l-p repeal information

[lp truther]

It is funny that the school district brings up hpw the rollbacks hurt their property tax revenue. The school purposely puts on emergency and permanent improvement levies that do not count towards the 20 mill floor. The income tax also does not count towards the 20 mill floor. Since l-p sits at the 20 mill floor rollbacks are not enforced per ORC. "The Ohio Revised Code, Section 319.301 contains the procedures for determining the tax reduction percentage, but also provides a partial exemption for school district levies. Paragraph (E)(2) of that section prevents school levies from being reduced below "two percent of taxable value," or 20 mills. Known as the "20 mill floor," that provision partially protects school districts from facing a fixed income while costs rise over time. Voters could approve additional levies beyond those 20 mills, but the reductions would then apply again until the effective millage was gradually reduced back to a total of 20 mills." This is yet another example of how the school is misleading voters. The article is another example of the easy cuts that tend to sway voters and make it difficult for parents. Why not start looking at the waste. The $144k that was just spent on the football stadium lights. l-p schools have high revenue compared to surrounding schools but cannot seem to spend it wisely. If you look at the five year forecast l-p schools are sitting on over 3.2 million from last year. They are whining about 900,000 in cuts. Does anyone else see some issue here?

[estherlike]

Actually, I find alot of issues with L-P using the same old scare tactics to get their way. I am working on getting L-P financials to put on the website and hope to have them this week, if I have to go pick them up myself. What was also not in the article was that the issue of text books is a mute point since the class based fees the parents pay are suppose to cover these costs. Not to mention the fact of the sports issue. The students have to pay to play and have to pay for the away game transportation. Yet another scare tactic. Now to the homecoming and prom, the classes (junior and senior) conduct fund raising events to pay for these activities so where is the savings to the school? I find this article to be nothing more than scare tactics since they lost their fight at the BOE level. Maybe they should concentrate more on education and less on lining their pockets. Does anyone see pay cuts for the outrageous salaries that the admins receive? I sure didn't. Seems to me if the admins are so concerned they should start by sacrificing a little themselves before they start coming to the taxpayers for more, after all, the taxpayers is who is paying their wage to start with.

[gunny]

Knowing a few people in Education and actually served on a few committees in the past, many people who get voters votes on issues, will tell you that the best way is to use fear tactics. You talk about taking away the most important things to people and also the things that will make it more challenging for the parents of school age children. Here is the list I see over and over again.
1. Take away sports so people do not have something to cheer about on Friday nights or talk about over morning coffee.
2. Make athletes pay the entire freight to play a sport. Put out a large number of say $300.00 for every sport played - even though football costs are the lion's share we have to charge them the same as a tennis player, soccer, and baseball.
3. Tell the community that sports is so very important that many of the athletes would drop out without them and become dependent on government handouts and not productive citizens without sports or worse.
4. Take busing back to the state minimums or worse find a way to eliminate it all together. Then about how little Suzie and Johnnie will be forced to walk to school down dangerous roads in below zero weather where a car could slide on the ice and hit them or many parents do not have the money to buy them gloves so they will get frost bite.
5. Then we tell how much money we will save by laying off school bus drivers and reduce our cleaning staff by 1/3 at the height of the cold and flu season.
6. We then talk about over crowding of classrooms while the teachers take a pay freeze or reduction all the while doing more with less.

The someone like the like Ip Truther comes along and has looked into things and found some problems with the official line being touted and are blown off as not being for the kids. The fact is you are probably more for the kids than those in the know. When the LP records are put on line, I for one would like to see them and look over them. Others have been put on line and appear to have some inconsistencies also -= Dale Roy comes to mind because they are on this website.

In closing my long post, I ask why can't all stakeholders come together, like the community Activists group, look over the books, understand the finances and find a course that is best to the community? Let taxpayers, parents, students,concerned citizens share in the decision making - much like the town hall meetings used in the North East?

[lp truther]

What financial information are you looking for? I wrote this to try to get in the t&g but they only allow letter to the editors once every 30 days.

L-P among highest local tax burden
There are many figures that can be shown for school funding comparisons. The most alarming comparison is the amount of Local Tax Revenue Per Pupil Chart that is available for all districts statewide. The chart shows the amount of local community money that is taxed on residents and businesses within the district. The chart is available on the department of education’s website (http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?page=3&TopicRelationID=1214&ContentID=708&Content=71330). The chart eliminates all of the state and federal money and exhibits only the tax burden on the local communities to fund the schools by year since 1995 to present. For this comparison only districts in Ashland, Richland, Wayne, and Knox counties were used. The list compiled from these counties included 28 school districts. After organizing the list from lowest to highest for fiscal year 2008 that ended in June of 2009; Loudonville per pupil came in at $5,612 of local tax revenue. Of all the counties compared only Ontario and Wooster schools were higher in local tax revenue. The lowest local tax burden was Crestview district at only $2,276 per student followed by Clearfork at $2,627. The big question now becomes why the disparity in districts that have similar enrollment numbers? Is L-P district that inefficient with current taxes collected that residents must pay much higher rates to get the same level of education as neighboring schools? How can Crestview and Clearfork that both have newer buildings and neither have a large business revenue base be so much less of a tax burden per student?
According to the department of education website, Loudonville had 1246 enrolled in 2008, Crestview had 1239, and Clearfork had 1846. The chart with all the tax years is fairly large so only 3 examples were given in this article, but it is apparent that L-P local tax revenue per student is extremely high when compared to other area schools. To take this one step further, if the preliminary numbers of another .25% income and over 6 mill property tax for the new school building would be placed on the ballot and pass, L-P could be at the top of the list for being the most expensive per student school in the surrounding counties.
If you are wondering most of the schools that had high local tax revenue as high as L-P were city schools that also offer many more extracurricular, more classroom choices, and sporting programs than L-P can offer. Since mostcityy schools offer more variety of classes to students and more sports programs it makes sense why a larger enrollment could require more money from local taxpayers to offer a variety of programs and pay for the variety of educators needed.
Another example of how much higher L-P taxes are is to compare total revenue from surrounding schools, with L-P (12.2 million) and Crestview (9.8 million) being so close in enrollment, why does L-P need over 2 million more each year to operate?


You can email me at [e-mail] if you want specific information. I can probably even send links so that you can see the data and where it came from.

The superintendent position now pays over $101k per year with over $44k in benefits on top of the salary. The teachers are provided from the state what is called the step program, it is mandatory salary ranges with increases for teachers each year for the first so many years. What most teachers do not understand is that they get these raises along with any percent increases from the contract that was signed. The combined percentages are usually in the neighborhood of 5%. It sure would be nice to see a list of state mandates with cost to see what the school really could be cutting instead of the fear tactic standard answer. Anyone know how to get some good numbers out to voters in the loudonville area? The school board is elected and if residents get involved they could steer what cuts could be allowed so that it would be a minimum to parents and help residents out financially! This is long enough and probably jump around too much. Hope this helps some people make their decisions.

[gunny]

lp truther,
Two moderators, myself and Estherlike, have read your post and one of us will email you - probably tomorrow - to get your information. You have raised some important points. I thank you for posting as this is what the website is for, citizens asking questions and all of us being armed with good documented public record information. Also it is nice when information can be shared without the character assassination that appears on other blogs.

[lp truther]

Another valid point is if the income tax was so well liked why were both put on in special primary elections. To get the representative sample of voters the general election is the place to hold it. In 1991 it passed 740 to 672. Not that great of a margin. In 1999 though the margin grew and it passed by 1385 to 847. Another point that the school likes to tote is that they have low property tax millage. I would agree that the total voted on millage is low but the effective tax rate is higher. The effective tax rate is the millage as to what you pay. Many of the millages for school districts change yearly as they need to be adjusted because the counties property value has changed. Foe example lp has currently levied 40.43 but effective rate 30.5511. Looking at Crestview with voted millage at 49.4 but effective is only 26.7868 and Clearfork with voted mills at 48.25 and effective 24.5553. The reason the effective are so much lower go back to the types of levies the lp has on residents. lp schools has funding set up so that residents do not get the rollbacks that was provided by legislation and they continue to levy the income tax instead of an earned income tax. Until enough people give the school some grief it will remain this way and residents with carry the burden of extremely high school taxes!

[lp truther]

I do not mean to keep posting but I do want to be clear when posting about salaries and raises. I do not know an individual who goes to work and does not want to make the most money they can. The salaries that are given to the administrators are contracts approved by the board. If they seem extreme to you then you need to talk to the board. The current person in the position could have obviously negotiated his salary as an administrator but the board does not have to approve. The same goes for the teachers, they are contractual and with the unions their wages are set. Between the state and the union they have no say as to what their salaries are after the contracts are approved by the board. The board is responsible to ensure that the teachers are paid a livable salary while protecting the residents from outrageous taxes. Again what person does not want to make the most they can at their job, but this is government funded and the wages are paid from the private working sector, they should be fair but not excessive.

[estherlike]

lp truther, first and foremost, you do not have to be concerned about how often you post. This is an OPEN forum so feel free to post as often as you wish. Additionally, you seem, from your posts, to be level headed and are not "tearing" anyone apart for their opinions which is something we ask, that posters be allowed their opinions without being ripped apart for it. That is why this forum allows for posting by guests and does not require registration.

With regard to your post, you are correct that the school board approves these contracts. In view of that, the super can also go back when the economy tanks, such as it has, had request a re-evaluation of his contract and ask for a reduction in pay. I know this sounds ridiculous to some but think about it. When companies are in danger of closing, what is one of the first things they do? They start asking employees to take a cut in pay. If the super is concerned about the school, which is what is suppose to happen, then why should he not take less than over $100,000 in salary. The obscene part about that is that he is being paid out of taxpayer dollars and most of the taxpayers that are paying his salary don't make near that a year. What has happened to our schools?

[ormand]

estherlike, you have very valid reasoning, and I am sure that you have investigated the ideas to the "nth degree". I commend you for all the info that you know how to and are able to find out such valuable information for all to read and better understand the situations of levies, and salaries, taxes, etc. You do a great Job and thanks also to our WebMaster, you folks are irreplaceable!!

[chloep]

I am bothered by your comments about the "extremely high taxes" that we are "burdened" with. First off, the residents of the Loudonville-Perrysville schools voted in these taxes agreeing to pay them. They were put in place in large part because a good number of residents in this area felt that an additional property tax put too great a burden on land owners (i.e. the farming community.) Additionally, this "extremely high tax" amounts to about a dollar a day for a person making an annual salary of $50,000....is this REALLY too much to ask to support our schools???

I have two children in the school district and have been extremely happy with the education they are receiving. The teachers we have genuinely care about the students and consider themselves vested in their futures. The administrators whom I've been in contact with make it their responsibilities to get to know the students on a first name basis and are able to have intelligent discussions with the students without the aid of a file to tell them about the child and his/her situation. I am really not sure some people have taken the time to find out just how good we have it here in our community. On a daily basis on our elementary school playgrounds you will find teachers, aides, as well as administrators interacting with our students, getting to know them, and keeping them safe. I have seen principals who take the time to get to know not just the students, but their parents as well, working together to get the best education possible for the students. Honestly, I wouldn't trade our school district for the world, I think the staff and school board all work very hard to make our schools the best they can be. If that means my paycheck is going to be a few bucks short on payday, I'm okay with that. Can you really say that a dollar a day is too much burden to give our students a solid foundation for their futures?

Previous posts have been critical of where the cuts are being made. Busing and sports? Would you prefer cuts be made in teachers? How about we cut money for technologies and put our students behind the 8 ball so they are not prepared for the world ahead. Would that be better? We could eliminate so called "enrichment classes" which cost a lot of money but give kids a much more well rounded opportunity to learn. Do those sound like good ideas??? As long as we can still have Friday night football???

Lastly, I can't speak for everyone, but I have personally heard from several people who signed the petition which got this issue on the ballot who were mislead as to what it was actually about. Some claimed the were told that it was just to lower their taxes, and others thought it was about the potential building of new school facilities (another issue entirely!) Certainly it was their own irresponsibility for not reading what it was they were signing, but shame on the distributors of that petition for intentionally misleading people.

That we are even forced to have this discussion is incredibly sad.

[estherlike]

I understand your frustration and have been there myself, still am in fact. Understand that I am not saying the school should take away from the children. Quite the opposite, I am saying there is no reason for a superintendent in ANY of our school districts to be making almost $150,000/yr salary and benefits. The records for this district have been ordered and will be put on the website so everyone can make their decisions. On the issue of income tax, understand that this tax is one of the few that once passed is auto-renewing until someone files an objection. I can not to speak to what you were told by some who signed, that is something that only they and the person who had the petition can attest to. The facts still remain that the issues at hand and that were printed in the paper amount to scare tactics. There are already documents from the Ohio Department of Education up on the site, take a look. Indeed there is a $3.2 million carry over according to what the district filed with the State. There is no reason to threaten to remove sports when by and large sports is self funded by the children paying to play. There is no reason to threaten to take away homecoming and prom. The students conduct fund raisers to pay these events. It is standard practice to do this type of media hype to scare those who are going to the polls. If there is truly a reason, show it to us, but what we have been able to gather so far, there is no reason this district would have to make cuts immediately and in the long run not the degree they are saying.

One more point, before anyone starts thinking I am the person who started the petition, I do not even live in LP district, however, I have been requesting and digging through records for over 30 years and when you have the records you are able to get to the bottom of things without the tug of wars going on now.

[Buddy]

I am sending this in as a letter to the editor to t&g:

I've been watching this Loudonville anti-tax debate, and I agree with the Just Vote No Committee.
As a homeowner in this district I should know the facts surrounding this issue.
Here is what I've found.

The aim of the repeal as I see it, is not that property tax is a fairer tax, but that L-P taxes residents too much.
The goal of the repeal as I see it, is to lower my tax burden during an uncertain economy.
Apparently the board can choose to switch the income and estate tax over to an earned income tax.
Also, if you itemize on schedule A you may deduct the current income tax.
Thats great. But why does L_P with an enrollment of 1246 students collect more than double per pupil
in local tax revenue than other schools that are similar in size such as Crestview (1239) and Clearfork (1846)?

The numbers for 2008 on the Ohio department of education website show that L-P collects $5612.00 of
local tax revenue per pupil, while Crestview and Clearfork collect $2276.00 and $2627.00 respectively. It stands
to reason we should be getting a higher performance index score from the state of Ohio for the extra dollars
we pay. We don't. Crestview scores at 99.3 and Clearfork is sitting at 97.0. L-P according to the state of Ohio is 94.6.
Not bad, but Crestview and Clearfork have already built new schools and added to existing buildings while charging less per
pupil.

Lets look at property tax rates from 2008. The effective mills is the rate at which residents are taxed, this is adjusted each year
due to construction and improvements to existing properties. Any increase in county appraisal value translates
to more funding that is divided up several local government entities. As the appraisal grows the effective rates drop since more people are
funding the fixed sum levies. In essence we vote on a certain mill rate but each year the effective
mills drop while providing the school the agreed upon amount. Comparing L-P to crestview and Clearfork, the effective mills are 30.55, 26.79, and 24.56.
respectively. So, not only does L-P have higher property taxes; L-P also has an income tax that neither of the
two districts levy. This could explain the 3 million dollar surplus L-P has.

Since L-P has a 3 million dollar surplus, why are they suggesting such drastic cuts? The repeal would remove an estimated
$850,000 per year. The boards response to the residents that fund the district is as predictable as it is regretable,
"cut our funding and we will make life difficult for you" (of course I paraphrase).

As I see it, we as voters decide who gets funded and how much.
As I see it, the school board works for the community it serves.
As I see it, the school board needs to be accountable to the community it serves.
As I see it, the citizens have a resposibilty to the community and should be involved.

My vote is to repeal.
My vote counts.
My opinion matters. It is after all, my town too .

[estherlike]

There is alot of good information coming out and I am getting the financials in now. As soon as I have them converted they will be on the website. Go to www.caofac.org, look under School Board 101 and look for Loudonville-Perrysville School District

[estherlike]

All of the financials from L-P have been received, converted and now available on the website. This should be a good comparison for those who are not yet sure about what to do. Just remember, the salaries are pretty out of whack with surrounding comparable districts. Ohio Department of Education comparisons show the breakdowns and they are pretty eye opening, to say the least.

[lp truther]

They ran the cut article in the daily record:
www.the-daily-record.com/news/article/4682354?page=0
and a fellow posted a link to this site:
www.osba-ohio.org/levycompare.htm
It breaks down comparisons in a very easy format. Some of the numbers do not match what I have been seeing with the Ohio dept of Education but they are close. I like the chart that funding from "Taxes from all Property" has increased for L-P by 35.61% from 2003-2008. I know I have not seen a raise like that!

[lp truther]

I have received the following information and thought that it would be good for people to see.

A question was sent to the school and they responded below.

How much has been spent on the new school preliminary probes? If you want to get more how much was charged by the Quandel Group? What other businesses are involved when looking into a new school.

We have paid Quandel $23,667 to date for facilities planning work. Fanning Howey are our architects and have also assisted with the faciliites planning; however they do not charge for their services at this point in the process.

[chloep]

Oct 8, 2009 19:17:33 GMT -5 @lp truther said:

I have received the following information and thought that it would be good for people to see.

A question was sent to the school and they responded below.

How much has been spent on the new school preliminary probes? If you want to get more how much was charged by the Quandel Group? What other businesses are involved when looking into a new school.

We have paid Quandel $23,667 to date for facilities planning work. Fanning Howey are our architects and have also assisted with the faciliites planning; however they do not charge for their services at this point in the process.

While that's interesting information, I thought you said in one of your previous posts that you were only opposed to this particular income tax and not the school district as a whole. This certainly begs the question...what is it that you have against l-p schools?? The potential school project has been tabled for the time being and has nothing to do with this income tax repeal issue.

[lp truther]

While I will agree that the board should have already attempted to change over to the earned income to help many of the residents, any spending that the school does is and should be under suspicion as to if it helps the goal of the school, better educate the youth. There are several points that have been made.
The school taxes too much and therefore spends too much, that is how it relates.
The school has not even tried to change over to a more fair funding system.
That means not only should this repeal pass to help align the funding with other local schools, the remaining 1/2% should be converted to earned income, instead the board is wanting try to tax residents more and build a new school.
Why do people make the comment that if you build a new school it will attract business? What do business try to avoid like the plague, taxes. A new school means higher taxes, how does that attract new business? Why is stagnant home values such a bad thing, that means the county cannot reassess your property taxes and demand more each year! Possibly unwillingly, people asking for higher property values are silently agreeing that they should be taxed more as they intertwined. higher home values = higher property taxes.

[chloep]

Oct 14, 2009 11:48:10 GMT -5 @lp truther said:

While I will agree that the board should have already attempted to change over to the earned income to help many of the residents, any spending that the school does is and should be under suspicion as to if it helps the goal of the school, better educate the youth. There are several points that have been made.
The school taxes too much and therefore spends too much, that is how it relates.
The school has not even tried to change over to a more fair funding system.
That means not only should this repeal pass to help align the funding with other local schools, the remaining 1/2% should be converted to earned income, instead the board is wanting try to tax residents more and build a new school.
Why do people make the comment that if you build a new school it will attract business? What do business try to avoid like the plague, taxes. A new school means higher taxes, how does that attract new business? Why is stagnant home values such a bad thing, that means the county cannot reassess your property taxes and demand more each year! Possibly unwillingly, people asking for higher property values are silently agreeing that they should be taxed more as they intertwined. higher home values = higher property taxes.

You say in one sentence that the school board should change the tax to a "more fair tax" and a few sentences later say that higher property taxes would be a problem. That makes no sense! Many in this area feel that an earned income tax is a much more fair way to go because it doesn't put the burden primarily on land owners, but spreads it out across all residents of the district. The income tax seems much more fair to me.

Yes, stagnant home values ARE a bad thing! Assuming that not everyone is going to live in the same place forever, most would like to get something for their investment.

And if you are planning to live here forever, why wouldn't you want the best schools that can be offered??? If that means new buildings, buildings which offer everything from the best technologies available to ADA approved facilities to buildings which do not run a risk of falling into a river, what exactly is wrong with hoping for that??? Do you know that every time a school puts an issue on a ballot to build a new school the portion of state funding available to that school district is reduced, therefore putting a greater burden on that district the next time it comes around, or worse yet when the State mandates that it needs to be done but then that State portion option has run out???

[estherlike]

If you look at the post again you will see that it states the tax should have already been changed to earned income. The income tax as it stands now is ALL income, not just earned income. If it were changed to EARNED income it would help those in lower income brackets and the elderly or disabled. As far as the spending, lp truther, I feel, is correct. This school district is fat out spending comparable school districts in the area and it would seem the bulk of this is in the admin area. In so far as the teachers, administrator and superintendent being out with the children and knowing, remember, that IS their job and they are receiving a VERY handsome sum to perform that job.

[proudvet]

Seems as if all schools use scare tactics. Jeff Kursman gave a speech to the Ohio School Board Association spelling out how to pass a levy. He stated,"let the people feel the pain." Limiting busing was the first step toward achieving their goal. He also stated that eventually you will pass a levy, this is why schools use scare tactics. The traditional income tax that many schools employ taxes all income, including interest and pensions. The newer Alternative Income Tax only taxes earned income.

[gunny]

Proudvet,
I served on a "community" levy committee a few years back and the conversation was just what you mentioned in your post. It was said that the more pain the voters felt the more inclined they are to not only vote yes but also "encourage" their friends and neighbors to do the same. Yet this is not the only place where scare tactics are used. A former Commissioners used this tactic when they were closing the Heartland Home - he was scared about a certain segment of the residents who were challenged mentally.

[LP Truther]

I was wrong, L-P is sitting on $4.32 million not $3! The $3 million came from the five year forecast but the auditor list all funds and the carryover balance is $4.32 million.
I wish residents would start getting in touch with the board and help steer the cuts instead of getting mad at the petitioners. The school over taxes and over spends and the board is responsible. From a friend who has stated, the state gave the local residents the local elected school board to steer the school in direction that residents want. That entails these so called cuts. It is funny the articles in the paper only try to break down how much per day the school costs. I wonder when you break all taxes down they may not seem that bad until at the end of the year you wonder where all those little dollar bills went. I definitely think that a price can be put on education. Take for example that Ashland Christian costs around $4500 per student a year, L-P collects more than double that. No study has backup that throwing more money into a school system ever made the students smarter. The Stossel special comes to mind. You can search John Stossel Kansas City and find some interesting information. Of course he caught all kinds of heat for this because it proves what many suspect.
I read an article today that stated breaking down school financing to per pupil costs is not a valid way to look at districts. It is the only way to level the money and make comparisons across districts. No matter how you look at L-P, it costs and spends more and does not provide a higher education than other area schools that run more efficiently.

[school board notes from July]

These notes are from Loudonville Perrysville board meeting on July 30th.

Gary Young addressed the Board of Education with his concern about taxpayers funding the local share of the OSFC project. He suggested that board members become fully knowledgeable about the district’s finances and focus on making the district financially solvent before asking voters to fund a building project. Mr. Young expressed concern that the five-year forecast reflects a deficit balance in year five and that over the next five years the district will ask voters to renew three levies. Mr. Cooper emphasized that the board members are aware of the district’s finances and stated that the way schools are funded is problematic. He also informed Mr. Young that capital expenditures are part of the financial equation, in addition to the operating budget, and that the Board of Education has reduced staff due to declining enrollment. Mr. Koppert commented that due to the way public schools in Ohio are funded, renewal levies are a given. He further stated that we can continue paying 100% of our buildings’ updates and maintenance costs or use the $15 million OSFC funds to help pay for new buildings; there is also a cost of we don’t build new buildings. Mr. Kick commented that the district has to continuously make improvements to our buildings in order to abide by state laws.

I opt to maintain buildings. New buildings always cost more and in the end every district optimistically projects savings that are not realized and therefore go back to voters soon after the initial sticker shock from the building and threaten that they cannot run this new lower cost building!

[Hopeful]

Oct 19, 2009 19:13:38 GMT -5 @school board notes from July said:

These notes are from Loudonville Perrysville board meeting on July 30th.

Gary Young addressed the Board of Education with his concern about taxpayers funding the local share of the OSFC project. He suggested that board members become fully knowledgeable about the district’s finances and focus on making the district financially solvent before asking voters to fund a building project. Mr. Young expressed concern that the five-year forecast reflects a deficit balance in year five and that over the next five years the district will ask voters to renew three levies. Mr. Cooper emphasized that the board members are aware of the district’s finances and stated that the way schools are funded is problematic. He also informed Mr. Young that capital expenditures are part of the financial equation, in addition to the operating budget, and that the Board of Education has reduced staff due to declining enrollment. Mr. Koppert commented that due to the way public schools in Ohio are funded, renewal levies are a given. He further stated that we can continue paying 100% of our buildings’ updates and maintenance costs or use the $15 million OSFC funds to help pay for new buildings; there is also a cost of we don’t build new buildings. Mr. Kick commented that the district has to continuously make improvements to our buildings in order to abide by state laws.

I opt to maintain buildings. New buildings always cost more and in the end every district optimistically projects savings that are not realized and therefore go back to voters soon after the initial sticker shock from the building and threaten that they cannot run this new lower cost building!

I certainly hope that you are aware that this current issue is not about building a new building.

[lp truther]

Here is a letter:
The intent of the referendum has never been to decimate the school even though many have assumed that being the purpose. The school is currently operated inefficiently and residents are excessively taxed. Many of the petition signers had stated that they support the school but the school has not effectively adjusted their spending. I commend Mrs. Beddow on her article as it brings to light some of the background information that treasurers have the privilege to deal with almost every day. So far the focus has been on how high local tax revenues are; provided below are details on how high the expenditures are.

The Ohio Dept of Education provides financial data of all school districts by fiscal year; it lists cost per pupil by district. The expenditures include all local, state, and federal money. The list was narrowed again to Ashland , Richland , Knox, and Wayne counties. Of all the districts on the list, L-P came in 4th on spending per pupil. The districts that spent more than L-P are Mansfield City , Wooster City , and Madison Local respectively. The complete range of expenditures are $7,050 to $12,655 with L-P at $9740. Southeast was brought up in Marie’s comparison and is $9,089 with Crestview at $8,133 and Clear Fork at $7,637. Although these expenditures appear to be similar when multiplied by the enrollment numbers, these equate to million dollar differences.

There has been no study to prove that cutting 8% from the budget will hurt the education of the children. The fact remains that L-P is in the top 4 for both the highest local tax burden on residents per pupil and highest expenditure per pupil in the surrounding area.
Any large business needs to have a business plan that includes knowing how much their fixed costs are before they begin to do business. To precisely understand educational costs, a list should be generated with all the mandates (funded and unfunded) and a column right next to the description with the cost. If that list existed then residents could learn what items are mandatory, how much they cost, and select what extra programs will be offered and at what cost to taxpayers. Currently no such list with cost exists.

Seniors are one group of taxpayers we have an obligation to protect. It was during the circulation of the petitions that it became apparent that the people on fixed incomes are being unduly overburdened with the current income tax. It was then that I decided to not only pursue reducing the high taxes, but also to get information out to the voters so that they may question why the board has not made an effort and brought to the voters the opportunity to replace the income and estate tax with an earned income tax. Only a board vote can make that happen! Mrs. Beddow projected that if the income tax were to changeover in 2010 the school would only lose about $120k annually from a $12 million budget. That is a small price to pay for our community. At least with the current property tax structure the elderly residents get reduction factors applied.
The Ohio Dept of Education does not take into account geographical location for comparing districts and states a better way to compare financial data is to select districts that are geographically close. The numbers do not lie, L-P out taxes and out spends all but four schools in surrounding counties. Residents have voiced concern in the past about the schools spending; Voting Yes on issue 3 forces the board to create efficiencies while helping to balance local tax burdens.


and another one:
The reason L-P currently has a $4.2 million surplus is a result of higher market values from residential and agricultural properties. As market confidence increased so did property values and the effect is felt in higher tax receipts. In the last 10 years, market values have risen too sharply to remain sustainable and if it continues, residents will be unable to afford property especially in high tax districts such as L-P.

A quick comparison of the districts value paints an alarming picture. L-P residential/agriculture value has increased 89% from 1998 to 2008 in assessed value from the auditor. So in another ten years if you currently pay $1000 in property taxes you could be paying $1890 if that trend continues. The same goes for income, the average income for L-P district from 1998 to 2007 increased 28%. The school may only get a portion of the increases from the property but any increase in income gives the school their full rate. The school continues to voice a relatively flat revenue base, L-P had revenues of $7.7 million in FY98 and in FY08 of $12.2 million. In those ten years that is a 58% increase or nearly 5% compounded year after year. Since most working individuals do not get 5% raises yearly how can the school expect residents to even maintain the current school expenditure level?

This is a trend that cannot be maintained and the school has plans to increase both property and income for a new building! I can recall many other local districts that have built a new school have gone back to voters to ask for more funds to operate it. This is why the repeal is important, to break the flagrant taxing trend of this district.

Current board members think that building a new school will bring in business; nothing could be further from the truth. L-P levies such high taxes that any business would quickly rule out this area as a viable location. Loudonville has seen first hand what happens when tax abatements run out. The school seems to have forgotten that the money they control came from taxpayers and is not their personal purse to spend wildly.

Help to support fiscal responsibility with supporting the repeal effort. Help the school focus on education by supporting the repeal. Help keep the Loudonville-Perrysville district affordable to residents, support the repeal.


It is important to note that five year forecasts are misleading in that treasurer's are not allowed to include any levies that expire in the projections. That is why almost all schools show in the red.

[lp truther]

An article I read today in the t&g is funny. It states the L-P has a large surplus from recently approved levies. The levies that they had in recent years was all renewals, where does this large surplus come from? Could it be that they are overtaxing residents and are trying to mislead the public in how they got to such large unappropriated monies? It would be nice for a full disclosure story instead of the half truths.

[chloep]

Oct 27, 2009 10:18:07 GMT -5 @lp truther said:

An article I read today in the t&g is funny. It states the L-P has a large surplus from recently approved levies. The levies that they had in recent years was all renewals, where does this large surplus come from? Could it be that they are overtaxing residents and are trying to mislead the public in how they got to such large unappropriated monies? It would be nice for a full disclosure story instead of the half truths.

Actually, the proper statement would have been "The levies in recent years WERE all renewals" not was. Perhaps if someone would have invested in your education you would know that.

Most financial representatives advise that you SHOULD maintain a surplus in case something would happen and you needed it for an emergency. Some recommend that you keep up to 6 months expenses back for that purpose. Why would the schools not maintain that same philosophy? Should they not have money set aside for emergencies?

I also find it interesting that you are all about the money the school district spends on this and that, but you aren't at all bothered by the cost of this referendum, where is that supposed to come from.

[Whirled Peas]

Oct 30, 2009 16:20:49 GMT -5 chloep said:

Actually, the proper statement would have been "The levies in recent years WERE all renewals" not was. Perhaps if someone would have invested in your education you would know that.

We don't employ grammar police here. Please, keep it civil.

Thank you.

Webmaster, CAofAC.org

[angel]

I do agree and the last sentence was uncalled for, what chloep said. I was looking around tonight and would like to say aomething else. It could have been said a little better but the question to miss tunnel was civil in my eyes. did you look at the accsation to mister scanlan about the alley, that was worse than the question to her. It is crunch time and all the big guns are being pulled out. I am sure most have made up the mind already the rest is just hot air. Unless they cuss or make lies up I think a little venting is normal. I just hope people go to vote, no matter how it turns out I have learned a lot here.