Marcia Andrew- ORC 3318.29?

Message Rating: Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

Acclaro, 
No, the school board did not have the state hold back its 26% in 2004.  That was not a choice of the district; that was the way the program was set up by the state.  If the state paid out the 26% in 2004, it would have been allowing the district to "jump ahead" of districts ahead of it in the ranking according to need (as determined by the state).

The provision of the law you cite, section 3318.29, does not appear to me to have anything to do with Middletown's situation.  It is referring to bond obligations of the State, not of local school districts.

The district chose to particpate in the two-phase ELPP in 2004, and the voters approved it.  The ELPP controls both phases of the project and locks the district into 26% state 'match' for both phases.  The second phase which this second bond would fund (middle/high school) is part of the ELPP, it is not under CFAP.  CFAP is the funding mechanism that controls for districts that waited for their number to come up before doing any part of their master plan.

Are you suggesting that the district should have predicted in 2004, that the State would throw a curve ball and wipe out 30% of the district's tax base by eliminating tangible personal property taxes?  Without knowing that, it would have been quite remarkable for the district in 2004 to have said, no, let's not build now, let's wait 10 years because our state share could double because it is likely our tax valuation will decrease by 30% due to some event that won't also cause all the rest of the school districts in the state to also decrease by 30%?  Which was more likely, that this dramatic shift in the ranking of the tax base of the district compared to the rest of the state would occur in 10 years, or that construction costs would increase over 10 years?

Author	Message Rating: Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic
Marcia Andrew Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List MUSA Citizen Joined: Jan 09 2010 Status: Offline Points: 365	Post Options Post Reply Quote Marcia Andrew Report Post Thanks(1) Quote Reply Posted: Apr 15 2014 at 2:06pm
	Acclaro, No, the school board did not have the state hold back its 26% in 2004. That was not a choice of the district; that was the way the program was set up by the state. If the state paid out the 26% in 2004, it would have been allowing the district to "jump ahead" of districts ahead of it in the ranking according to need (as determined by the state). The provision of the law you cite, section 3318.29, does not appear to me to have anything to do with Middletown's situation. It is referring to bond obligations of the State, not of local school districts. The district chose to particpate in the two-phase ELPP in 2004, and the voters approved it. The ELPP controls both phases of the project and locks the district into 26% state 'match' for both phases. The second phase which this second bond would fund (middle/high school) is part of the ELPP, it is not under CFAP. CFAP is the funding mechanism that controls for districts that waited for their number to come up before doing any part of their master plan. Are you suggesting that the district should have predicted in 2004, that the State would throw a curve ball and wipe out 30% of the district's tax base by eliminating tangible personal property taxes? Without knowing that, it would have been quite remarkable for the district in 2004 to have said, no, let's not build now, let's wait 10 years because our state share could double because it is likely our tax valuation will decrease by 30% due to some event that won't also cause all the rest of the school districts in the state to also decrease by 30%? Which was more likely, that this dramatic shift in the ranking of the tax base of the district compared to the rest of the state would occur in 10 years, or that construction costs would increase over 10 years?

acclaro Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Prominent MUSA Citizen Joined: Jul 01 2009 Status: Offline Points: 1878	Post Options Post Reply Quote acclaro Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: Apr 14 2014 at 10:10pm
	chm1, I wanted to clean the many threads that have accompanied this lengthy discussion and started a new one captioned to Ms. Andrew's attention. When you state we have to pursue that $40 MM, a very disappointing 26% match by the state, a 42% mischaracterization which was clarified by Ms. Andrew, the facts are the district pulled the trigger too maturely for funds arguably in 2004, initially in Phase 1 using ELPP, and now we have CFAP in Phase 2, also at 26%, associated with a contract obligation which evidently cannot be altered. It boggles the mind to comprehend with Middletown in such deep decline, admittedly, not fully expected in 2004, the expectation is taxpayers will pay $156 MM out of pocket, for a pultry match of $40 MM from the state. In reality, the district would not be losing anything, as it was not entitled to any funding through ELPP, and CFAP is still only 26% of the overall contract. How utterly, and completely disappointing. Upon these facts, the decline in the district, and the financial aspects of Middletown, the scope in Phase 2 under CFAP should have been altered in many individual's opinion . This was a train ride set in 2004 that has not taken into account the real estate downfall in 2008, and all that has occurred to the district and city from 2004 to the present with modifications. This expenditure for two phases will be $156 MM....greater than voters have ever considered for public safety, for roads and infrastructure, and with virtually no ROI. Astounding.
	'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.' - Winston Churchill

acclaro Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Prominent MUSA Citizen Joined: Jul 01 2009 Status: Offline Points: 1878	Post Options Post Reply Quote acclaro Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: Apr 14 2014 at 9:20pm
	Ms. Andrew, if I may, to understand this fully, did the school board have the state hold back its matching contribution of 26% matching funds for Phase 1 in 2004 so that it could be used as a sales pitch in Phase 2, the state would provide 42% funding in the present, and the reference to 'PASS IT OR LOSE IT" is associated with ORC 3318.29? If so, by the 10 year maturity, this strategy will cost the taxpayersapproximately $15.86 MM for Phase 1? I took .26% of 156 MM MINUS 95 MM, BALANCE FOR PHASE 1, Thank you. Below... is this the reference to 'lose it."? 3318.29 Maximum maturity and terms of obligations. The maximum maturity of any obligations issued pursuant to section 3318.26 of the Revised Code to provide moneys for the school building program assistance fund shall be ten years. The terms of the obligations shall be such that in any fiscal year the aggregate amount of moneys from the lottery profits education fund, and not from other sources, that are pledged to pay bond service charges on obligations issued to provide moneys for the school building program assistance fund shall not exceed ten million dollars. As used in this section, "other sources" includes the annual investment income on special funds to the extent the income will be available for payment of any bond service charges in lieu of use of moneys from the lottery profits education fund. The annual investment income shall be estimated on the basis of the expected funding of those special funds and assumed investment earnings thereon at a rate equal to the weighted average yield on investments of those special funds determined as of any date within sixty days immediately preceding the date of issuance of the bonds in respect of which the determination is being made. The determinations required by this section shall be made by the treasurer of state at the time of issuance of an issue of obligations and shall be conclusive for purposes of such issuance of obligations from and after their issuance and delivery.
	'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.' - Winston Churchill

Marcia Andrew- ORC 3318.29?

3318.29 Maximum maturity and terms of obligations.