Local districts not to blame for school funding dilemma
Gov. Bob Taft and members of the Ohio General Assembly should be made to stand outside polling places on election day and listen to the angry reaction from voters as they face yet another school funding issue on the ballot. After all, the Republican governor and the Republican-controlled General Assembly bear responsibility for property taxes still being the main source of revenue for schools -- even though the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that this method of funding is unconstitutional.
Voters have been in a disagreeable mood for several years, as evidenced by the increasing number of school tax issues being rejected, and yet decision-makers in Columbus have failed to act with any sense of urgency to right the constitutional wrong noted by the supreme court in its ruling.
We bring this up in the hope that voters in Mahoning County school districts that have levies on the ballot in Tuesday's primary election will understand that school boards and administrations have no choice but to appeal to the better instincts of thoughtful residents.
We have consistently endorsed school levies because of our firm belief that an educated population is essential to the economic and social well-being of the Mahoning Valley.
Four Mahoning County school districts are seeking the support of voters: Austintown, Poland, Sebring and Struthers.
Sebring is asking for a 1 percent income tax for five years. The tax would raise $390,000 annually. We do not take a position on school income taxes, leaving it up to residents of individual school districts to decide whether it is the best way for them to fund public education.
Of the remaining three school districts, Struthers, is seeking an additional property tax levy, while Austintown and Poland are asking voters to renew what is already on the books.
Struthers
The 6.9-mill, five-year additional levy voters in the Struthers School District are being asked to approve is essential to the fiscal stability of the system. Don't take our word for it, just ask the members of the state Financial Planning and Supervision Commission. The commission has financial oversight of the schools because the district is in state-imposed fiscal emergency.
The 6.9 mills would raise $1,058,057 a year, but only half of that would be collected in fiscal year 2007 which begins July 1 of this year and runs to June 30 of 2007.
Proceeds from the new tax would become available in January.
Voters defeated this levy in November 2005, but a lot has happened to change the debate.
For instance, the school board has cut $273,000 in administrative-related expenditures, and has approved a one-year contract with the Struthers Education Association that freezes the teachers' salary schedule at current levels beginning July 1.
As a result of such cost-cutting measures, the district is expected to end the current fiscal year in the black. However, if the levy is rejected, the operating budget will experience deficits.
Austintown
When the Austintown Board of Education voted last week to notify employees that they face layoffs or that their contracts would not be renewed if voters fail to renew two levies, one for 4.9 mills and the other for 7.3 mills, there were some in the community who charged that the action was nothing more than a pressure tactic.
Not so. State law requires the district to notify employees before April 30 if their jobs are going to be cut. Failure of the levies will force spending cuts, and since more than 80 percent of the operating budget is taken up by personnel costs, a reduction in payroll cannot be avoided.
The two levies, which do not increase taxes, generate a total of $5.2 million. But even with that revenue stream, the school district must still slash $1 million from its budget next year because of inflation and rising fuel costs. Without the levies, the Austintown district would have to reduce spending by an additional $2.6 million in 2007 and $5.2 million in 2008.
That would devastate the schools system.
Poland
A 3.7-mill levy on Tuesday's ballot will not mean a tax increase for residents because it is already on the books and voters are being asked to renew it for five years.
The levy, which has been in effect since 1986, is expected to generate $1,369,748 a year. The money is used for operating expenses.