Recordpub.com - Streetsboro school levy vote Tuesday

By Bob Gaetjens
The Gateway News
STREETSBORO — Voters will decide Tuesday whether to approve Issue 1, a 9.5-mill, continuous operating levy for the school system.
The levy would raise about $4 million per year, according to Treasurer Neil Barnes, but that would be offset by a 3.5-mill school levy that is set to expire at the end of the 2010.
Voters rejected a 9.5-mill school levy in November, with 44 percent of voters casting ballots for it and 56 percent voting against.
With passage, the district would experience a net increase of $2.7 million per year, according to Barnes. Because of the timing of property tax collections, only half of that would be available for the 2010-11 school year, he added.
Collections on Issue 1 would begin in 2011, he said.
The owner of a $100,000 home would pay $199 in additional taxes, if Issue 1 is approved, according to Barnes.
The district has already reduced its expenses by nearly $1.3 million, through a mix of cuts, efficiencies, and lower-than-expected actual expenditures in some areas, according to Barnes.
Without levy passage, more cuts are possible next year, said School Board member Kevin Grimm.
“What’s at stake is the future of our school district, whether we’re going to offer the same kinds of classes and the same quality of programs or whether we’re going to have cut even more and only offer the very basics,” he said.
The School Board has cut the director of pupil services, a computer technician, nine bus drivers, a mechanic, two library aides, seven custodians, and 11 playground aides the levy failed in November, according to Barnes.
The district has also experienced what Barnes calls “favorable variances” in areas such as utilities costs, workers’ compensation costs, and property tax collection fees. It has also used federal grant money to retain a variety of tutors and coaches rather than paying them through the general fund.
The district entered the school year facing a cash deficit of more than $900,000, he added.
Flagging finances for the district affect more than parents and students, said Grimm. If the levy fails, Grimm said he’s concerned families may flee the city for more financially stable districts.
“I’ve been hearing that a lot from people lately,” he said.
As a result, property values could begin falling for all residents, he said
Resident Todd Teitel said he believes flight and flagging home values have already taken hold, with homes in Streetsboro remaining the market longer and selling further below asking prices than in neighboring communities.
“This boils down to a lot more than what you’re going to pay in taxes,” he said. “[If the issue fails,] people won’t want to come here anymore.”
Teitel said he feels being on a fixed income is not a good reason to reject the levy.
“With no raises being given, you’re on a fixed income whether you’re making $120,000 or $20,000,” he said. “I lost my fixed income when my company downsized.”

33.	Posted by bgreen February 1, 2010
	I don't see any figures which show that we are overpaying our teachers, or that spending is out of control in our schools. The revenues that our schools have relied on in the past including the tangable personal property tax (tax on business inventories) and state aid are significantly declining or going away. These losses are due to changes decided in Columbus not Streetsboro. We have to make up for these losses with this tax levy. Spending cuts could and perhaps should be made but I can see no way of cutting spending to make up for even a fraction of these losses. This levy is not out of line, and I know that in the long run our community will be better off for passing this levy at this time.

29.	Posted by bgreen January 31, 2010
	The text of the law instructs the auditor to specifically reduce the tax when valuations increase but not to increase the tax rate when values decrease. Your question would be a very good one to ask the auditor's office. There us another factor at play here as well. The new state funding formula ties our state support directly to our property valuations. The old formula was based on the number of students in our district. The result of this change is that we will receive much less from the state on a per pupil basis. Thr difference is almost 1k per student which means a loss of more than 2 million in state aid. The levy as proposed would generate about 2.7 million in additional revenue. Not much more than what we will loose from the state. The bottom line is that this levy will not result in a huge amount of additional spending, it really only keeps us on par with our current spending levels.

28.	Posted by factualinfo January 31, 2010
	Mr. Green - The treasurer said that we lost money this year because the property values were reappraised at lower values. So if the amount of a levy tax doesn't change if the values go up, how is it that an existing levy can be decreased. According to the treasurers report, he said that we lost $20,282 due to these reassessments. I'm not doubting your information, I'm just not sure I understand how we can lose money but not gain it based on sales and/or reassesments. I do understand that Emergency levies will only ever generate the revenue initially stated no matter how many homes are added. That has always been a selling point on those levies in the past, especially by Todd Puster. He always claimed that if we voted for the Emergency levy and with the continued growth in the city it would continue to cost us less and less. Good selling point by him for a levy but I do understand that it hurts us in the long run.

26.	Posted by shagbark January 31, 2010
	Hi, Not a probem... "and is not reset when a property is sold." This is correct... It is reset whenever a change occurs to the parcel such as size, re-plat, etc. My mistake... However, key point below is you get same amount of cash. The actual law intent is: "The H.B. 920 tax reduction factor law (so called because the current real property tax limitation law was enacted by H.B. 920 of the 111th General Assembly (1976)) is designed to prevent appreciation in real property values from causing proportionate increases in real property taxes. Generally, the law ensures that unless new taxes have been voted, the total amount of taxes raised in one year is not greater than the total amount of taxes levied on the same property in the preceding year. The law does allow tax increases resulting from the addition of new property to the tax lists (e.g., new buildings and additions to existing buildings) or from reclassified property." Bottom line is cash is the same.... Now, get rid of PARTA, MRDD, and all of the other levies, tell us what has changed in management practice, including entering into contracts you cannot pay for KNOWING FULL WELL YOUR CASH BASIS, and maybe we would be more receiptive. Bottom line is we only have so much money. Most of us don't get annual raises.

25.	Posted by bgreen January 31, 2010
	Sorry, my post below was cut off...Please read this one in response to post 23 The effective millage rate is due to the adjustments made by the county auditor on all outside millage. It is calulated on a parcel by parcel basis, and is not reset when a property is sold. The details can be found in the text of ORC 319.301 As an example: Assume a property is valued at 20k and a new tax of 10 mills is levied on that property. The county auditor will record the value of the property at the time the tax was levied. The audior recalculates the value of the property every 3 years. Each time adjusting the 10 mill tax downward so that it will generate the same amount in dollars as it did when the tax was origionally levied (In this case : 60k35%0.010 = $210). 20 years later the same house may be valued at $100k but the tax would still be $210 Which equates to an "effective millage" of 6 mills. Increse to property value due to improvements like building a house are taxed at the full gross rate the first time they are included in the property valuation. A parcel of land valued at 6K and taxed at 10 mills like the example above would end up with the same 6 mill effective rate after 20 years. Assuming the same rate of increase in value the property would be worth now 10k. Lets say that someone then bought the property and built a $90k house on it. We can see the full value of the property is $100k just like the example above. The auditor will apply a 6 mill tax to the 10k since this portion of the property is the same as always, and the full 10 mills on the value of the improvement ($90k). The result is a a tax of $336 or 9.6Mills. Two properties with the same value in the same community with very different tax rates. This is an oversimplification of course, but I hope it illustrates the way this law works. If you look up a property on the portage county auditor's web site you can see in the upper rigt hand corner the Gross and Effective millage rates (for all outsie millage not just schools) for the property. In my case the effective millage was 50% of the Gross millage rate.

24.	Posted by bgreen January 31, 2010
	The effective millage rate is due to the adjustments made by the county auditor on all outside millage. It is calulated on a parcel by parcel basis, and is not reset when a property is sold. The details can be found in the text of ORC 319.301 As an example: Assume a property is valued at 20k and a new tax of 10 mills is levied on that property. The county auditor will record the value of the property at the time the tax was levied. The audior will recalculate the value of the property every 3 years. EaIJime adjust the 10 mill tax downward so that it will generate the same amount in dollars as it would have when the tax was origionally levied (In this case $210). 20 years later the same house may be valued at $100k but the tax would still be $210. Which equates to an "effective millage" of 6 mills.