Schools need to decide what’s in levy
By Jeff Gallatin
North Olmsted
Published Feb. 8, 2006

As the deadline nears, school officials appear likely to put some kind of multi-million dollar levy on the May ballot, but officials still have to determine in what form.

Officials have set special meetings at the district offices for tomorrow at 4 p.m., one for 10 a.m. Feb. 11 and a third one for Feb. 13. The three meetings would enable district officials to finalize the form a levy would take, hold the required two meetings to have district Treasurer Robert Matson prepare the proper figures, have the school board approve them and then have the Cuyahoga County financial and board of election officials approve them. School officials have to have the final levy package to the county board of elections by Feb. 16.

John Lasko, vice president of the school board, said questions remain such as whether the levy should be a combined operating and capital improvements one like the one which failed in November. Should they be separate issues on the ballot or should they only go with one and try another later?

“We’ve got the information, and I’m glad that we have until Thursday (Feb. 9) to review it and come into the meeting prepared to make a few decisions,” Lasko said. “One thing that seems loud and clear to me personally is that although it was a novel approach and gave people a different choice, people want the option to have a choice in the capital improvements and operating levies. They don’t want them in the same issue and in fact would want them as separate issues so they can make a decision.”

Lasko also said if the district pursues a capital improvements levy in any form, it will have to make a decision on the status of a middle school for the district.

“We’ll have to decide if we go ahead and put it back as a proposal to move the middle school to Pine School as we did last time and if we do include the other provisions for other improvements or do we go without some or all of them this time,” Lasko said. “We also have to decide if we want to stay with the Pine plan or if we think the community wants it, do we stay with a campus-like setting and keep it at the current Butternut Ridge site?”

In the November levy, the district also proposed putting a performing arts auditorium in part of the current middle school as well as a community center. It also proposed upgrading the high school science labs and music facilities and some sports areas.

Don Frazier, the senior member of the board, said the decisions will have to made soon if a levy is to go on the May ballot.

“There appears to be strong interest in putting something on the May ballot,” Frazier said. “We haven’t made a choice on that yet, and that’s why we’ve set up the meetings. I would encourage people to come and let us know what they feel as well.”

School district officials set up the tight meeting schedule following a special Feb. 4 Saturday morning meeting to listen to and discuss results on the community listening sessions and focus groups held by Burges and Burges Strategists and Triad Research to try and gauge why the November combined capital improvements and operating levy failed and what the community might support in another levy attempt.

Both the research firms noted that there appears to be some kind of support for some form of operating levy again but questioned whether there would be support for a capital improvements plan levy in May and recommended against placing one on the ballot in the spring. They said many residents acknowledge the need for a new or renovated middle school for the district since the current one was built in the 1930s and has had several additions.

Khaled Salehi of Burges and Burges said people related to the need for a new operating levy on a personal level.

“They have experienced increases in their personal budgets such as heating, gasoline, health insurance and other similar costs,” Salehi said.

He said residents indicated they would like to see signs that the school district are also trying to take steps to control the district budget just like citizens have had to control their own budgets to combatr rising expenses. Triad officials said their work backed up this belief as well.

Both agencies recommended that officials continue efforts to try and inform people about what a levy would cover. They also said the board needs to communicate its work to the voting public. They added saying that although North Olmsted is better than many districts in making information available to residents, many citizens indicated they still didn’t fully understood what the district was proposing in the last levy attempt.

Triad’s report said some residents found the combined operating levy and capital improvements levy confusing, with others also indicating that they didn’t think the district had made a strong enough case for passing a bond issue for capital improvements.