The Observation Deck

At last night's School Board Meeting the Board talked about bringing a School Levy to the
ballot in May. It could be as high as 4.0 Mil but will probably be less. This money is needed
to make up for the shortfall of money coming from the state because of various state
funding cuts. The cuts over the past 5 years are in the millions, and the 2013 cut is
rumored to be in the neighborhood of $800,000 dollars.

The funding is needed to continue the quality of education we now have, and to ensure
some stability over the next 4-5 years.

Also discussed was the liquidation of "vacant properties." This has been talked about
before; the last time it was brought up it was in connection with getting contracts to tear
down the vacant building(s). It is thought, and has been proven, that some other
interests might be willing to purchase the property(ies) as they stand for development,
thereby saving the school system from tearing it/them down.


McKinley is the only school that could be called "vacant" at this time. Here it was being used
in August for SWAT Training.


Used mostly for storage...


... most rooms look exactly the way they looked when closed.

It is known that at least one developer I have spoken to, now working successfully in
Lakewood (Abode Living) has toured the properties a couple times, and has expressed a
possible interest. Abode Living (Clifton Pointe, Eleven River and others) is a successful,
high-end developer that has become known for turning urban properties into high
value condos, and taking pieces of land many thought difficult to develop and making
them very desirable.


Abode Living's Clifton Pointe Project.

More information on both the possible levy and development to follow.

.

If someone wants to purchase the property and develop them and that saves the school system and the city money why would we entertain anything else? Time focused away from education issues seems odd.

If I recall correctly, excess property has to be offered to educational interests before being sold on the market. If that is still so, the board may be reluctant to, in effect, invite some competition.

Will Brown wrote:If I recall correctly, excess property has to be offered to educational interests before being sold on the market. If that is still so, the board may be reluctant to, in effect, invite some competition.

Will

I believe this was one of the things being looked at when they were looking for RFPs from demolition
firms which came up two school board meetings ago. To be honest I have not hear anyone at the
schools mention "Oh no competition" after all we have LCA, St. Eds, What was St. Cyril and other
charter and private schools in Lakewood already. I believe it has more to do with losing more of state
money allocated to the district going to the competition. I would say it is the School Board job to look
at every way to dispose of building that are beneficial to the Public Schools they were hired to run,
and to make sure they do not cause undo hardship to the public schools. One could certainly see
a charter school as competition.

Glen

You know it is funny. Tax payers are better for a community than non-tax payers, and the cost to
maintain the property is a drain for sure. However I have seen some numbers that underline it is
far better to hold on to the property, and sit on it, or lease it themselves. And this is where you
can get into some pretty interesting conversation. What if the schools used the building for a
learning lab. Lease it out to some stores, restaurants, and artists, and used it as a way to teach
children about business, food business and art? Is that better? What if you were to lease it to
another University, and they used it as a junior college?

What if you leased it out for a good dollar to a big name college that put a junior college there that
offered classes for free or at a reduced rate for Lakewood Students that had come through the
Lakewood School System. This would make more people enroll in Lakewood Public Schools, get
into the junior college and then maybe go to the larger university associate with the school. A
win, win, win, win for City, Schools, Students and University. This was one of the very premises
of getting a Lakewood Visionary Alignment Cafe University started in Lakewood.

FWIW


.

Jim I agree on all points. Beach elementary in River is a perfect example

Jim O'Bryan wrote:

Will Brown wrote:If I recall correctly, excess property has to be offered to educational interests before being sold on the market. If that is still so, the board may be reluctant to, in effect, invite some competition.

Will

I believe this was one of the things being looked at when they were looking for RFPs from demolition
firms which came up two school board meetings ago. To be honest I have not hear anyone at the
schools mention "Oh no competition" after all we have LCA, St. Eds, What was St. Cyril and other
charter and private schools in Lakewood already. I believe it has more to do with losing more of state
money allocated to the district going to the competition. I would say it is the School Board job to look
at every way to dispose of building that are beneficial to the Public Schools they were hired to run,
and to make sure they do not cause undo hardship to the public schools. One could certainly see
a charter school as competition.

Glen

You know it is funny. Tax payers are better for a community than non-tax payers, and the cost to
maintain the property is a drain for sure. However I have seen some numbers that underline it is
far better to hold on to the property, and sit on it, or lease it themselves. And this is where you
can get into some pretty interesting conversation. What if the schools used the building for a
learning lab. Lease it out to some stores, restaurants, and artists, and used it as a way to teach
children about business, food business and art? Is that better? What if you were to lease it to
another University, and they used it as a junior college?

What if you leased it out for a good dollar to a big name college that put a junior college there that
offered classes for free or at a reduced rate for Lakewood Students that had come through the
Lakewood School System. This would make more people enroll in Lakewood Public Schools, get
into the junior college and then maybe go to the larger university associate with the school. A
win, win, win, win for City, Schools, Students and University. This was one of the very premises
of getting a Lakewood Visionary Alignment Cafe University started in Lakewood.

FWIW


.

Jim--

This seems like a great idea-- but wouldn't this college compete with the University of Akron-- which is already working with some of our high school kids I think. While this is good, when the University of Akron makes money, I don't think the Lakewood School District makes money--- I might be wrong about that. Not to say that there isn't room for a junior college idea-- with this idea, any money made, like money made by leasing McKinley, would stay with the Lakewood Schools which would be great.


So a levy of possibly 4 million. Along with getting approval from the Ohio School Facilities Commission for the OLD BAD PLAN to renovate/rebuild 2 schools whose cost to us will be 12 MILLION DOLLARS MORE than the option that they didn't choose.

I don't see how this works. Why doesn't the District choose to renovate the cheaper school and save us 12 million right there? Actually our local more-than-two-thirds portion of this cost is two thirds of 12 MILLION. Easy to figure out. Eight million dollars. TWICE what taxpayers will be asked for with a levy. Yes the state of Ohio is paying for a portion of the renovations. Less than one third, we pay the rest ourselves.

And I know the local Lakewood portion of the school renovations are not paid for with levy money, but with BOND money. All the same money. All our money. Why is the School District making us spend 8 million dollars more than they need to?

Is is okay that our students themselves pay for the bad choices made by the Board on their school renovation plan?

I'm hoping I'm wrong. I'm hoping when the OSFC comes in later this month to evaluate our school-rebuilding plan, they decide that we need 7 schools. Then we'll need to pay for 3 more schools not 2. But the one they will add is the least costly, most efficient one.

I don't see how we can vote for a 4 million dollar levy when we are needlessly being forced to pay 8 million dollars more for bad choices made on renovation/rebuilding.

I know I said I'd report back on this situation-- on whether the old bad plan would change with the OSFC visiting Lakewood and re-evaluating our population. Our Superintendent has promised that all elements would be examined and taken into account. He takes his promises seriously so that's good! More later.

Betsy Voinovich

Betsy

4 mill refers to the millage, in regards to property tax. So that a 4 mill. increase would
equal $4.00 for every $1,000 of property value. So a $100,000 piece of property would
see an increase of $400 per year.

That is the simple explanation but because of the then Cuyahoga County Auditor
George Voinvovich perhaps you have heard of him.

Ohio House Bill 920 was shepherded through the state legislature in 1976 by then-Cuyahoga
County Auditor George Voinovich, perhaps you have heard of him. The gist of that house bill is
that property no longer loses value when it comes to tax assessment for schools. So that a home
valued at $150,000 stays at that level even if it falls in value to burst bubble, neighborhood
reasons whatever. This was actually put in place by the Republican Auditor to keep taxes low.
As house value had continued to rise. The flipside is they are not adjusted when they go down.

In the city of Lakewood 1 mill raises about $860,000. So a 4 mill levy would increase the budget
by about $3,440,000 which I believe is barely enough to offset cuts from the state.

As for the University of Akron, more colleges in town would be a good thing. I have been assured
by everyone in town that competition is good for a community.

.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:Betsy

4 mill refers to the millage, in regards to property tax. So that a 4 mill. increase would
equal $4.00 for every $1,000 of property value. So a $100,000 piece of property would
see an increase of $400 per year.
.

Not exactly:
http://treasurer.cuyahogacounty.us/en-US/funding-schools.aspx

The assessed value of my home dropped about 3% according to the latest re-valuation. But my latest property tax bill was almost identical. Within $10. I wondered why, got online, and figured out that the "reduction amount" had dropped quite a bit. Then I got online again and it said it was probably due to HB 920. Well that is supposed to only apply to the school portion of my property taxes, not the city or the county or the library or the Metroparks, right? So why no reduction in my property tax bill?

I also learned, the hard way that my property went from 2/3 land 1/3 house to 1/3 land and 2/3 house. In three years. It seems so devious. Same thing happened to my neighbor across the street.

Property taxes are the most manipulated, non-transparent theft of taxpayer money I have ever encountered. And believe me as a small business owner I have been fleeced by the best....

Tim Liston wrote:I also learned, the hard way that my property went from 2/3 land 1/3 house to 1/3 land and 2/3 house. In three years. It seems so devious. Same thing happened to my neighbor across the street.

Property taxes are the most manipulated, non-transparent theft of taxpayer money I have ever encountered. And believe me as a small business owner I have been fleeced by the best....

The answer I got was that during this appraisal the County Auditor made an effort to have property in the same neighborhoods assigned the same percentage of land as a percent of total value. If your property was appraised at $100,000 and allocated 90% building and 10% land but the average in your area was 25% land the auditor would have changed your percentage to the same 25% as others in your area. Or if you sold 1 acre of your 5 acre lot for $50,000 the auditor would have assigned a value of $200,000 to your remaining acreage. Since your property was not sold the total value would not be changed but the allocation between land and building would have changed.

Of course property taxes throughout Cuyahoga County are based on fraudulent values. Most houses in Cuyahoga County are worth much less than the "appraised" value. I'm sure there are a lot of people in Cuyahoga County who would be very pleased to sell their property for 70% of the appraised value.

Eventually the appraised values will be adjusted downward to affect reality. When that happens property taxes as a percentage of appraised value will approach confiscitory levels.

I certainly hope that if the Lakewood School Board chooses to burden us with another tax increase they will tell us how much is for raises and how much is for early retirement bonuses and how much is for increases in health insurance instead of the non sensical "maintain current services".

It's probably time for a the Lakewood School Board to turn over the operation of all Lakewood Schools to a Charter School. The Board would contract with the Charter School to operate the City Schools. The Charter school would be freed from the current labor contracts. The schools could then be operated for the benefit of the students and Citizens of Lakewood.

The upcoming changes in State funding will hold nothing but bad news for Lakewood.

Bill Call said….

“Eventually the appraised values will be adjusted downward to affect reality. When that happens property taxes as a percentage of appraised value will approach confiscatory levels.”

Too late Bill! Property taxes have already reached confiscatory levels.

Let’s say a house is fairly appraised at $150,000. It doesn’t matter. As near as I can tell the property taxes in Lakewood on that house would be about $4,350 a year (2.9% a year). If you offered me one or the other, the house forever, or $4,350 a year forever, I’d take the $4,350 per year forever. I’m not gonna go into the math but suffice it to say I could easily sell $4,350 a year forever for more than $150,000. Google “value of a perpetuity” to learn why. Then I could buy the house and pocket the difference. Tens of thousands of dollars difference.

(Interestingly, the reason a perpetuity is worth so much these days is because the Fed has reduced interest rates to practically zero, which reduces the discount applied to future payments.)

Bottom line: together, the schools, city, county, Metropark, library et. al. own your home, not you. They confiscated it long ago. Property taxes are the worst form of taxation. I’ll be really interested to see what Kasich says about school funding in the budget hearings. I’m probably a bit more optimistic about that than you are Bill, because how on earth can school funding in Ohio be made worse? (Bill on second thought don't answer that, they may just try.)

(I'll take one thing back. College tuition may be a more insidious form of taxation than property taxes. Another story entirely....)

What I want to know, and maybe someone has the answer, is why we are all talking about the elementary schools when the high school has looked like a trailer park for the better part of the decade?

Why would I vote for a levy that isn't going to finish the flagship school of the district? Is this levy going to do that?

Because honestly, people can scream themselves hoarse over Grant vs Lincoln, but in the end, I think it makes the whole district look pathetic that we have a discombobulated high school.

I thought it was a joke when my mother said I would graduate college before it was done...

Just a small bit of historical perspective. The headline of this thread say "...could be as high as 4.0 mil." In the 80s when I became actively involved in trying to get a school levy passed, the initial levy was (I believe, although my memory is not what it once was...) 8.9 mil.
4.0 doesn't seem that high, or, in my opinion, unreasonable.

Heidi Hilty wrote:Just a small bit of historical perspective. The headline of this thread say "...could be as high as 4.0 mil." In the 80s when I became actively involved in trying to get a school levy passed, the initial levy was (I believe, although my memory is not what it once was...) 8.9 mil.
4.0 doesn't seem that high, or, in my opinion, unreasonable.

Heidi

I would say 4 and lower is to low to be honest. From the math we have done this barely covers the
short comings because of state cuts. It would be nice for the schools to get in front of this.

Thealexa

It is my understanding that the capital improvements for buildings comes from Bond Issues not a tax
levy. This money is basically slated to administrative costs and programs. The reason why the
the High school has remained unfinished is the money owed to Lakewood already from the state
that we do not get until the rest until the project is completed, now somewhere between $40 and
$50 million. When we get the money, it is used to retire the Bond. In effect the Bond is a 28 year
loan with interest. Voting for bond issue is simply put, authorizing the schools to borrow that fixed
amount from lenders, with the residents of Lakewood backing the debt.

Bond money cannot be used for operating expenses, however Levy money can be used for buildings.

.

Public school funding is always a mystery. None of us knows how much he actually pays for public school funding. We pay federal taxes; they keep most of it and give us some for our schools, assuming we do what they say, but no one knows how much of his federal tax payment (and the amount they borrow in our names) goes to the bureaucracy, and how much of that comes back to our schools. The state plays the same game, without the borrowing scheme, so none of us knows how much we pay to the state for education, nor how much of that is returned to our schools. Levies are almost all we can control of the funding of our schools. I don't draw a big distinction between levies and bonds; the bonds are paid by levies, and are simply a way of getting a big lump of money now to pay for a project, while paying it back over a long period. Bond usage is highly controlled because without those controls the bonds would not be marketable. Lawyers make a lot of money in looking into whether the bonds are properly authorized and restricted.

I do want to comment on administration of the property tax, as it is one of the most open and transparent government procedures I have seen. They are very willing to explain their procedures, and very willing to correct any errors you find. When they appraise your property, they notify you of the value assigned, and of how you can contest that valuation, and my experience is that if you go to them with a list of comparable properties and show that those properties have been appraised lower, they will be very willing to lower your evaluation. And they were this way even when Mr. Russo was in office.

Absent a recently burst bubble in the housing market, anyone who has a property appraised at greater than market value is not very alert, or has other reasons for accepting the higher evaluation (possibly hoping to borrow his way into insolvency and get rescued by the nanny government we have created?).

I think our current tax bills went down very little because the school tax rate is over sixty percent of the bill, and was subject to a decrease in the previous protection due to HB 920.