This is the fourth in a video series on the Field Local Schools levy campaign.
6 thoughts on “Video: Fiscal Responsibility”
I would push back on the idea that Field Schools are fiscally responsible. The district is asking for 8.3 new millage, which is a 28% increase for us taxpayers. This is a substantial increase and will surely place a heavy burden on many taxpayers. If the schools were broke with no hope for increased future revenue then maybe it would be a consideration, but that is simply not the case. Here is my support:
1) Per Superintendent Field schools are solvent through 2019 school year.
2) There is substantial new business development in Brimfield to provide increased future revenue.
3) The District pays pension pickups (actually pickup on the pickups) to administrators and some employees (OAPSE)
I believe it is irresponsible to ask voters for such an increase now when there are places in budget that could be cut and future revenue is likely to develop to help fund our schools.
Thanks Tom for checking out the website and for your comments. This video in which you are commenting on was posted for the May 2017 election. You are correct in that the school will be solvent till 2019 school year… but in the following school year we will be seriously in the negative. If this levy does not pass, another year of collecting funding will be lost and more than likely even more millage will be placed on the ballot in 2018. Because the school is already almost at State minimum, there are not many more cuts to be made. Please keep in mind the school has not received new operating monies since 1991. As far as future business development… the schools do their best to forecast but this information is limited. Todd Carpenter, the Treasurer will be presenting his 5 Year Forecast on Monday, October 16th @ 6:30 pm at the Levy Forum at the High School. Hope you can join us. _ Field Levy Committee
Hi Erin, I understand the school is scheduled on the five year forecast to incur a deficit in the 2020 school year. However, the rules Todd must follow to do that five year forecast are set by the state and not reasonable. By 2010 we could have a Menard’s, Meijeirs, new industrial park and some other businesses that would be paying new property taxes. Also I believe that Todd cannot assume a renewal levy will pass, but they almost always pass. If they get the 8.3 mills now and the new money then, they will not give it back, they will find a way to spend it. Meanwhile that is a lot of money from residents, many on a fixed income.
One other thing you said it as well as all other pro-levy people that the district has received no new operating monies since 1991. It would be more correct to say no new “millage” since 1991. Revenue has gone up since 1991. I know for a fact the revenue has increased 6.3% from 2009 to 2016. Costs have increased since 1991, so revenue had to increase too to cover those costs and stay in the black. I realize some cuts have been made, but they don’t add up to the increase.
Look, I’m a fan of you and Brandi. Both of you have great passion for this cause and seem tireless in efforts to make it happen. Be careful taking information from Laura Mae, not always factual. After this attempt, I suggest a 1 to 2 mill permanent improvements levy for the district with no operating. I help you try to get that one passed, We need it.
I know the 1 mill PI levy lost, but there was also an operating levy on the ballot too. I think a PI levy would have a better chance by itself. I think a lot of people resent all the operating levies that have been on the ballot, failed and school district is still in black (I know there have been cuts, but we all tightened our belts after 2008). A PI levy by itself would be an easier argument to the voter that it is truly needed. Like you said we can agree to disagree.
Tom, Actually on 2016, there was not an operating levy on the ballot. It was only a PI levy for 1 mill for the parking lot. You can check with the portage County Board of Elections if you would like.
I would push back on the idea that Field Schools are fiscally responsible. The district is asking for 8.3 new millage, which is a 28% increase for us taxpayers. This is a substantial increase and will surely place a heavy burden on many taxpayers. If the schools were broke with no hope for increased future revenue then maybe it would be a consideration, but that is simply not the case. Here is my support:
1) Per Superintendent Field schools are solvent through 2019 school year.
2) There is substantial new business development in Brimfield to provide increased future revenue.
3) The District pays pension pickups (actually pickup on the pickups) to administrators and some employees (OAPSE)
I believe it is irresponsible to ask voters for such an increase now when there are places in budget that could be cut and future revenue is likely to develop to help fund our schools.
Thanks Tom for checking out the website and for your comments. This video in which you are commenting on was posted for the May 2017 election. You are correct in that the school will be solvent till 2019 school year… but in the following school year we will be seriously in the negative. If this levy does not pass, another year of collecting funding will be lost and more than likely even more millage will be placed on the ballot in 2018. Because the school is already almost at State minimum, there are not many more cuts to be made. Please keep in mind the school has not received new operating monies since 1991. As far as future business development… the schools do their best to forecast but this information is limited. Todd Carpenter, the Treasurer will be presenting his 5 Year Forecast on Monday, October 16th @ 6:30 pm at the Levy Forum at the High School. Hope you can join us. _ Field Levy Committee
Hi Erin, I understand the school is scheduled on the five year forecast to incur a deficit in the 2020 school year. However, the rules Todd must follow to do that five year forecast are set by the state and not reasonable. By 2010 we could have a Menard’s, Meijeirs, new industrial park and some other businesses that would be paying new property taxes. Also I believe that Todd cannot assume a renewal levy will pass, but they almost always pass. If they get the 8.3 mills now and the new money then, they will not give it back, they will find a way to spend it. Meanwhile that is a lot of money from residents, many on a fixed income.
One other thing you said it as well as all other pro-levy people that the district has received no new operating monies since 1991. It would be more correct to say no new “millage” since 1991. Revenue has gone up since 1991. I know for a fact the revenue has increased 6.3% from 2009 to 2016. Costs have increased since 1991, so revenue had to increase too to cover those costs and stay in the black. I realize some cuts have been made, but they don’t add up to the increase.
Look, I’m a fan of you and Brandi. Both of you have great passion for this cause and seem tireless in efforts to make it happen. Be careful taking information from Laura Mae, not always factual. After this attempt, I suggest a 1 to 2 mill permanent improvements levy for the district with no operating. I help you try to get that one passed, We need it.
Tom,
Brandi, I and the Schools appreciate your support. Thank you.
P.s. They did put a 1 mill levy on the ballot on 2016 for Permanent Improve- earmarking it for the parking lot. It failed.
I know the 1 mill PI levy lost, but there was also an operating levy on the ballot too. I think a PI levy would have a better chance by itself. I think a lot of people resent all the operating levies that have been on the ballot, failed and school district is still in black (I know there have been cuts, but we all tightened our belts after 2008). A PI levy by itself would be an easier argument to the voter that it is truly needed. Like you said we can agree to disagree.
Tom, Actually on 2016, there was not an operating levy on the ballot. It was only a PI levy for 1 mill for the parking lot. You can check with the portage County Board of Elections if you would like.