Ref: Truth on TIFs by Lisa Reade
I want to thank Dr. Rigelman for his excellent answer on school funding, in 600 words or less that took me a whole weekend to figure out a couple of years ago.
Let me clarify a couple of things prior to restating these formulas down to my level. Dr. Rigelman only addressed the school income on property tax and the state aide formula. He did not talk about the school district income tax. I understand this school income tax also deducts from the property tax formula. The second issue that Dr. Rigelman did not address was how many mills does PLSD pay in debt service for our building bonds. I understand it is around 11 mills. I put this out hoping Dr. Rigelman will answer these questions.
First Mr. Yocum and now Mayor Hughes makes statements like, ?“increased amounts of commercial property in the school district will cause a decrease in state financial aide to PLSD.?” Remember Mr. Yocum?’s school finance 101? Stated this way they are probably correct or at the very lest very chose to the truth. If we read what Dr. Rigelman wrote then any increase in taxable property (Commercial or residential) value will result in a lower amount from the state. Maybe!
If one were to look at what Dr. Rigelman wrote and then worked his numbers you would find that the property valuation for each student in the PLSD is about $84,000. That $84,000 is only 35% of the market value of the Pickerington property. That is called the assessed value. The state requires the school district to support itself with at least 23 mills. That means that this single child is being supported with our real estate tax dollars of about $1930. Let?’s say we only have one child in this school district with a tax valuation of $84,000. Let?’s also say that momma has a new baby. If there is no increases in the amount the district can assess for real estate taxes then the district?’s fair share of 23 mills remains at $1930 ($965 per child). Wow what a deal! Now the state reworks their formula and they assure the district of the $4814 as the safety net. If everything else remains the same then we get more money from the state. However the amount we are then able to delivery to educate our two children drops from around current $6314 to very close to the state minimum ($4814).
So Mr. Yocum and Mayor Hughes are correct in their statements that increases in commercial property does lower the amount we receive from the state of Ohio to educate our children. What they fail to say is that this increase in commercial property value in the district actually increases the amount of dollars we will have available to educate our children. The idea here is that more of the money is coming from the locals because they can now afford it. Upper Arlington has nearly twice the property valuation per student compared to Pickerington. They deliver over $9,000 per student. I am sure they send more than 55% of their graduating seniors off to 4-year colleges in the same year.
By Dr. Pepper
I want to thank Dr. Rigelman for his excellent answer on school funding, in 600 words or less that took me a whole weekend to figure out a couple of years ago.
Let me clarify a couple of things prior to restating these formulas down to my level. Dr. Rigelman only addressed the school income on property tax and the state aide formula. He did not talk about the school district income tax. I understand this school income tax also deducts from the property tax formula. The second issue that Dr. Rigelman did not address was how many mills does PLSD pay in debt service for our building bonds. I understand it is around 11 mills. I put this out hoping Dr. Rigelman will answer these questions.
First Mr. Yocum and now Mayor Hughes makes statements like, ?“increased amounts of commercial property in the school district will cause a decrease in state financial aide to PLSD.?” Remember Mr. Yocum?’s school finance 101? Stated this way they are probably correct or at the very lest very chose to the truth. If we read what Dr. Rigelman wrote then any increase in taxable property (Commercial or residential) value will result in a lower amount from the state. Maybe!
If one were to look at what Dr. Rigelman wrote and then worked his numbers you would find that the property valuation for each student in the PLSD is about $84,000. That $84,000 is only 35% of the market value of the Pickerington property. That is called the assessed value. The state requires the school district to support itself with at least 23 mills. That means that this single child is being supported with our real estate tax dollars of about $1930. Let?’s say we only have one child in this school district with a tax valuation of $84,000. Let?’s also say that momma has a new baby. If there is no increases in the amount the district can assess for real estate taxes then the district?’s fair share of 23 mills remains at $1930 ($965 per child). Wow what a deal! Now the state reworks their formula and they assure the district of the $4814 as the safety net. If everything else remains the same then we get more money from the state. However the amount we are then able to delivery to educate our two children drops from around current $6314 to very close to the state minimum ($4814).
So Mr. Yocum and Mayor Hughes are correct in their statements that increases in commercial property does lower the amount we receive from the state of Ohio to educate our children. What they fail to say is that this increase in commercial property value in the district actually increases the amount of dollars we will have available to educate our children. The idea here is that more of the money is coming from the locals because they can now afford it. Upper Arlington has nearly twice the property valuation per student compared to Pickerington. They deliver over $9,000 per student. I am sure they send more than 55% of their graduating seniors off to 4-year colleges in the same year.
By Dr. Pepper
