Some new tax dollars would be set aside for new, improved facilities
Berkshire Schools Board of Education members have talked for years about projects to improve district facilities, but have had few resources or a plan to fund them.
With passage of an additional 0.5 percent earned income tax on the ballot in November, however, board President John Manfredi expects some of those projects could begin as early as next spring.
That is because board members intend to “peel off” some of an estimated $902,000 of new tax dollars — district voters already pay a 1 percent earned income tax, which yields around $1.8 million annually — each year from the general fund and spend it on things like new facilities.
Collection would begin in 2015, with the full amount of the tax collected in 2016, which is the 2016-2017 school year.
“So, we’re working ahead along with working with the local communities,” Manfredi said during a 6 a.m. special board meeting last Thursday. “This enables us to kind of do it the way we want to do it and improve what we have here.”
Earlier this year, district officials discussed how much money was needed to operate the district, whether it merged with another school system or operated on its own.
“We knew we needed a certain percentage,” Manfredi said. “A quarter percent would not be enough to operate the district going forward. A half is probably a little bit heavy, but it could take us into the future.”
He said the extra money could be used to eliminate pay-to-play and other school fees.
“We feel that we’ve cut the students that would be participating, whether it be athletically or band, or in plays or whatever, just because of the way we charge,” Manfredi said. “It’s been a common practice, and we’ve done it for a long time, but you want to look at ways that we can give back to the people in our community, our parents especially and our kids.”
District Treasurer Beth McCaffrey explained the proposed 0.5 percent earned income tax has been put on the ballot as a general operating levy.
“You can always transfer out of the general fund, you could set up a transfer annually and put it into a set-aside per se, whether it be for permanent improvements or some other capital-project type fund,” McCaffrey told board members.
But they need a “plan” to spend the set-aside money, she said.
“You can’t just collect taxes and have a savings account per se. You have to have a reason for collecting the money from the taxpayer,” McCaffrey said. “The (Geauga County) Budget Commission would expect you to have a plan in place as to why you’re saving that money.”
At the last board meeting, the public indicated it would like to see money put aside for new facilities and to improve existing ones, Manfredi said.
“If we can afford to do it, we should,” he added, noting permanent improvement dollars only go so far and recent project costs have exceeded the roughly $235,000 of PI dollars the district brings in annually.
“It’s my feeling that we continue and move ahead with the levy on the ballot in November and … after that election, we go into a planning session and put money aside, so that we can start projects in the spring,” Manfredi said.
Board member Jim Koster said he agreed with Manfredi’s position and expressed concern where the district would be financially in the future.
Faced with cuts in local government and school funding, and declining enrollment, Koster said the board opted against consolidation and decided to pursue additional earned income tax dollars.
“I think that is a positive thing. If that is successful, I’m not opposed to setting aside some dollars toward other types of improvements, rather than a permanent improvement,” he said.
But basic education for students must come first, Koster said.
“What good is having facilities if you don’t have educational programs,” he added.
Board member Roger Miller said he was “all in” and suggested if money were set aside, then community members pushing for new facilities such as a high school track or turf field would have an open door to get involved and help build or fund such projects.
Tim Honkala said when he was elected to the school board 11 years ago, he was told his primary responsibility was the education of students.
“And attached to that, an educated student is a well-rounded student, not just someone in the classroom,” he said. “The extracurricular activities are important for the development of their character, their qualifications and giving them good experiences.”
Honkala added, “To have this levy on the ballot and to be able to offer our kids and the community the things that we want to keep offering, I think is a good thing. And I’m all in on any of the money we want to set aside to start working on facilities. I have no issues there.”
The only question board member Kim Brown had was whether voters would be asked for more money in the future to maintain new athletic or recreational facilities.
“If we’re going to take this money and put some of it toward an athletic facility, are we going to short ourselves in the end?” she asked.
“The education piece obviously is the key component of everything we do; those kids, their education is paramount over everything,” Manfredi said.
There always have been comments that people are willing to donate for new facilities, he added.
“We’ve never really asked for large chunks to do facilities. I think it’s the chicken and the egg — who blinks first,” Manfredi said. “Well, in this case, I think we’re very clear what we’re using this money for. We do want to pledge money toward that, if we can afford to.”
After some further discussion, Brown said she was with the rest of the board and expressed confidence in her colleagues’ decisions.
The last time Berkshire was on the ballot was in 2007, when it went from a 0.75 percent income tax to a 1 percent earned income tax.
“Today it’s 2014, that’s seven years. I think we’ve done very well,” Manfredi said. “We’ve been pretty frugal with our money.”
