Greater Clark County Schools' $109.2 million referendum draws mixed opinions

After going through an initial presentation, a shift in the scope by removing schools from closure lists and continued ire from a political action committee, Superintendent Andrew Melin said he still feels optimistic about how things will go at the polling places.

“I’ve also realized there are a lot more supporters out in the community than sometimes we realize because there’s this silent majority of people out there who truly want to do what’s in the best interest of kids,” Melin said. “They truly want to do something that will continue to enhance our community. It’s really bolstered our spirit, to be honest, as we get out and talk to more citizens.”

That sentiment isn’t shared by the opposition group, Greater Clark Taxpayers for Fiscal Responsibility, who’ve executed a signage campaign and created a Facebook page to say they think the project and 20-year bond associated with it are too much to bear.

THE PROJECT AND TAXES

Renovations are on the plan for River Valley, Parkview and Charlestown middle schools, along with Northaven Elementary. Parkwood and Jonathan Jennings elementary schools would get new schools built on their existing footprints.

Thomas Jefferson Elementary is slated for closure under the plan.

The plan shifted just before the hearing to commit to going through a referendum in July. The new plan is about $10 million less than the original, and also excludes the closure of Maple and Spring Hill elementary schools. Melin said closing those schools — which was also attempted under Stephen Daeschner’s superintendency four years ago — was a point that was too contentious and they thought would negatively affect the entire campaign.

“Based upon all of that, we did adjust the plan,” Melin said. “We listened. We very much listen to the community to try to figure out that we’re doing the things that the community can support. That’s why at the July 27 hearing, there was an adjustment to our plan.”

Donna Spence, who helped form the PAC against the referendum, said she’s still concerned about those buildings, especially since Melin has said serious conversation needs to occur regarding the future of Maple and Spring Hill.

“I’m not sure why they don’t like these schools other than they’re downtown,” Spence said. “These are two excellent schools that do a tremendous amount good with kids that truly have quite a bit of a distance to go as far as getting the education they should have.”

In the original plan, Melin cited low and decreasing enrollment at those two buildings as one reason close them down, as well as multiple concerns about the state of that structure in their facilities study conducted by Kovert Hawkins.

Spence said she’s also concerned that the plan isn’t specific enough in its details. She said she thinks the estimates on costs per building are inflated, which will allow the district to use whatever’s left in the loans to do more projects.

“I think they’re ballparking these figures and once they get down to it, there’s going to be a lot of money left over to do other projects that are not on the horizon, or at least we’ve not been told about,” Spence said.

She said the administration’s change on the need in those schools concerns her. The original plan was to close them and build a new school, but she thinks keeping them open sends a mixed message about their safety.

Melin said those buildings are safe and the district is going to invest money to keep those buildings comfortable for students and staff, but it still needs to take a hard look at them later.

The tax impact is estimated to come in at $.3927 per $100 of assessed valuation, according to the referendum question scheduled for the ballot. However, Melin and the Indiana Gateway website say that number represents the maximum figure taxpayers would pay on that.

Melin said his administration has calculated that impact closer to $.189 per $100 next year, which would mean that someone with the average assessed value in the district of $125,000 on a home would pay about $92 a year additionally in property taxes for the referendum.

“I think that’s really important,” Melin said. “One thing people focus on is this $109 million project. I understand that’s a lot of money, but how does that affect that individual taxpayer? How does it affect that $100,000 home in Greater Clark? I think it’s $5 a month.”

Melin had a meeting with farmers in the New Washington area over the summer, who expressed concerns because their taxes are calculated differently than individual property owners. He said they also need to remember that the taxes are different based on the type of land they have, whether it’s tillable or not, located in woods or other areas.

“I understand the concerns that our farmers are expressing, I understand it,” Melin said. “Again, the state decided on how to tax different properties. One thing I think is important for people to understand is that every taxpaying entity in Greater Clark shares in the cost of this. I think there are some people out there who somehow feel that there are going to be certain individuals or entities that do not have to contribute to this, and that would not be accurate.”

Spence said she still doubts Melin’s figures versus the maximum tax impact.

“I don’t think they’re being honest with the public,” Spence said. “They’re saying it’ll be closer to 18 or 19 cents. That is not how that figures out. The increase would be .3927 per $100. Businesses and farmers will pay more than that.”

Spence said she and the PAC don’t feel the district has been forthcoming enough with information. She said records requests — including one for information from a phone survey invoiced in August — have been denied. That request, she said, was denied because it was considered information for decision-making purposes.

But Melin said he thought he and his team have been open with the entire process. He said with 40 or 50 public presentations on the information, the facilities study and to different communities in the district, they’ve tried to get information out to everyone.

“If we only wanted to do what we wanted to do, then there would have been no need for us to make a change,” Melin said. “This transparency, we’ve never hidden behind anything. Keep in mind, I know the opposition will talk about the facilities study, that was part of a comprehensive strategic planning document. We provided a comprehensive report and made it available to the public related to the issues from all of our buildings. presented last spring.”

WHY A REFERENDUM?

Jenny Banks, the director of communications for the Indiana Department of Local Government Finance, said school districts are limited in their options when it comes to raising money or finding money for building projects.

School districts are bound by state law in terms of how they can raise money for building projects, like Greater Clark’s referendum.

For smaller projects, such as major roofing repairs or others, districts can issue general obligation bonds for no more than $2 million each. These raise taxes without the need for going to a vote, but the projects must be markedly separate. A district couldn’t phase out a project, like roofing, with two different bonds in the same year. However, they could issue two bonds in one year for two different projects.

Schools also can’t save money year-over-year for major building projects. Districts used to use cumulative capital projects funds, where leftover dollars were saved and put into a fund for bigger projects. State legislature eliminated that option for districts.

While districts get money from the state for capital projects every year, that money is usually eaten up by various maintenance projects, which are chosen from a list of needs submitted by schools. Districts prioritize those projects and work their way down the list.

Schools can enter a petition remonstrance campaign for projects up to $10 million. However, they have to get signatures to support the measure, then give the opposition to get enough signatures to cancel it out. If the opposition gets enough petition signatures, the measure fails.

For projects more than $10 million, schools are left with the referendum option. The New Albany-Floyd County Consolidated School Corp. ran a referendum campaign last year unsuccessfully for a project of about $70 million, with the votes spread at about 45 percent in favor and 55 percent against. West Clark Community Schools is in the process of deciding whether it wants to go through the process for several projects, including a new high school on the Silver Creek campus, next year.

FINAL WORDS

Melin said he understands not everyone will support the referendum, but he hopes they get enough support because ultimately, he feels that the project is in the best interest of the students for years to come, especially since the region is poised for growth in the coming years with the Ohio River Bridges Project wrapping up and the continual growth of the River Ridge Commerce Center.

“It’s always a matter of that balance, finding the balance,” Melin said. “How much money, if you’re going to go through this process, is reasonable to ask for to get the projects done, but is also enough for the taxpayers who are paying for the cost? We have focused hard on trying to find that balance between what we need to do for our kids and the community and being sensitive on the tax impact.”

Spence said the amount the district seeks is bad for taxpayers. She said it’s going to be a few years before the district sees any of the fruits of its labor should the referendum pass.

“It’s just too much,” Spence said. “You’re talking about a 20-year bond and they’d like to say that’s for the children,” Spence said. “That’s great because every child in GCCS will come of age and have to pay for that bond. That’s a tremendous amount of money.”

Melin said he respects the viewpoints of the opposition and hopes they can agree to disagree, as long as the information they’re both debating is accurate. No matter what, though, buildings play a big role in the education of students, he said.

“Either way, we’re having to spend taxpayer dollars to try to maintain quality facilities,” Melin said. “Now, we feel that we’re at that point where if we truly want to be responsible for taxpayer dollars, that we must start to put dollars into newly renovated or replacement buildings.”