Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2007 > June > 25 > Entry
What to do with a 70 year old building?
By Scott Elliott and Chris Magan
Staff Writers
JAMESTOWN — The clock is ticking for residents of this small community to make a tough decision.
They can use money from the Ohio School Facilities Commission to remodel the 70-year-old Greeneview Primary School — a local landmark. Or they can use the cash to build a new school, but possibly raze a building many residents love.
“Some say it’s the prettiest schoolhouse in the state,” said Jeff Powers, who graduated from the school in 1961. “That ought to be reason enough to save it.”
But the state prefers that the building no longer be a school because it would cost too much to renovate.
Both options include residents paying a local share.
“It comes down to what the community and the school board want to happen,” said Superintendent Valerie Browning. “It’s a difficult decision.”
Now may be the time for Greene-view to decide. Gov. Ted Strickland’s proposed budget includes speeding up the state school facilities program for 57 districts, making $4.1 billion available during the next four years by “securitizing” tobacco settlement money that funds the program.
Districts like Greeneview, Huber Heights and Jefferson Twp. would be eligible for money sooner, but districts the state considers wealthy, like Kettering and Oakwood, will never see any tobacco money.
That’s no surprise to Kettering Superintendent Bob Mengerink. His district decided five years ago to fund a $102 million construction project locally rather than wait for state money. “Our belief was that had we waited, the money wouldn’t have been there,” he said. “Now it appears that is coming true.”
A plan to fast track school construction funding through the Ohio School Facilities Commission could bring a great opportunity for the financially struggling Jefferson Twp. Local School District.
Plagued by declining enrollment and aging buildings, the district has spent three years trying to climb out of a “fiscal watch” designation from the state.
“We haven’t built a new building since 1962,” said Treasurer David Robinson. “It would afford us better academic facilities to serve our students better.”
A provision in Gov. Ted Strickland’s budget would jump-start construction projects in districts like Jefferson Twp. and Greeneview Local Schools in Jamestown by “securitizing” money owed to the state from tobacco settlements. But the plan also will burn through the tobacco money quicker, and many districts will not get money from the settlement to build new schools.
In 2000, Ohio was allocated $10.1 billion from Big Tobacco under a national settlement to be paid in installments over 26 years. Then-Gov. Bob Taft’s plan called for using $2.5 billion as seed money to kick-start a massive statewide school construction program and promised assistance to every district.
The program, administered by the Ohio School Facilities Commission, would allow the state to provide matching funds if school districts raised local money too. The funds were pushed toward the poorest districts using a sliding scale. The poorest districts — such as Miami County’s Bradford schools — got money first, and the state paid as much as 90 percent of the cost of rebuilding all schools in those districts.
But in wealthier districts, the sliding scale worked the other way. Kettering, for instance, was eligible to have the state pay for less than 10 percent of the cost of rebuilding its schools and was looking at a 10-year wait to claim those funds.
Superintendent Bob Mengerink said the district decided it couldn’t wait that long. In 2002, the district asked voters to approved a $102 million project that made upgrades at all of Kettering’s schools.
Mengerink said the state’s offer didn’t make sense for Kettering. The wait was just too long and the state requirements too stringent.
“The Centervilles and Ketterings were never really in this game because of the formulas,” he said.
Now Strickland wants Ohio to make an early grab to use more tobacco money now, which will mean the state’s school construction timetable will accelerate.
It works like this: Ohio is owed about $7 billion to be doled out in annual payments over the remaining 18 years of the settlement agreement. Investors would buy the rights to receive those payments by giving the state about $5 billion now.
Strickland’s plan calls for using $4.1 billion of that money to speed up construction projects in places like Greene-view, Jefferson Twp. and Valley View over the next four years. The plan also calls for using the influx of tobacco cash to pay for a property tax relief proposal.
But after this new push to accelerate construction, it appears Ohio will exhaust the tobacco funds earmarked for schools with just about half of the state’s 610 school districts getting tobacco money to help construct buildings.
Rick Savors, spokesman for the Ohio School Facilities Commission, says the program isn’t going away even after the tobacco money runs out.
“That’s not the intention,” Savors said. “At some point every district in the state will get an offer for state funding.”
The commission is only partly funded by tobacco money — dollars also come from state-backed bonds, investments and cash from the state. So the program will continue, but likely at a slower rate.
For districts in the middle of the state’s wealth ranking — those who were not poor enough to get the big money early, but also not wealthy enough to be totally out of the picture — it appears the day they’ve been waiting for has come.
Top of the list
These school districts are being considered for early funding from the Ohio School Facilities Commission.
—Botkins
—Carlisle
—Cedar Cliff
—Greeneview
—Huber Heights
—Jefferson Twp.
—Milton-Union
—Russia
—Valley View
—Butler Technology Joint Vocational School
Permalink | Comments (5) | Categories: School Construction
Comments
By ryan
July 2, 2007 12:55 AM | Link to this
oakwood’s schools were built primarily in the 1920’s. i would argue they are probably the finest example of school architecture you will find. a few years ago the schools were expanded. the newer additions were built to blend exactly with the existing buildings. the entire inside of each school was renovated, but kept historically accurate. oakwood is much different in town design, etc. we have no buses and really no parking lots. this leaves more money for other items. i believe that schools, churches, etc should be something that brings pride to a town. i went to greeneview and it would be terrible if that particular school building was torn down. it was set in a place to be a showcase for jamestown when it was built. the school that needs to be torn down is the horrible 1950’s era school directly behind it. what happened to school design after ww2?By lou
June 26, 2007 9:25 PM | Link to this
Thry way i understood the state contribution set up was it was based on the economic of the district. I have been in 2 districts that have passed the school building levy. Both districts recieved most of the noney to build the schools from the state. Vandalia, on the other hand, chose to not use the state money when they planned their new schools a few years ago. They would have only recieved 15% from they state , I think. They decided that if they paid they 15% themselves they could buid what they wanted. I am sure Oakwood have gotten less that Vandalia and Kettering would have gotten around the same. Mary, as for why we need new schools. Room, ADA and electricity. Today’s classroom has to have computers, tables for the grouping of students, and doors wide enough for wheelchairs. Most schools need so much renovation it is cheaper to rebuild. Oakwood has probably made the renovations as soon as they were needed. If we want children to be successful we have to use the technology in the classroom. I am sur that you would agree with that because you are susc a supported of gifted education. If the community wants to buy any old schools that are being built on a different site, I believe the can. Schools need to be modern.By Laura
June 25, 2007 6:30 PM | Link to this
I’d like to know how schools were picked. Some of the schools on the list have never had the funding problems that Fairborn has. Why isn’t Fairborn on the list? Fairborn residents have refused to pass a levy for longer than it has been popular to tell the legislators to follow the law and fund the schools. As to Mr. Mengerink’s comment that the rules were too stringent, he is correct. I don’t know why the state put some of the rules in place that it did. It seems even the committee believes bare bones is the way to go. With all the talk about the waste and excess of Americans, it is interesting that we think children’s education should be frugally funded.By James
June 25, 2007 4:57 PM | Link to this
Why should some districts who didn’t keep up with their building needs out of bond levies be rewarded with extra money from the State (us taxpayers) to build new buildings while other districts are penalized or given nothing!!! Among these Jefferson is as badly managed as DAyton City Schools. It should have been merged with one of the small districts around it. Why keep a small black school and pay all those costs of a small district when it’s convenient to merge it with Dayton or with Valley View and New Lebanon? Its school board makes a nice place for local people to be important but how is it educationally beneficial to the students? Too small. Another sports school.By Mary
June 25, 2007 2:10 PM | Link to this
Is Chris new to the education beat? I thought the article was intersting, but I noticed you had pictures of the gym with wooden seats, not the classrooms with probably hard plastic chairs/desks. I’ll bet the old gym seats are a lot more comfortable than the classroom chairs/desks. I am wondering if the Kettering construction bond issue and overall tax burden had anything to do with their more recent levy failure, if I am remembering the Kettering facts correctly. Also, why is it most school districts go to bat for new construction, but do not focus on building upkeep,preservation and upgrades for easier and more cost efficient maintenance. How old are the Oakwood buidings? They seem to be old, but beautiful, and still useful? What do they do differently from other districts? Does their culture value older buildings more?