The Perkins School District levy is critical to providing ongoing quality education to the students of Perkins now and in the future. This levy addresses both the day-to-day operational costs necessary to run the district as well as a solid plan to renovate and or build new facilities all at a modest cost. Without the passage of this levy, additional reductions will make it more difficult for our students to have the education they need to be prepared for life in the 21st Century.
The Board and I recognize there is an active "No" voter campaign in the community. But, what do they offer? As I have listened to those who oppose the levy, they indicate three actions they would take:
1. Fire me as superintendent
2. Elect two new Board members to promote a change of direction
3. Move the "Inside Millage" back to general operations.
These actions fail to provide a long-term solution to the financial and facility problems the school district faces. If the "No" voter campaign did their homework, they would discover their plan costs taxpayers significantly more, approximately 11.85 mils compared to the Board’s proposed 6.73 mils. Ask yourself as a taxpayer, do you want to pay almost twice as much to have a direct vote on the building of a new facility? Or do you want to trust Board members you elected who researched all available options over three years, involved four different community committees in the process and have proposed a long-term plan to solve both operations and facilities and keeps your school tax rate the lowest in Erie County?
This is what the “No” voters campaign will really cost you as Perkins taxpayers:
1.53 mils - (6.73 – 5.2 = 1.53; Difference in Board's request from Inside Millage
1.78 mils - (1.78 mils required to pay off the loan if “Inside Millage” is moved)
1.34 mils - (1.34 mils to make up for tax collection starting in 2015 instead of 2014)
7.20 mils - (Bond Levy required to build the same cost building proposed by Board)
11.85 mils - needed to solve fiscal and facility problems as proposed by “No” voters
The "No" voter campaign indicates that we should just move the "Inside millage" back to general operations and then we could maybe pass a small 2 mil levy and everything would be all right. This simply is untrue. First, we cannot move the entire 5.2 mils of "Inside Millage" back to operations at the current time, unless we generate additional money to pay off the $3.5 million loan taken out by the Board. Whether the "No" group agrees or not, the district has a $3.5 million loan that needs to be paid off over the next 4.5 years. The annual payments of $770,000 are being paid from the "Inside Millage". At least 1.78 mils of the "inside Millage" must be left in the Permanent Improvement fund for the next 4.5 years to pay off this debt.
If a new Board of Education decides to move the “Inside Millage” back to the operations budget, this vote would take place no sooner than January 2014. Any “Inside Millage” moved back by this action would take effect with taxes collected in 2015, not 2014. In addition, if the November levy fails, the district would fail to receive an entire year's collection (Taxes collected during 2014) on the 6.73 mil levy, or another $2.9 million. This $2.9 million dollar loss, by not passing a levy in November needs to be made up with either further reductions, or a larger future levy. To raise an additional $2.9 million over five years would require an increase of 1.34 mils in any future levy.
But, let's not forget in this scenario, the "No" voters leave absolutely zero money for fixing our facilities. A traditional bond issue would require another vote of the community for at least a 7.2 mil initial bond rate to generate the same revenue the Board is suggesting by using the "inside millage".
So, really the "No" voters are asking the public to pass the equivalent of 11.85 mils to solve the operational and facility problems of the district. Is this the “Change” you want as a community? Is this the long-term planning you want for the district?
Secondly, the “No” voters would like to remove me as superintendent. And why do the “No” voters want to remove me? Because I don' t live in the district, and a decision that required a vote, a 5-0 vote, by the members of the Board of Education who were elected to represent the voters, to move “Inside Millage” to fix facilities. These five elected members, after over three years of reviewing all fiscal options voted as your representatives to approve the proposed funding alternative of moving "Inside Millage" as a strategic move to fix facilities now and in the future.
In the past five years, the district has had nine different Board of Education members. All nine members, elected by the community, well respected diverse business and professional members of the community, have agreed that the current plan before the voters is the best plan to solve both operational and facility needs. ALL of these Board members agree it is the least costly method for the taxpayers of Perkins. Four different community committees as far back as Superintendents Buccierri and Rectenwald concluded the district facilities needed to be seriously addressed. Three different independent construction firms have determined to repair our facilities is more costly than new buildings. One of these firms ranked our high school as the school in the worst condition and in need of immediate replacement in the State of Ohio at the time. The "No" voter campaign indicates we should form another community committee to examine the situation again. After nine board members, eight years, four community committees, and three independent school construction firms have all concluded the same thing, what does another committee give us that we don't already know?
Don't be fooled by the "No" voters. Consider some of the tactics used by the "No" voters during this campaign.
1. Smear the existing leadership of the district with half-truths, rumors, and innuendoes.
2. Spread half-truths through the "Blogs" where they refuse to identify who they are.
3. Threaten local business owners that display signs supporting the schools levy efforts.
4. Destroying and stealing pro-levy yard signs.
5. No real plan to solve the financial and facility issues facing the school and community.
Ultimately, it is up to the voters of Perkins to decide whom they will believe in this "War of Words". The superintendent and Board have willing met with any individual or group to explain their position and have not changed their opinion in over three years on what is best for the school district and community. Can the "No" voters explain how they are going to solve the complex financial problems of the school district? I hope, as a voter in the Perkins community, you place the value of your children first and recognize that the duly elected Board of Education has done its best to solve very complex financial and facility problems at the best possible cost to you as taxpayers.
I hope you vote to support the Perkins Schools.
Jim Gunner, Superintendent