Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

School Facilities Conversation 9/27

136 posts in this topic

Posted (edited) · Report post

You guys aren't even telling the whole truth.  Here's some questions, maybe Cicero, or anyone, can answer:

1.  Is $48.8 Million the whole truth -- I can't find the Greenhills Journal right now, but there is an editorial that might state otherwise (information that was provided by the district).
2.  Will there be an additional operating cost in the future?  If so, when and how much?
3.  I can't find it, but on Junedale (during the last go around) it was proven that $61,000,000 in repairs was not accurate.  I thought another number of $9,000,000 was thrown out.  Does anyone recall?  Cicero? Dazed?

The fact is over the past decade the Administration and Board have never listened to anyone.  They knew best, everything was their idea -- no one knew better than them.  Now they are in a "pickle".  A "pickle" that they created.  To get them out of this "pickle" they want over $100,000,000 from the local taxpayers and state taxpayers.  From what I can see nothing has changed; They know best, everything is still their idea -- no one knows better than them.  They screwed up once, why would anyone give them money to screw up again.  They don't even pretend to listen to anyone.  I for one plan on keeping my money.  I will wait for someone that I can trust to step up, or wait for alternatives that make sense.

 

 

Is $48.8 million dollars cofunded by the state of ohio toward new construction the truth? Is this your question? YES, but only if our community raises our share of $61.5 million for a combined $110.3 or so million for 2 new school campuses - Pre-K- 6th grade set in GH at the current middle school location and 7th- 12 grade campus set in FP at current HS location.

This proposal is the most cost effective short and long term plan regarding our buildings. The cost when combined with State contribution nearly equates to buy one school and get one free. In addition the fiscal relief for homeowners today and the future for this important asset ( and yes, our facilities are our common asset). This appropriates funding for new facilities as our current buildings have well served our district. The state has mandated the costs to repair are greater than to build new. Much like a car that will cost more to fix it than to repair.  Insurance will not pay past a % above the value. This example should help folks understand this process. 

The only thing that has not changed are the destructive grudges and grievances long held beyond any value or purpose. The district continues to work for improvement and efforts are underway with new superintendent, treasurer and complete new school board. Progress denoted as an "A" on the state report card also echos these changes. Why be agents of destruction and obstruction blockading these efforts?   

Edited by paula

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

You may want to reconsider that comment Paula.  Nobody... aside from Brad Lanier... has been an advocate for Winton Woods levy and bond issues quite the way I have been over 10 years..... but even I am viewed as some kind of enemy because I agreed with the statement that a recent alumnus made during the Felipe fiasco.  I really wish you would be a little bit more objective.  In fact the comments I made on here were in the hopes that somebody would read it and pay attention to what needed to be done to get these buildings built.  

Edited by equalizer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Is $48.8 million dollars cofunded by the state of ohio toward new construction the truth? Is this your question?

No that wasn't the question - we know that piece -- I'm interested in the rest:

--  
So, what is the $12,725,042?  Is that included in the $61,500,000?  Or, is that something else that will coming up?  It says the Board will probably "okay" this?  What is it?
--  What are the future operating cost levies?
--  What was the $9,000,000 thrown out last year?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

"WHEREAS, at the present time, it is estimated that total project costs for the School District's participation in the Program will be $99,746,853 and it will be necessary for this Board of Education to issue approximately $61,500,000 of bonds (the “Bonds”), which is an amount not less than the School District's estimated portion of Basic Project Costs ($50,870,895), and the cost of other improvements to school facilities (known as locally funded initiatives), including (without limitation) equipment, furnishings and site improvements ($10,629,105); and


WHEREAS, this Board of Education proposes to submit to the electors of this School District at the election to be held on the 8th day of November, 2016, the question of issuing the Bonds of this Board of Education in the principal amount of $61,500,000 for the purpose of ......."

Secondly, an emergency levy will expire in December of 2019 and will need to be dealt with.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

"To change the question posed to our community is most unfair to the voters and is a distortion of the truth."

Really Paula? Asking a question other than you accept is unfair and a distortion?

Apparently Paula, you are quite willing to limit the tax payer to only your question and answer. 

It is simply thinking outside your, as opposed to PBL, box of solutions.

Edited by Mirth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

"To change the question posed to our community is most unfair to the voters and is a distortion of the truth."

Really Paula? Asking a question other than you accept is unfair and a distortion?

Apparently Paula, you are quite willing to limit the tax payer to only your question and answer. 

It is simply thinking outside your, as opposed to PBL, box of solutions.

Ask away- the distorted notion is that " 'conrete' ( not my spelling) blocks and high taxes do not teach knowledge" but the question before the voters is how the utilize our public money regarding facilities - our school buildings that are draining more and more resources away from teaching knowledge or instruction.  These buildings as an asset to our community and have served our district well 50+ years but the state has 2x mandated the buildings either need to be renovated to state standards with price of $81.5 millions dollars of which the state will not share due to cost well over 66% for new construction or will cofund $48.9 million toward new construction thus lowering our local share to $61.5 million.  Whether you advocate for spending more over the next 20 years and kicking the issue on to future without benefit that new facilities would provide, how is this beneficial? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Paula, is the sliver of Wyoming within the district boundary part of this community or part of Wyoming's? You see one solution, building new. Alternatives exist, which have not been PBL'd, i.e. investigated, looked into, discussed, analyzed, etc.. You're asking for passage of a bond levy, will you turn around and ask for the expiring emergency levy to become permanent? How is placing an ever increasing tax burden on property owners beneficial to this community?

Edited by Mirth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Ask away- the distorted notion is that " 'conrete' ( not my spelling) blocks and high taxes do not teach knowledge" but the question before the voters is how the utilize our public money regarding facilities - our school buildings that are draining more and more resources away from teaching knowledge or instruction.  These buildings as an asset to our community and have served our district well 50+ years but the state has 2x mandated the buildings either need to be renovated to state standards with price of $81.5 millions dollars of which the state will not share due to cost well over 66% for new construction or will cofund $48.9 million toward new construction thus lowering our local share to $61.5 million.  Whether you advocate for spending more over the next 20 years and kicking the issue on to future without benefit that new facilities would provide, how is this beneficial? 

OK.

I will ask AGAIN! Why are the Catholic schools in this area able to teach in the OLD and DILAPIDATED buildings they do? Because they are ALL older than the Winton Woods City School District schools.

I'm telling you. For the most part, everyone else is telling you that the district's idea of compromise and problem solving is horrible. They don't know how to keep buildings sustainable. AS is told above the Catholic school buildings are OLDER than those of the Winton Woods School District. How in the WORLD are these buildings and institutions still able to give a quality education to those students who enter their doors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Well, I'll answer again.....

  If Catholic schools were REQUIRED to take all comers, then we wouldn't even be having this conversation.  If Catholic schools were REQUIRED to take everyone who just showed up, you could not house them in the present "old, dilapidated buildings".  The Archdiocese would do what????  Build new ones?  Would the Archdiocese build new if they could now?  The answer is what??

It's never going to be an apples to apples comparison, Danver, and to suggest that it can be ignores reality.   The State of Ohio says that in order to receive matching funds from them, the district has to build new not remodel.  You're asking the district to ignore nearly $50 Million dollars.  You're asking them to ignore that every district around them has taken advantage of building programs to update (Princeton, Wyoming, Finneytown, Mt. Healthy, Northwest, Fairfield, Lakota).  If there isn't an element of "competition" among schools then why do Catholic schools take out billboards, advertise Open Houses?  Why do some schools have Open Enrollment and others don't?

I look at this as a real plus for the Village of Greenhills.  Someone is willing to invest $50 Million in a project in the Village.  When the current tax valuation for all properties in the Village is something like $52 Million, it kind of puts it in perspective what that means.  Let alone increased income for the Village both for workers during construction and for the nearly doubling of district employees after completion.....let alone what possibilities can be found for the WWPN property. The $230-300 per year investment Village homeowners will have in the process will be recouped in property values.   If we don't......what will that do for property values? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I look at this as a real plus for the Village of Greenhills.  Someone is willing to invest $50 Million in a project in the Village.  When the current tax valuation for all properties in the Village is something like $52 Million, it kind of puts it in perspective what that means.  Let alone increased income for the Village both for workers during construction and for the nearly doubling of district employees after completion.....let alone what possibilities can be found for the WWPN property. The $230-300 per year investment Village homeowners will have in the process will be recouped in property values.   If we don't......what will that do for property values? 

if you want to change the landscape of this village, go out and beg a high tech company to build an R&D facility on the old Greenhills High School property. My guess is you'll get more bang for the tax payer buck that'a way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

If the State of Ohio is giving us 48.9 million dollars, isn't that Ohio taxpayers money as well?  If so, aren't we actually paying for all it?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

If the State of Ohio is giving us 48.9 million dollars, isn't that Ohio taxpayers money as well?  If so, aren't we actually paying for all it?

 

If we turn down this offer we lose out on state money which includes taxes we have already paid. Which means we do not get back any of our money. We then pay 100% of any new construction in the future. That is not a good deal. What we have before us is a good deal. We are paying 60% and getting 100%. That is being fiscally responsible on the part of the district.

The students need new buildings. The current buildings are costing more to maintain than building new. That is throwing good money after bad. That is not good for taxpayers. This is about buildings. Nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Its like taking a loan that you will never see paid off. This is just absurd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Well, I'll answer again.....

  If Catholic schools were REQUIRED to take all comers, then we wouldn't even be having this conversation.  If Catholic schools were REQUIRED to take everyone who just showed up, you could not house them in the present "old, dilapidated buildings".  The Archdiocese would do what????  Build new ones?  Would the Archdiocese build new if they could now?  The answer is what??

The Archdiocese does not build the high schools. Jesuits built Xavier, Franciscans built Bacon, LaSalle built by the LaSallian Brothers and so on. When I worked for the archdiocesan newspaper, I formatted the annual report at the beginning of each fiscal year. These numbers are available every year. These schools take out bonds/loans for capital improvement from local banks and those are backed by the archdiocese but you better believe the schools pay the money back. Archdiocesan grade schools are run by the parishes or if a consolidated school, run by a board. Funding comes from the entity - not the archdiocese. That's a huge misconception people have about Catholic schools. The archdiocese doesn't come bail them out - look at OLR and St. James as a perfect example of this. The archdiocese does not run the operations of individual schools. Which is why some chose one school vs. another based on how it is run. For example, some chose a parish school like Sacred Heart vs. a consolidated school like John Paul II.

I'm on the board of a Catholic school. The grade schools do take everyone who applies - and there are tuition scholarships and grants for the grade schools. I've also never heard of the Catholic high schools being super selective except maybe on disciplinary reasons. Even in my daughter's 8th grade class, a student was suspended and expelled but he was still granted admission to Moeller on a probationary period.The high schools have different tracts for learning - hence, the placement test. Students are placed within their learning tract based on the testing. It's how they determined what tract my daughter should pursue at her high school. How else are the schools supposed to do it? I think you have some serious misconceptions on how local Catholic schools operate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

OK.

I will ask AGAIN! Why are the Catholic schools in this area able to teach in the OLD and DILAPIDATED buildings they do? Because they are ALL older than the Winton Woods City School District schools.

I'm telling you. For the most part, everyone else is telling you that the district's idea of compromise and problem solving is horrible. They don't know how to keep buildings sustainable. AS is told above the Catholic school buildings are OLDER than those of the Winton Woods School District. How in the WORLD are these buildings and institutions still able to give a quality education to those students who enter their doors?

These Catholic schools are well maintained because -- people simply maintain them.  It's not difficult, it's not hard, it's just something that needs to be completed on a daily basis.  Also, for some of the Catholic schools -- the responsibility is placed on the students.  They offer a work program -- students make minimum wage and the job gets done at a minimal cost.  If a screw is loose -- it's screwed in at that moment.  A couple of years ago we attended a volleyball game at Winton Woods HS and the gym was a disaster. The railings were all wobbly and an elderly woman almost fell down when she tried to brace herself on a railing.  Solution: we had this thing called a "wrench" and "screwdriver".  In addition, there was gum all over the floor.  In some Catholic schools -- kids are made to scrape the gum off the floors during detention with this thing called a "scraper".  If the schools are a mess -- it's because they were not maintained.  Building new schools isn't going to make people care.   

Edited by Christine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Question to Warrior or Paula.  On an annual basis the district gets tax dollars from Forest Park, Greenhills and Springfield Township.  What is that amount exactly that the district receives and how much comes from each community.  Also, how many total students do we have and how is the student base distributed per community.

Ex. Let's say the amount is $1,000,000 in total annual taxes.  Distribution:

Forest Park - $500,000 paid in taxes - 2,000 students enrolled
Greenhills - $250,000 paid in taxes - 600 students enrolled
Springfield Township - $250,000 paid in taxes - 450 students enrolled

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Well, I'll answer again.....

  If Catholic schools were REQUIRED to take all comers, then we wouldn't even be having this conversation.  If Catholic schools were REQUIRED to take everyone who just showed up, you could not house them in the present "old, dilapidated buildings".  The Archdiocese would do what????  Build new ones?  Would the Archdiocese build new if they could now?  The answer is what??

It's never going to be an apples to apples comparison, Danver, and to suggest that it can be ignores reality.   The State of Ohio says that in order to receive matching funds from them, the district has to build new not remodel.  You're asking the district to ignore nearly $50 Million dollars.  You're asking them to ignore that every district around them has taken advantage of building programs to update (Princeton, Wyoming, Finneytown, Mt. Healthy, Northwest, Fairfield, Lakota).  If there isn't an element of "competition" among schools then why do Catholic schools take out billboards, advertise Open Houses?  Why do some schools have Open Enrollment and others don't?

I look at this as a real plus for the Village of Greenhills.  Someone is willing to invest $50 Million in a project in the Village.  When the current tax valuation for all properties in the Village is something like $52 Million, it kind of puts it in perspective what that means.  Let alone increased income for the Village both for workers during construction and for the nearly doubling of district employees after completion.....let alone what possibilities can be found for the WWPN property. The $230-300 per year investment Village homeowners will have in the process will be recouped in property values.   If we don't......what will that do for property values? 

WWWarrior, you did not answer my question. Further, the question was for Paula.

HERE IS THE QUESTION:

OK.

I will ask AGAIN! Why are the Catholic schools in this area able to teach in the OLD and DILAPIDATED buildings they do? Because they are ALL older than the Winton Woods City School District schools.

I'm telling you. For the most part, everyone else is telling you that the district's idea of compromise and problem solving is horrible. They don't know how to keep buildings sustainable. AS is told above the Catholic school buildings are OLDER than those of the Winton Woods School District. How in the WORLD are these buildings and institutions still able to give a quality education to those students who enter their doors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Nothing has changed. I still can't afford it. First the village dumped the garbage bill on me and now you want a ridiculous amount of money. The tax payer well is running dry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Dear all,

We are missing the point.  In order to improve Academics we need to improve from with in, NOT from the outside.  If the opposite would be the case, the private schools St. Xavier, Roger Bacon, etc. would not be able to teach and maintain the Academic Performance and the Merit Scholars that they do...because their building are TOO OLD to teach their students.  

I think the failure to communicate with the communities is a prime example of a whole School system failure.  I feel that the re naming from building two buildings to "improvements" is misleading the voter on purpose, and the fact that the advertisement has omitted this time the length of payments of 37 years is SHAMEFUL.

 

The Mad Botanist

Kris Danvers,

I posted the same idea 10/1/16. 

"Those old buildings" are still giving a High Academic Performance.  I also know many students attending those school whose parents cannot afford it and they are still attending paying very little or nothing at all.  Many of them YES from Forest Park.

We have two audiences:  those who understand what we are saying and those who refuse to understand that there are alternatives that the powers to be refused to discuss with WE THE PEOPLE.

The Mad Botanist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The buildings in the district are old and difficult to maintain and are costing taxpayers more than they're worth. They should be replaced with buildings able to meet the educational demands of the 21st Century. There is a good deal on the table from the state and it makes economic sense to take it. Spending the same money on old buildings is a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

They need to be instructed on "Preventive maintenance" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

They need to be instructed on "Preventive maintenance" 

They have been doing this for years and it is costing more and more each year. It would be wrong to assume they are not. The buildings aren't neglected, they are worn out. The district is reaching the point where the cost of preventive maintenance is approaching the cost of new buildings. The state is offering 40% of the cost so the district gets new, 21st Century learning environments for all students at a 40% discount. That is a good deal. Preventive maintenance on new buildings will be far less than current costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Lets see my water bill is ridiculous, electric is right with it. garbage is way to high and our local taxes are ludicrous . You just can't keep squeaking  blood out of the turnip as they say.  You may get new schools but it would sure damage the lifestyle of older folks of which it seems you could care less about. Try to look at the entire picture for a change. I would like to see good schools again like they use to be but I just do not see it happening with this district. Brick and blocks do not a school make. I also don't believe they know anything of preventive maintenance.

 

Edited by nuttly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

ThreeHats, I'm not sure if I remember correctly, do you live in this district?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

They have been doing this for years and it is costing more and more each year. It would be wrong to assume they are not. The buildings aren't neglected, they are worn out. The district is reaching the point where the cost of preventive maintenance is approaching the cost of new buildings. The state is offering 40% of the cost so the district gets new, 21st Century learning environments for all students at a 40% discount. That is a good deal. Preventive maintenance on new buildings will be far less than current costs.

The High School gym was totally neglected when we went there two years ago for a volleyball game.  Gum all over the floors and the railing were wobbly and unsafe.  It was filthy.  I can safely say 'that was neglect'.  

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