Marcia Andrew- ORC 3318.29?

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.

Ms. Andrew, I have met you on the Oxford campus. I know Dr. Price well personally, whom I like a great deal and have an amiable relationship.The Middletown Board under Dr. Price's tutelage, did communicate to the constituents in the city during Phase 1, passing it would generate more student enrollment, spin the needle to EXCELLENCE in academic achievement, and enhance Middletown's reputation throughout southwestern Ohio as a pillar of academic performance. With the upmost respect, level truthfully with the voters, and listen. Isn't this the theme you indicated was the greatest strength of Mr. Rasmussen, his willingness to listen? The district signed the contract with the OFAP because it desperately needed increased enrollment, and the buildings were expected to lure more students into Middletown. Also, it is not MCSD'S turn to get funding, as number one in ranking. It's the contract term entered in 2004 has a 10 year expiration, and the BOE delayed the Phase 2 levy for a decade, awaiting results that never appeared. The 26% is embedded in a contract that expires shortly. There also was a request to the city by the MCSD superintendent to open SECTION 8 further to the community, a form of enrollment.   Copy of the signed ELPP AGREEMENT- hanging around somewhere digitally on the BOE website for public consumption?        

Dean, some of the swim meets I attended on the Oxford campus were high school district competitions, not all were YMCA meets.  I just re-read my post, and realized I left that out.

Ms. Andrew; while not exerting the effort to debate whether the district should have forecast future events associated with economic decline, and the annual CPI or inflation rate for comparison to leverage building economics, which the state sets forth in ORC, the district was a harbinger predicting results from buildings which arose after the passage of the 2004 levy, and upon grounds the BOE articulated at that time-frame. In other words, the BOE and Dr. Price were fortune tellers, visionaries, harbingers, in 2004, for the benefit of the schools in raising property values, increase enrollment, enhance performance, reduce costs, by increasing enrollment and numbers moving into Middletown district....none, I add, that materialized.

You make reference also the contract with the state doesn't expire, so which is the controlling aspect of the agreement? Is it 26% through the duration of the term, or is it 13 months after the expiration of the availability of funding? What is the meaning of the contract and its controlling mean of term---it should be the duration of the agreement.

There will be numerous levies after this one I add. Teachers which have been on hold for awaiting getting Phase 2 passed, will want pay increases. When is that planned? Next, with the city failing to deliver economic impact, city income tax will be on  a ballot. The resultant will be this circuitous, never ending cycle of lower tax base within the city, compensated by residents, which will have diminished property valuation associated with market demand associated with the above.

$116,000,000 out of pocket for school buildings having no effect upon education, and the BOE concerned about homework inequalities and completion by some parents versus those that the parents don't lend a hand. When I read and digest the economies of this pursuit by the BOE, Phase 1-2, I keep hearing play, 'It's a Mad World.'            

It appears to me, ignoring some of the nonsense, that the arguments for and against the school bond levy come down to the following.
For: Will provide a better learning environment since it will be across the street from a University and will be on the same campus as the High School
     The current Middle School is in poor shape and will cost more to rehabilitate than to build new.
     The current Middle School is outside the population center and is not in a desirable area of the city

Against: Most arguments are variations on the "not worth the money" theme. Examples are; won't help learning and test scores, no return on investment; the city has more pressing issues to address.

I personally look at this as both an infrastructure issue and a "what type of city do you want to live in" issue.

Many have argued that the city roads are crumbling and are in need of repaving. I agree but what is the ROI on road repair? I can drive down Central avenue on a dirt road almost as easily as I can a newly paved road. I would prefer a newly paved road but don't really need one to get from the east to the west end. Would a newly paved road improve the performance of the city however you want to measure it? I seriously doubt that it would. Would it save people enough money to get a reasonable ROI...I doubt it. But many people who are advocating defeating the levy are arguing for road repair. The only difference that I see is that the new roads directly affect them, while new schools only indirectly affect them. Seems a bit self serving to me to argue for roads and other infrastructure while ignoring the schools.

I personally don't want to live in a city with crumbling infrastructure (roads, schools, sewers, water lines, etc) It's not an ROI issue it's a livability issue. I believe that many others think this same way. If we want to attract people to Middletown, and keep people from leaving, we need to do what it takes to improve the livability of Middletown. A large part of this is bringing our infrastructure up to speed...including schools...and if the state wants to help us with some money, then so much the better.

The school bond levy won't, by itself, right Middletown. It won't improve the test scores, but it is one necessary step towards rebuilding Middletown...to help set it up for the future...to help stem the erosion in property values...to help to start attracting people to Middletown.

A journey of a thousand miles starts with one step. This is a good first step. Please vote Yes.

processor:

"I can drive down Central avenue on a dirt road almost as easily as I can a newly paved road. I would prefer a newly paved road but don't really need one to get from the east to the west end. Would a newly paved road improve the performance of the city however you want to measure it? "

Drive any road in the city and you will risk the possibility of a major car repair, be it broken axle, bent rim, blown tires, suspension ruined or the lesser, out of alignment will occur. It is as important to have decent roads and infrastructure as it is to have your new schools processor. Neither I, as a supporter of a levy defeat, nor you, as a levy supporter, has the right answer for this. The health of the city relies on both (and other categories).....IMO, most important.......decent jobs. They create a certain degree of wealth, can cause disposable income for spending, which creates money flow in the community. Jobs provide opportunities for people to buy items like houses, cars, furniture, entertainment, becoming a legitimate taxpayer contributing....etc. Alot of good things happen after we equip the people of this city with decent jobs. Things start to really change if we have enough of 'em and, with the proper leadership and prioritization from the city leaders, will heal the city as quickly as any other method. Gotta get the low income and ghetto thinking out of here too while we clean up the city, physically and in perception. What is occuring now is not the right focus and it just isn't enough effort to change things.

processor:

"The school bond levy won't, by itself, right Middletown. It won't improve the test scores, but it is one necessary step towards rebuilding Middletown...to help set it up for the future...to help stem the erosion in property values...to help to start attracting people to Middletown."

No, if history is accurate, based on the new elementary school results comparing old schools to new, there hasn't been any evidence that a newly built school will be an eye-opener and IMO, again based on the 45 million dollar outlay for all new schools, isn't worth the investment nor effort to try again. BUT, here we are again, listening to the "let's build all new schools" people, wanting now, what hasn't worked in the past bond levies. Logic here.....if the elementary bond levy didn't produce any advanatage as to test scores, bringing new people into the city, nor effectively teaching the kids to succeed, WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD THESE SAME PEOPLE WANT TO TRY IT AGAIN AT THE MIDDLE SCHOOL LEVY. This is a classic case of placing good money after bad, with the added benefit of having seen what the first round of new schools have produced. Some haven't learned a thing, have they. Improving test scores? Mercy, I hope it would do that at the very least.....but then it didn't improve anything with the last bond levy did it.

Nope. There is no logical reason to vote yes for this levy. That logic is based on the results of the first go-around which produced squat.IE- no improved performance, no increase in population, an enrollment loss, people leaving....etc. A total waste of money IMO. We could have seen the same results in the old schools without spending the 45 million. YOU CAN BUILD ALL THE NEW SCHOOLS YOU WANT, BUT, THEN AGAIN, THIS IS MIDDLETOWN, A CITY THAT CAN'T SEEM TO GET OUT OF IT'S OWN WAY AND AS INEPT AS CITY'S COME AS TO DIRECTION AND LEADERSHIP. IT WON'T SUCCEED BECAUSE WE NEED TO CHANGE THE THINKING (AND PEOPLE) RUNNING THE CITY AND THE SCHOOLS TO ACHIEVE ANYTHING BETTER. FACILITIES DON'T DO THE THINKING.

Do you have a portfolio? Do you pay attention to the good and poor performers along with your investment counselor? Do you tell him, after seeing a stock performance plunge, to sell it before you lose all of your investment in it? Sure you would. If you do that with your stocks, pray tell, why wouldn't you dump (stop financially supporting) the poor performer in a school district setting. If there is no value added in your investment, you re-route your money into something that is worthy, right? So far, the schools are not "worthy". JMO

processor, I respectfully disagree with you viewpoint physical buildings in the form of new schools increase property values and stem erosion of valuation.

Lets be candid. Passing a building levy is a position of parity for MCSD, not an academic break-through, a game-changer. Hence, there is no benefit nor correlation, it will bring about an increase in valuation, or is the first step in building positive infrastructure.

In fact, it does just the opposite. With higher taxation, and no benefit gained from performance, the market valuation will decline further. We all would aqree the most fundamental theme espoused when buying and locating is "location,location, location." What does 'location' mean? Well....excellent schools, excellent security and safety, excellent shopping, excellent economic stability. The word "excellent" is the common operative.

Middletown will be moving forward on many tax levies in the near term; Moody's will be considering another down-grade in July, tax revenue will decline yet again, for the fiurth consecutive year, the school report card will come out in a few months, with another CI rating, necessitating more taxes, and weakened demand. Therefore, 'the infrastructure doesn't improve the 'location' attractiveness of Middletown. Indeed, it can't, because at best, the new school just keeps MCSD at parity with other districts who have new buildings. So, the net sum gain is back to where it started, or in this scenario, moving backward, associated with more debt, less revenue, and many sources in need of revenue that is showing a negative decline, and getting worse.

I am perplexed by your position on the Middletown Towne Mall, and the deviation associated with the schools. I  completely disagree with your statement this is the first step in building a recovery. There is no recovery when consuming funds which have no fundamental impact upon education, and keep the city only in the best case scenario, in a position they have what other districts already have----newer schools, but without the accompanying academic performance.

processor post below: [ Aren't We Surrounded By Better School Districts And Risk? MCSD Also catching up?

        Posted: 29 Jan 2014 at 11:17am

processor....with all due respect; isn't that what makes 'open enrollment"  an attractive remedy?

A student can go to Monroe or Lebanon, many schools around the area.....even Franklin, or Madison.

If the private sector is expected to gain results associated with funding, so should the school system, as there is no difference other than profit status. Non profit hospitals fail, so do school districts. The bad school districts lose enrollment and support.

Will there ever exist a plan of action in MCSD to minimize drop-outs, and achieve an EXCELLENT rating?

Building a new school does not achieve that goal, unfortunately. Arguably, it doesn't facilitate it either.

      

Vet,
I would want both...attractive building in a safe location coupled with a quality education.

Acclaro,
So what's your solution? Something practical that can be implemented.

processor:

"To attract businesses many things are needed...one of which is excellent infrastructure...including school buildings."

I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND YOUR STATEMENT HERE IF I MAY....

TO ATTRACT BUSINESSES MANY THINGS ARE NEEDED...ONE OF WHICH IS EXCELLENT INFRASTRUCTURE ...(NOW HERE IS WHERE WE DIFFER)......INCLUDING A QUALITY SCHOOL SYSTEM WITH A REPUTATION OF PRODUCING TOP NOTCH STUDENTS, NO MATTER THE CONDITION OF THE SCHOOL. AGAIN, THE "NEWNESS" OF A SCHOOL DOESN NOTHING FOR THE ATTRACTION OF BUSINESS IF STUDENTS WHO DON'T HAVE THE SKILLS FOR THE BUSINESSES TO USE ARE GRADUATING FROM THOSE SCHOOLS. BUSINESSES DON'T WANT EMPLOYEES WHO CAN'T ADD, MULTIPLY, DIVIDE, COMPOSE A SENTENCE, BE GRAMMATICALLY CORRECT OR A POOR COMMUNICATOR. IF THESE TYPES OF STUDENTS ARE COMING OUT OF A BRAND NEW SCHOOL. IT WON'T MATTER, NO ONE WILL HIRE THEM.

SAME OLD REPEATED THEME HERE FOR ME.----QUALITY CONTENT OF THE GRADUATING STUDENTS, NOT WHETHER THEY WERE EDUCATED IN A NEW BUILDING. COULD CARE LESS- NEW OR OLD, AS LONG AS THE RESULTS OF THE EDUCATION ARE HIGH CLASS AND PREPARING THEM FOR LIFE. TO DATE, WHETHER IT BE A NEW BUILDING OR OLD, THE MIDDLETOWN SCHOOL RESULTS HAVE NOT BEEN CLOSE TO THIS LEVEL. THE PERFORMANCE COMING OUT OF YOUR NEW ELEMENTARIES ARE AS BAD AS THE PERFORMANCE COMING OUT OF OLD, ANTIQUATED VAIL. IN THIS TOWN, IT APPEARS AGE OF SCHOOL HAS NO BEARING ON PERFORMANCE OUTCOME.

processor:

"I don't see where your stock portfolio analogy is appropriate for this situation. The difference is that I don't work for and am not a large owner of the company's stock that is in my portfolio. If I owned a huge percentage of a business and relied on the business's success for my financial well being, I wouldn't just dump it....I would try and fix it and bring it up to par"

I DON'T WORK FOR AND AM NOT A LARGE OWNER OF A COMPANY EITHER, BUT I STILL OWN STOCK FROM VARIOUS SOURCES, STILL WATCH THE PERFORMANCE AS BEST I CAN, AND STILL CALL MY PORTFOLIO MANAGER IF I AM DISPLEASED WITH A PARTICULAR STOCK BASED ON IT'S PERFORMANCE.

TO BE CLEAR....THE STOCK IS THE SCHOOLS. THE PERFORMANCE OF THE STOCK IS THE TREND GRAPHS AVAILABLE. THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SCHOOLS ARE THE PROFICIENCY TESTS AND INDICATORS AVAILABLE. THE PERSON MAKING A DETERMINATION WHETHER TO HOLD OR FOLD IS THE INVESTOR IN STOCKS, THE TAXPAYER IN THE SCHOOLS. I CALL MY PORTFOLIO MANAGER AND SAY SELL OR BUY TO CONTROL MY INVEsTMENTS. I VOTE YES OR NO ON YOUR LEVIES TO ATTEMPT TO CONTROL THE DECISIONS OF THE SCHOOLS AND TO SHOW MY DISPLEASURE WITH THEIR PERFORMANCE.

processor:

"Your choice is to fix what we have, accept what we have or move"

WELL, I AIN'T GONNA MOVE. STILL CARE ABOUT THE PLACE DESPITE WHAT THE NEWBY'S HAVE DONE TO IT. IMO, NOT BAD LIVING HERE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF HOW THE CITY IS BEING RUN AND WHO IS RUNNING IT. KINDA HAD A SORE SPOT DEVELOPING FOR SEVERAL DECADES SINCE THE 80'S LEADERSHIP TOOK IT DOWN THE TOILET.

WILL NEVER ACCEPT 6 OF 23 INDICATORS MET AFTER HOW LONG?

WILL NEVER ACCEPT THAT LEVIES ARE THE ONLY ANSWER YOU HEAR FROM THE SCHOOL BOARD AND THE FOLKS WHO SUPPORT THEM. JUST DON'T CARE FOR THEIR THINKING, DIRECTION THE DISTRICT HAS GONE (DOWNHILL) AND THE ABILITY TO TURN A ONCE HIGH PERFORMING ACADEMIC CLIMATE INTO SUCH A CLUSTER.

SOOOO, THAT LEAVES CHANGING IT. TO DO THAT, I WILL CONTRIBUTE MY LITTLE PIECE OF THE PIE BY VOTING NO ON ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THEY WANT TO DO. I DISAGREE WITH 99 AND 44/100 % OF WHAT THEY ARE DOING TO THIS DISTRICT. I WILL ENCOURAGE ALL LIKE ANTI-LEVY, ANTI-CURRENT DIRECTION FOLKS TO RUN FOR THE SCHOOL BOARD SEATS TO OUST THE CURRENT CROP AND, HOPEFULLY, CHANGE THE ENTIRE PROGRAM WITH THE INTENT TO SEE SOME ACTUAL PROGRESS FOR A CHANGE. NEW SCHOOL FLUFF JUST DON'T CUT IT WITH ME. STILL HAS THE SAME OLD FAILED FLAVOR GOING ON INSIDE. QUALITY CONTENT OF OPERATION AND UPWARD RESULTS WOULD JUST IMPRESS THE HELL OUT OF ME AT THIS TIME.