[ back ]
Reynoldsburg voters to face levy decision
Reynoldsburg may not be able to open their new schools should Tuesday's levy fail.
The announcement made by Superintendent Steve Dackin at the Oct. 20 school board meeting is just one challenge the district will face if voters turn down a 9.9-mil operating levy Nov. 3.
"Any additional cuts will continue to dismantle this district, which is achieving excellent ratings," Dackin said.
Dackin said the district will have to look for $3-4 million in additional cuts to continue operating the district.
Possibilities for those additional cuts could include but are not limited to reducing of course offerings, increase in class size and the possibility of closing some schools.
If the levy does pass, parents can expect to see a return in busing for Kindergarten and eighth-grade students and a modified high school transportation plan that is currently being discussed.
The district also plans to re-introduce art, music and physical education for elementary students for next school year and open up the two new buildings in 2011-2012 as slated.
"We're not asking to establish new programs," Dackin said. "If this levy does not pass, the district faces serious cuts again."
After voters rejected a 15.6-mil levy in May, the district moved to cut $11 million from its budget. The board voted to put the lower 9.9-mil levy on the ballot for voters to consider this month.
The reduced levy will cost a home owner of a $100,000 home an additional $300 a year.
"It's a community choice in what our educational standards will be in Reynoldsburg," Levy Co-chairperson Monica DeBrock said.
But Reynoldsburg resident Kevin Burtyk said the district should consider a yearly levy instead that would fluctuate with the economy.
Burtyk, a quadriplegic on a ventilator, is living with disabilities and says he and several community members are feeling hardships from a declining economy.
"The levy would be a hardship for those on a fixed income like those with disabilities and the elderly," he said.
Board members and campaign officials encouraged the public to go out and vote no matter what their opinion is.
"Voters need to go out and vote," Levy Co-chairperson Craig Oiler said. "That's what we want to keep that excellent status. So much of what we are doing is a levy campaign, but it is also a let's bring a community together campaign."
|On October 29, 2009 xltruth said:
I can understand if the well-being of those facing "hardships" doesn't really appear to be your responsibility. I know that you are not necessarily being insensitive, as we are all facing economic difficulties. However, the growing population of the elderly and disabled in Reynoldsburg facing foreclosures will directly affect your finances.
You, as taxpayers, will foot the bill for nursing homes in the long run (a more expensive alternative to home care). This financial burden will be added to the cost of this latest tax levy, and the increased federal taxes next year. Defeating this levy until the bureaucrats accept the better alternatives is in your family's best interest.
And, if you believe that this tax levy is "for the children," consider the fact that 82% to 85% of all school taxes goes to compensate obscene salaries. (It takes the taxes from 179 homes just to pay the six figure salary of Superintendent Dackin.) Unless this levy is defeated, the school board will have absolutely no incentive to address these bloated salaries with the unions.
While school board candidates like Hedrick and Albrecht acknowledge that the salary "expenditure" is something the community cannot meet indefinitely, Elaine Tornero is the only candidate willing to confront the unions this Spring.
Bishop Hartley consistently outperforms the Reynoldsburg high school in OGT scores, and this private school spends nearly $4,000 less per student every year. So, is this tax levy truly for the children, or are administrators simply dangling carrots before you (i.e. busing) to pad their pockets?
Proud Reynoldsburg Resident of over 35 years,
[ back ]