved. The value I am talking about here is the assessed value. That is 35% of the market value. So if we averaged one student per new house then our assessed value per pupil would be around $78,750 in these 3000 new homes. Which direction will that take our valuation per pupil number above? It will tend to drive the number lower.
Why is this number so important? If this number was doubled to $188,000 per pupil then the amount each of us pays for R.E. taxes would be cut in half (this is generally speaking and I know there are some exceptions). If we apply it to last week?’s levy then when they say they wanted raise our taxes by 7.9 mils and this would cost the owner of a $100,000 house $241 per year they could have asked for half that milage and raised the same amount. So if we had a valuation per pupil of $188,000 then would it not have been more likely that the operating levy last week would have passed because the $100k homes would have only cost the owner $121 per year.
Is there anyone that doesn?’t see the importance of this valuation figure?
The next question is how do we raise this valuation figure? We can raise the average value of each new home (larger lots). We can lower the average number of children per house hold (senior housing restrictions). We can develop commercial property at a greater rate than in the past (change current polices of using TIFs to other policies that are working and that attract large commercial developers). We can slow the rate of growth of our new homes because older neighborhoods tend to have fewer children).
So do the BIA/ City council Community Authority address any of these problems? I have read the ordinance twice and I see nothing even coming close to raising the valuation per pupil numbers of the PLSD. This should be our measure of success in any plan. This plan needs to tie residential growth with commercial growth.
It is a very good indicator of how well we are doing in developing the school district and the tax base. So let me try to explain about this new proposal passed by the Pickerington City Council last week will work.
They are proposing to build 3000 homes in ten years at an average cost of $225,000 per home. What would these homes do to the above valuation per pupil number? First it would depend on the number of school age children moving into these new homes. Please note the builders will tell us anything about projected numbers of possible new students living in these homes just to get the project approved. The value I am talking about here is the assessed value. That is 35% of the market value. So if we averaged one student per new house then our assessed value per pupil would be around $78,750 in these 3000 new homes. Which direction will that take our valuation per pupil number above? It will tend to drive the number lower.
Why is this number so important? If this number was doubled to $188,000 per pupil then the amount each of us pays for R.E. taxes would be cut in half (this is generally speaking and I know there are some exceptions). If we apply it to last week?’s levy then when they say they wanted raise our taxes by 7.9 mils and this would cost the owner of a $100,000 house $241 per year they could have asked for half that milage and raised the same amount. So if we had a valuation per pupil of $188,000 then would it not have been more likely that the operating levy last week would have passed because the $100k homes would have only cost the owner $121 per year.
Is there anyone that doesn?’t see the importance of this valuation figure?
The next question is how do we raise this valuation figure? We can raise the average value of each new home (larger lots). We can lower the average number of children per house hold (senior housing restrictions). We can develop commercial property at a greater rate than in the past (change current polices of using TIFs to other policies that are working and that attract large commercial developers). We can slow the rate of growth of our new homes because older neighborhoods tend to have fewer children).
So do the BIA/ City council Community Authority address any of these problems? I have read the ordinance twice and I see nothing even coming close to raising the valuation per pupil numbers of the PLSD. This should be our measure of success in any plan. This plan needs to tie residential growth with commercial growth.
