Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

Dear friends and neighbors,

PLSD voters have made clear, time and again, that they want the PLSD to make full use of its existing resources before asking voters for more. Moreover, given the PLSD's weak tax base, the PLSD must, of necessity, do more with less.

It was a mistake to ask the voters for a bond levy to build two new elementary schools when a dozen classrooms in Heritage Elementary are being used for administrative offices or storage, if at all. And it was a mistake to spend an extravagent $77.5 million on a new high school and junior high school.

However, I believe that the school board and PLSD administration are finally starting to get the voters' message. For example, we stopped in its tracks a scheme by the former superintendent to build a $1 million storage building at the new school site, and to spend $100,000 moving the modular home that now sits at the front of the site to the back of the site. We transferred all interest earnings on recent PLSD construction projects -- a total of more than $2.6 million -- out of the construction fund, where it might have been spent on still further enhancements to the new schools, to a reserve account in our operating fund, where it can be used, for example, to absorb anticipated shortfalls in state funding, and to pay maintence expenses at our other schools.

We have taken steps to reduce contractor change orders, and thus save as much as possible of the $750,000 that still remains in the reserve accounts for the high school/junior high school construction project. These funds could be used to pay for major repairs to our other schools, as they are needed.

(continued)

PLSD Cuts II

(continued)

We are taking various measures to trim the PLSD's bloated transportation costs. We are bringing routing back in-house, for example, after discovering that Laidlaw was running most routes with only 20-30 students. We will make sure that our buses no longer run half empty. Where safety allows, we will eliminate bus stops that are less than 1,500 feet apart, and require that kids who live within a two-mile radius of their schools walk to school. If we restore high school busing it all, it will be limited to students who request and need it.

We hired the Ohio state auditor's office to look for additional cost savings. We are likely to accept their recommendation to move to a K-6 grade configuration. This should enable us to postpone for at least 3-4 years the building of another school, to make full use of existing classroom space, to significantly reduce usage of trailer classrooms, and to save perhaps as much as $8 million in operating expense over the next few years. It also will allow us to eliminate an entire set of bus routes.

We are taking a hard look at the PLSD's health insurance program. It is unlikely that we will be able to reduce the PLSD's health insurance premium. The measures we are considering should, however, enable us to slow the rate of increase in such premiums. Health insurance costs the PLSD better than $4 million per year and, with transportation and salaries and wages, is one of our largest expenses.

In the same vein, we have decided to go to an all day, every other day structure for kindergarten next year. By eliminating the mid-day bus routes, it should produce some significant savings.

These cuts are going to require changes in PLSD operations, and no one likes change. Inevitably, the people most directly affected by these cuts are going to ask us to cut somewhere else. In some cases, people will organize, write letters to the editor, make presentations at school board meetings, show up at school board meetings, and even post on this web site.

Please, however, before doing this, consider the situation. Remember that the PLSD must do more with less, and must reduce expenses wherever it can do so without adversely affecting educational programs. This is what our small tax base requires, and this is what the voters have told us they want.

Thus, before speaking out on any of these cuts, ask yourself whether the cut really will adversely affect any of the PLSD's educational programs. Ask yourself whether the educational benefits of the function being cut fully justify the expense. And realize that reducing expenses is no longer a matter of eliminating waste. That already has been done. Every cut we make from here on out is going to inconvenience someone. The best we can do is to try to balance the inconveniences, and to preserve what is most important to the quality of our schools.

Kindergarten cut is academic

Bruce,

The kindergarten cut will likely be determined to be academically damaging to the students and their future. With the proficiency testing moving to third grade, and the increase of ''at risk'' students moving into the district, I believe this is the wrong way to go.

I think some of the recent donation money should be used to maintain the half day kindergarten program. I think the sports program participants are willing to foot the bill for the participation fees. Potentially damaging the chances of our youngest students from day one is too big a price to pay and I think the sports programs, though valuable, should be a lower priority as you make your decisions. Do we need a ''pay to provide fee'' for kindergarten parents to give our students a fair chance as they start in our district? Would the builders pay for that one too? What is it worth to you?

The extracurricular donation should be with NO STRINGS, that includes WHERE IT GOES. The builders and developers know that these extracurricular programs are a part of their marketing bread and butter, and hey, damaging the Kindergarten students won't show up until the third grade test results right, they can sell thousands of homes by then, using the schools as the centerpiece of their marketing plan like always. This will be carpetbagging at its finest in my view.

Stop the BS, Rigelman!!


Bruce,

Hey, Bruce, we are still waiting for you to make good on your promise to put real financial information and board minutes on the PLSD website. Will it be some time during your term in office?

In addition, you promised us, ?“We are taking various measures to trim the PLSD's bloated transportation costs. We are bringing routing back in-house, for example, after discovering that Laidlaw was running most routes with only 20-30 students. We will make sure that our buses no longer run half empty.?” You have been in the board majority for 18 months now, why have you not done anything to trim the bloated transportation costs? What are you, Monhollen & Oakes waiting for ?… some else to blame for your incompetence?

On October 17, 2002, the Auditor of the State recommended, ?“PLSD should reduce the number of buses used to transport its students. By consolidating bus stops that are in close proximity, the District could increase the number of students per bus and reduce overall route time. This would allow buses to pick up more students per route. If the District could increase students per bus to the PEER AVERAGE, the district would be able to reduce the necessary bus fleet by 12 BUSES. The District COULD SAVE APPROXIMATELY $490,000 based on the average transportation cost per bus?” After the Auditors?’ report, why didn?’t you take action for the second half of the year, eliminating empty buses and saving us $245,000? You had plenty of time to prepare new routes and notify parents of new stops. Why didn?’t you act? What were you waiting for ?… some else to blame for your incompetence?

Bruce, the $245,000 savings could have easily saved you from the all- day, every-other-day structure for kindergarten. That decision was asinine and vindictive. Are you trying to see how much misery you can produce to make sure everyone votes for the levy? It didn?’t work in February with the parents of senior and junior high students involved in extracurricular activities so now you are trying it now with younger families ?… same scare tactics, same threats but different audience this time. Right, Bruce?

And, my absolute favorite, Bruce, is your comment, ?“And realize that reducing expenses is no longer a matter of eliminating waste. That already has been done. Every cut we make from here on out is going to inconvenience someone.?” Either that is a bold face lie or your report on January 27, 2003 that we can balance the budget and eliminate $6 million from the FY 04 budget WITHOUT MUCH PAIN. According to you in January, all that had to be done was the teachers and students had to get used to wearing sweaters in the winter. Tell us, Bruce, when were you lying to us?

Have you, Monhollen and Oakes ever considered the fact that the people are voting against levies because they don?’t trust you with their money? The bottom line is, Bruce, WE NO LONGER DON?’T BELIEVE YOU! You have no credibility with the voters what-so-ever.

A good time to start to rebuild the trust is on Monday evening to reverse your asinine decision on all-day kindergarten. You made a huge mistake ?… admit it and correct it. Or at least that is what good leaders and ?‘stewards?’ of the public monies would do. On the other hand, corrupt ?‘small-town?’ politicians would feed us more BS.