Dear editor:
We are writing this joint message to you because we feel that some situations require a show of solidarity, support, and resolve.
On Thursday, May 1, we spent the day at the Putnam County ESC in a room filled with superintendents and treasurers as we listened to Ohio Representatives Jim Hoops, Roy Klopfenstein, and Ty Matthews discuss the proposed 30% carryover cap which is included in House Bill 96.
In simple terms, the Ohio House has passed on a proposal to the Ohio Senate that limits school districts’ end of year carryover to 30% of the year’s expenditures.
If a district has more than that 30%, the county budget commission is directed to reduce the district’s property tax rates until the district’s cash balance drops below the cap.
While from a 30,000 view this seems like a great way to reduce the property tax burden on district taxpayers, this cap could have devastating effects on how public schools in Ohio operate.
We will outline the general concern, and then speak to how it directly affects Pettisville Schools if this proposal should make it through the Ohio Senate as written.
First, we both agree that reducing stress on the local taxpayer is a good thing. However, the mechanism proposed to do it is faulty, shortsighted, and flat out wrong.
It takes the local control and understanding of each districts’ financial situation and applies a one-size-fits-all approach to limiting carryover.
The determination of how much carryover is necessary for each district should be determined by the duly elected individual boards of education. This mandate should not be in a state budget bill. As we know in the world of education, a one-size-fits-all approach to anything rarely, if ever, works.
Second, this 30% carryover cap is a punitive effort to crush “bad apple” districts across the state of Ohio. Instead of taking care of the issue with those specific districts, the legislators are taking a sledgehammer to districts throughout the entire state.
Again, as educators, we know that punishing an entire class for one students’ behavior issues is out of line and poor practice. This is what the legislature is proposing for Ohio.
Third, districts are uniquely qualified to make financial decisions based on their own distinct needs. Pettisville’s needs are different than Toledo Public’s, or even Archbold’s.
Fourth, having a carryover greater than 30% is not something to be punished for, but celebrated. We will outline some of the specific ways it is imperative for Pettisville below, but, in general, the carryover allows for additional programming, staffing, special education needs, and even potential capital projects.
Our legislators seem to think that a carryover greater than 30% is akin to a rainy-day fund, and that is simply not true. These dollars are used to operate the district as the district needs operated and, in a way, unique to that specific district.
Fifth, these provisions do not apply to private and/or parochial schools. In fact, $1 billion dollars is being funneled to voucher programs on the backs of local taxpayers.
While we believe parental choice is paramount, and we welcome the competition that arises in these arenas, asking local taxpayers to fund vouchers while hamstringing public schools by reducing their carryovers is egregious and contrived.
Remember, this is the same legislative body that is tossing around a $600 million bond initiative to build a new stadium complex for the Cleveland Browns. This is a festering problem in education.
Columbus is trying to solve the education issues they have legislated since the 1970s on the backs of local public schools by taking away their liberty to operate in ways that are unique to their situations.
If this 30% carryover cap is enacted, the Fair School Funding formula–a Constitutional, fair, balanced way to fund public schools–would be in jeopardy. The fight to even get such a formula in place has been decades in the making, and could be undone overnight.
Sixth, a 30% carryover cap will result in far more levies going on the ballot every year. These carryover funds are crucial to cushioning the blow a levy could have on local taxpayers.
Seventh, these punitive efforts are only directed at public schools. While we understand that public schools absorb the highest amount of taxpayer dollars, other public entities have been exempted from this carryover cap.
We are not advocating for the other entities to have the carryover cap instituted, we are advocating for the elimination of the proposed cap altogether. We are not alarmists by nature.
Our roles as district representatives are to analyze data and then make data-driven decisions for the betterment of our students and community.
We attest that the proposed data is not only bad in general, but bad for Pettisville. We have outlined some Pettisville-specific examples below:
The following is an example of the effect of the proposal on Pettisville Local School’s financial situation if the bill was in effect for fiscal year 2024.
•We ended the year with approximately 3.6 million dollars of carryover.
•We had expenditures of 7.1 million dollars.
•Our carryover is 51%, and over the 30% cap by 2.1 million dollars.
•The Fulton County Budget Commission would be directed to reduce our property taxes to get us below the 30% cap. We only bring in about $2 million per year so our property taxes would be eliminated completely meaning that we would be operating solely on revenues from State Aide and our income tax and these two revenue streams are not adequate long-term.
Why do we have a 51% carryover?
1. It actually took us about 15 years to get to this point where we have a healthy balance to weather the storms caused by economic downturns, inadequate state support, or other unplanned financial events or emergencies. In the past, we bounced back and forth between deficit spending (expenditures more than revenues) and spending in the black (revenues more than expenditures).
Those were uncertain times and we even panicked and put a levy on the ballot for additional millage only to realize that we didn’t need it after some revenues came in higher than expected. With some fiscal responsibility and being conservative with our budget, we have built reserves.
2. We have been saving general fund money and interest to pay off debt on the windmill as well as saving for catastrophic breakdowns of the machine. These savings equal about $500,000.
3. We used COVID-19 Relief funds to offset some normal general fund expenditures in an effort to build our reserves.
4. We just submitted Threshold Costs (formerly known as Catastrophic Costs) to the state. This process is a request for reimbursement for high-cost, high-need, special education students. We have a few students who fit this category and cost $180,000 to our district.
We will receive some funds to offset these costs, but certainly not the full amount. We fund these students’ education primarily on our own.
The concern about these costs is that we could add similar additional students at a moment’s notice and will need funds to cover their cost.
This can’t be forecast. This is not a bad thing educationally. We know that these students are well-served in Pettisville, but our carryover is necessary to accommodate the educational needs of these kids.
This is our story. The state legislature doesn’t know our story, but our school board does and our carryover is justified. Local boards of education, duly elected by their constituents to govern local decisions, should be the ones to make these decisions.
We firmly believe that Pettisville is one of the best communities in the state, and we will fight for the unique stories of our students, staff, and community until the final bell.
Yours in education and community,
Josh Clark – Pettisville Schools Superintendent, Chris Lee – Pettisville Schools Treasurer
