Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

May 5th Bond issue

186 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

Just wanted to let everyone know of a special election on May 5 for the $76 mil bond issue. Please be sure to get out and vote!.

It appears that many people are not aware of the bond issue that will be on the ballot. WWCS wants to build two new campuses and is asking for the passage of a $76 mil bond in order to do so.

I just wanted to make you aware of the estimated amount your taxes will increase should this issue pass. Go to www.hamiltoncountyauditor.org, look up your property, and then click on "Levy Info".

I urge you to become informed on this issue, and be sure to vote on Tuesday, May 5!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Pool Lover has posted very good advice. There is no such thing as a free meal, somebody has to pay for it. When it comes to the Bond Issue, it is the Home Owners who are paying the Bill. Home Owners should become informed, it is their money at stake.

Cicero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

It's not just homeowners who are footing the bill - it's business owners, too. I'm both a homeowner and a business owner in the district. My husband and I just looked up the amount our property taxes will increase if the school bond passes, and we're about having heart attacks - $1,600 more a year!!!!! We guessed it would be a lot, but certainly didn't expect THAT much. Has anyone answered the question of why it costs so much more per student to build new school facilities in Winton Woods than it does in other districts? I'm not against the idea of new buildings, but it sounds like we are WAY overpaying. There's no way it should cost that much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Pool Lover has posted very good advice. There is no such thing as a free meal, somebody has to pay for it. When is comes to the Bond Issue, it is the Home Owners who are paying the Bill. Home Owners should become informed, it is their money at stake.

Cicero

We can continue to pay maintenance on old buildings (about $65 million) or build new buildings (about $76 million after deducting state funds).

If Winton Woods wants to attract more and better teachers and adminstrators and retain them now and for the future they're going to have to compete with everybody else for them. New buildings are one way to do it.

Remember that if you are a property owner any increase in property tax is tax deductible if you itemize so the true increase is smaller than you think.

There is no free lunch. Taxpayers are going to pay one way or the other so they ought to get the best buy for their tax dollars. Old buildings are a poor investment for the future.

If you want better results for the district then give new people a reason to come here and make those changes. Old buildings won't do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

If you want better results for the district then give new people a reason to come here and make those changes. Old buildings won't do it.

Oh to be a progressive ThreeHats, build it and they shall come. It's for the children of course.

Tim Cleary's mention of an alternative is outside the realm of even mentioning. A two campus solution was set during the reconfiguration talks in 2006. This isn't about education ThreeHats, it's competition.

Are you also selling a near term operating levy? So, 8.79 plus another 4+ mils the good taxpayers, as you have so gladly stated, are gonna have to cough up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Oh to be a progressive ThreeHats, build it and they shall come. It's for the children of course.

Tim Cleary's mention of an alternative is outside the realm of even mentioning. A two campus solution was set during the reconfiguration talks in 2006. This isn't about education ThreeHats, it's competition.

Are you also selling a near term operating levy? So, 8.79 plus another 4+ mils the good taxpayers, as you have so gladly stated, are gonna have to cough up.

I will say that NOT building them is not going to drive the best and brightest to Winton Woods. Every teacher and person who wants to become a teacher will review her options and with the attitudes of many who comment here, will go elsewhere. Think about it. New buildings guarantee nothing, but old buildings guarantee even less. Is that the path to success?

And actually, it IS for the children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

New schools will not fix the problems that WW and any other district has.....

New schools will not fix....

1. The misbehaving child, who thinks rules don't apply to them.

2. The parent who doesn't see a need to be involved in their kids education.

3. The child who is always absent, and the parent lies about it.

4. The child who won't study or do homework, because they have learned they will still be advanced to the next grade, in grades k-8. By high school the damage has been done.

5. The child who lives in poverty, and whose family doesn't have the means for supplies, food, necessary doctor bills, much need eye glasses ect.

All schools have these issues, once we get funding to help resolve these issues, including laws that mandate parent involvement in their child's education, these issues will stay the same or increase in numbers. I hate to say it but public education on an uphill battle. Those who care about their child's education find away to move to district, or do private schools, with those who have liked minded values. It leaves everyone else that a district must educate. Also, a change is taking place in education is a change in mind set about educations. Why is it the district, schools, or teachers fault when a child fails due to excessive absences, failure to complete homework or study? Where is there any responsibility on child to do their job as a child ....attend school daily, complete their homework, study for test, follow classroom and school rules? There isn't any, because schools have given control over to the parents. As the saying goes, "The squeaky wheel, get's the oil." Until the mindset about education changes, improvements will not be seen. These issues will exist with or without new buildings. Why take on this kind of debt, when they don't resolve the true underlying issues for student failure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Neighbors of mine had twins just over two years ago. They began looking at Winton Woods and learning about the bond levy and impending operating levy behind that, they decided to go shopping. They found they could get a newer house in Loveland with almost twice the space as here for just $150 more per month than what they would be expecting to pay if the bond levy passes. As you can guess it, they aren't my neighbors anymore.

I asked their agent, what was the biggest obstacle for selling houses in this area. The first three words out of her mouth - the property taxes.

In the current climate, significantly increasing the property tax for the sake of new buildings is not going to attract new home buyers. I would argue it's going to do the exact opposite, making other communities overwhelmingly more competitive and attractive to those buyers. That ends up doing several things for us - 1. Continues the downward pressure on property values, requiring even higher millage for future levies, making them more difficult to pass; 2. Keeps more seniors who may wish to retire to other areas in their homes who generally will not support school levies; 3. Forces those who can't sell to either rent or sell to rental agents and, in many cases, bringing in children lacking education performance and suffering the transitional issues that the District has pointed to as part of their performance issues, which will lead to further increased cost to property owners to educate students; 4.) Puts further downward pressure on the communities' demographics, making economic re-development even more difficult and further reducing the inability to attract quality businesses, which makes it even more difficult to attract quality residents, which further puts downward pressure on property values, and thus we sit on the merry-go-round with no hope of it stopping.

The District as currently configured and in the funding formula available is unsustainable for the long term. And with both political parties in the Statehouse unwilling and unable to do anything differently, it's time to face the reality and find the best solution, including the dissolution and merging of the district, to pull us out of the death spiral before we do irreparable damage to the community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Dear Pool lover,

"I urge you to become informed on this issue, and be sure to vote on Tuesday, May 5!"

You said it all!

The Mad Botanist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

New schools will not fix the problems that WW and any other district has.....

New schools will not fix....

1.  The misbehaving child, who thinks rules don't apply to them.

2.  The parent who doesn't see a need to be involved in their kids education.

3.  The child who is always absent, and the parent lies about it.

4.  The child who won't study or do homework, because they have learned they will still be advanced to the next grade, in grades k-8.  By high school the damage has been done.

5.  The child who lives in poverty, and whose family doesn't have the means for supplies, food, necessary doctor bills, much need eye glasses ect.

All schools have these issues, once we get funding to help resolve these issues, including laws that mandate parent involvement in their child's education, these issues will stay the same or increase in numbers.   I hate to say it but public education on an uphill battle.  Those who care about their child's education find away to move to district, or do private schools, with those who have liked minded values.  It leaves everyone else that a district must educate.  Also, a change is taking place in education is a change in mind set about educations.  Why is it the district, schools, or teachers fault when a child fails due to excessive absences, failure to complete homework or study?  Where is there any responsibility on child to do their job as a child ....attend school daily, complete their homework, study for test, follow classroom and school rules?  There isn't any,  because schools have given control over to the parents.  As the saying goes, "The squeaky wheel, get's the oil."  Until the mindset about education changes, improvements will not be seen.   These issues  will exist with or without new buildings.  Why take on this kind of debt, when they don't resolve the true underlying issues for student failure?

A couple of points.

First, K-Roman is spot on.

BUT.....

I don't think anybody is saying that the problems that schools face are going to go away by a new building's construction. I'm not.

-----

I did see the "VOTE NO" advertisement in the GH Journal... it was paid for by "John Thad Willard".

I actually like Thad. Say one thing about him and Council Member Maria Waltherr-Willard... they do put their name out there.

However, I hope a few of you are kicking a few ducats Thad's way. Don't make him pick up the tab for all of this.

What was funny about the ad is that his ad looks like a Cicero post. THE CAPITAL LETTERS ARE KIND OF A GIVE AWAY.... Maybe he's a consultant to local campaigns. LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Rocket Sci:

Let's be totally fair here. Property taxes are high but the local wage tax is also a factor

Greenhills: 1.50% local wage tax with a 0.50% credit for taxes paid elsewhere

Loveland: 1.00% local wage tax with a 1.00% credit for taxes paid elsewhere.

(Source: Ritaohio.com)

If this couple's combined income was $120,000 and they both worked in the City of Cincinnati (a reasonable assumption), they would save (by virtue of the tax credit) $1,200 a year by moving out of the Village of Greenhills and into the City of Loveland. The situation is actually even better if they moved out of the City of Forest Park.

$1,200.

Is the differential between what is (even projected) to be paid by a WW taxpayer anywhere CLOSE to $1,200 between the taxpayer in the Loveland City district?

City data. com currently puts the differential at about $300-$400

Of course, Loveland will also need to pass operating levies so let's call that a wash.

While I will not dispute the high property taxes paid by the good taxpayers of Winton Woods , this high cost also applies to municipal taxes paid as well. You pay a premium to live here because (unlike Loveland), you have no business or industry here... hence you have to pick up the slack for that. I don't recall the people living in GH voting down any taxes the village elders put forth... having recently approved a streets levy.

Let's face it. Your village government is also turning people away... even if they are the hardest working people in the biz.. just like me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

"You pay a premium to live here because (unlike Loveland), you have no business or industry here... hence you have to pick up the slack for that."

Agreed - however, that no longer seems to be a primary selling point to the general market. You see the flock of residents to the Cincinnati core and new builds in their neighborhoods, many near industry and business. While there are several factors involved their, I think the 15 year property tax abatement isn't hurting that process. Living in a community that has no industry or business is also actually going in the opposite direction of today's trend of living, working and playing within a smaller geographic area. Living in a community with no business or industry is becoming a niche market that comes with an expense that is now being reserved for the wealthy that can afford that luxury. The last economic downturn was a game changer for the majority and if we don't react to those changes correctly, I fear we do so at our own peril.

"I don't recall the people living in GH voting down any taxes the village elders put forth... having recently approved a streets levy."

The street levy was a renewal - no new increase to the property taxpayer and no new additional money to the Village.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I still haven't heard an answer to WHY it costs so much more per-student in Winton Woods than in other districts? As I mentioned, I'm not against new schools, but I am against being a sucker who pays an inflated price to put money in someone's pocket (development company? architect? subcontractors? I don't know who, but I do know the price does not make sense.) If the money were being spent wisely on new buildings, it would do a lot to convince me, but so far no one has explained why other districts can build new buildings at a fraction of the per-student cost as Winton Woods. Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

"You pay a premium to live here because (unlike Loveland), you have no business or industry here... hence you have to pick up the slack for that."

Agreed - however, that no longer seems to be a primary selling point to the general market. You see the flock of residents to the Cincinnati core and new builds in their neighborhoods, many near industry and business. While there are several factors involved their, I think the 15 year property tax abatement isn't hurting that process. Living in a community that has no industry or business is also actually going in the opposite direction of today's trend of living, working and playing within a smaller geographic area. Living in a community with no business or industry is becoming a niche market that comes with an expense that is now being reserved for the wealthy that can afford that luxury. The last economic downturn was a game changer for the majority and if we don't react to those changes correctly, I fear we do so at our own peril.

"I don't recall the people living in GH voting down any taxes the village elders put forth... having recently approved a streets levy."

The street levy was a renewal - no new increase to the property taxpayer and no new additional money to the Village.

Rocket Sci: I actually have seen renewal levies fail. Fairfield had a 2.0 mill perm. improvement levy fail about five years ago. Tax bills went down accordingly. If you are complaining about being over taxed, you do what you can to get rid of these things, right?

Gambier: Can you provide some examples of new construction costs in other districts vs. the district's proposal. I am not arguing, but there could be many reasons. I just want to look at apples vs. apples....When you are dealing with state money, you are dealing with the same folks that signed off on other school district plans. They are not just sitting down with our board and coming up with numbers...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Gambier: Can you provide some examples of new construction costs in other districts vs. the district's proposal. I am not arguing, but there could be many reasons. I just want to look at apples vs. apples....When you are dealing with state money, you are dealing with the same folks that signed off on other school district plans. They are not just sitting down with our board and coming up with numbers...

EQ, this information should be readily available by the district. They should have done this homework before placing this levy on the ballot. I find it ironic that you are seeking this information from a member on Junedale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

If Winton Woods wants to attract more and better teachers and adminstrators and retain them now and for the future they're going to have to compete with everybody else for them. New buildings are one way to do it.

Wow, no internet for three weeks was tough!

Our goal should not be to attract better teachers, our goal should be to educate our kids and maintain the integrity of our communities. We are over taxed and out district is one of the worst ranked in Ohio. Our days of "attracting" anyone is over. Common sense needs to prevail, and common sense would direct most people to view alternatives, which most likely includes merging with another, or multiple, districts. The Board has not reviewed options, or alternatives. That in itself is a disgrace.

$76,000,000+ in local taxes and $30,000,000+ in state taxes is an expensive proposition to retain teachers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

School taxes for Wyoming are based on income (1.25% of that income), plus property tax. The 1.25% generates the following taxes:

$50,000 Income = $625 in School Taxes

$75,000 Income = $938 in School Taxes

$100,000 Income = $1,250 in School Taxes

$125,000 Income = $1,563 in School Taxes

$150,000 Income = $1,875 in School Taxes

$175,000 Income = $2,188 in School Taxes

$200,000 Income = $2,500 in School Taxes

$225,000 Income = $2,813 in School Taxes

$250,000 Income = $3,125 in School Taxes

$275,000 = $3,438 in School Taxes

$300,000 = $3,750 in School Taxes

I present this data not only to share the numbers, but specifically for those families who have 2, 3, 4, 5, plus children attending private schools. If you look at the numbers, for many of us this is just a fraction of what is paid out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

In Wyoming, on Cincymls.com I see condos and homes starting at $79,900. There are ones for $90,000. $94,500, $119,000, $119,900, $135,000, 134,900, $144,900 and (10) more under $210,000. Comparable to the cost of housing within our district.

In comparing one of the houses for sale in Wyoming to a comparable home in Greenhills, here is what I see. Let's say the homeowners have an $75,000 annual income:

Wyoming: $139,900 ranch for sale (3 bedrooms, 1/2 acre, comparable to a small Greenhills ranch).

Total Taxes = $3,510 ($2,216 of this amount is school tax)

1.25% of $75,000 Additional School Tax = $938

Wyoming Income Tax .80% of $75,000 = $600

Total Taxes for Wyoming = $5,048

Greenhills: Comparable ranch on HamiltonCountyAuditor.org

Total Taxes = $3,068 ($1,784 of this amount is school tax)

Levy Passes = $403 (School Tax is now $2,187)

Greenhills Income Tax 1.00% of $75,000 = $750

Total Taxes for Greenhills = $4,221

Difference: $5,048 - $4,221 = $827

So it would cost a family an additional $827 per year to live in a thriving community with a nationally recognized school district. And, to all the families in Greenhills, Forest Park and Springfield Township using private schools to NOT attend the WWCSD, how long would it take you to make up that $827? 2 months, 1 month, 2 weeks for many families. To all the people with new families, or those looking to start families, what option would you choose? I used Wyoming because it's a close alternative to this district. Apply the same concept to other areas with excellent school districts and the gap widens even more.

We are not a viable alternative now. Add the taxes and we won't be an alternative period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Could someone please give me the exact figures on the total construction costs of the new campuses proposed in the bond issue (total cost with local taxpayer money and state money figured in) and also the total number of students these new buildings would house? Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Could someone please give me the exact figures on the total construction costs of the new campuses proposed in the bond issue (total cost with local taxpayer money and state money figured in) and also the total number of students these new buildings would house?  Thank you.

Total Construction Cost $110,148,020.

State Matching Money $ 33,048,847.

Local Money (BOND) $ 76,663,462.

FAQ <a href='http://www.wintonwoods.org/userfiles/557/WWCSD_Bond%20Issue%20FACTS_2015.pdf' target='_blank'>http://www.wintonwoods.org/userfiles/557/W...0FACTS_2015.pdf</a>

The last estimate that I saw for enrollment at each of the two campuses was

1,839 students at the Pre-K thru 6 campus here in Greenhills

1,538 students at the 7-12 campus in Forest Park

The initial construction suggested would be at the current HS site to accommodate the 7-8 grade students before the existing Middle School site could be developed for the PK-6 Building.

There were 8 developed options considered:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

There were 8 developed options considered:

Sorry WWWarrior, one option was considered at the 2006 reconfiguration meeting. How many debated in open session board meetings?

This bond levy will increase property taxes 10%. Their will be a near term operating levy.

As Christine has stated, 'We are not a viable alternative now. Add the taxes and we won't be an alternative period.'

Secondly ThreeHats, I am offended by YOUR view of the people within this district; 'If you want better results for the district then give new people a reason to come here and make those changes.'

Do you mean new students ThreeHats? New parents? New teachers? New administrators? Or quite possibly new BOE members?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Another question - are there any provisions in place for cost overruns? If so, what are those provisions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Sorry WWWarrior, one option was considered at the 2006 reconfiguration meeting. How many debated in open session board meetings?

This bond levy will increase property taxes 10%. Their will be a near term operating levy.

As Christine has stated, 'We are not a viable alternative now. Add the taxes and we won't be an alternative period.'

Secondly ThreeHats, I am offended by YOUR view of the people within this district; 'If you want better results for the district then give new people a reason to come here and make those changes.'

Do you mean new students ThreeHats? New parents? New teachers? New administrators? Or quite possibly new BOE members?

I'm not following your question Mirth in relevance to the 2006 elementary reconfiguration. (By the way, Option 2 was the plan selected for reconfiguration, so there were more than one option. I'd have to back and review the old files but I believe there were actually 4 options with that issue).

Define for me a constructive way to debate issues like this? Is it a room full of people yelling at one another? Hardly. When the task is to cut costs to the tune of a couple million dollars a year (because we absolutely had to) and attempt to be more efficient, but also try to not only maintain existing offering but to expand new educational offerings at the same time...for all kids, not just one building.

Nobody was going to be happy with that one. I certainly wasn't, but I'd make the same decision today.

The same goes for this one and I have said all along that this is an economic issue for each and every voter. I get it. I just happen to think it is for the betterment of the community not it's detriment. Reasonable people can disagree but my opinion is no less than yours. For what its worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Another question - are there any provisions in place for cost overruns?  If so, what are those provisions?

Yes, in addition to the building and whatever additional furniture/fixtures are in what is referred to as hard costs, soft costs (engineering, permits, fees, legal, etc.) add another 10% and a General Contingency/Inflation of 12-15% are included in that number. The number has been updated from the last figures I have, so I don't want to give you older numbers that aren't correct. But the percentages will be what was used to calculate the $110 Million figure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

WWWarrior, the 2006 configuration presentation clearly stated the end result was a two campus consolidation. You were a board member at that time.

A debate, or at least discussion, amongst board members. Tim Cleary stated he favored a scaled back path. Would you as a former board member have brought an alternate plan into the public arena? A two campus outcome was a done deal many years ago.

Economic issues? A 37 year mortgage, a 10% property tax hike! Plus, as you have stated, an operating levy will be needed in the not too distant future. Christine is correct, 'We are not a viable alternative now. Add the taxes and we won't be an alternative period.' ThreeHats is also clear, 'If you want better results for the district then give new people a reason to come here and make those changes.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0