Sunday, July 30, 2000
Three Rivers Grade: B
LEVY REQUEST: A 7.89-mill continuing operating levy to raise $2.8 million a year. It would replace two expiring levies and add 2.9 new mills. The new mills would generate $1 million a year in additional funds. It will cost the owner of a $100,000 home $84 annually more than the current school tax bill.
OTHER LEVIES: A 4.9-mill emergency operating levy passed in 1995 expires in December; a 1-mill technology levy passed in 1996 expires a few months later. Voters turned down an 8.2-mill operating levy in March.
IF LEVY PASSES: It will pay for current programs and operations, cover inflationary increases, and an estimated 3 percent raise for teachers and staff. It does not fund any new programs or buildings.
IF LEVY FAILS: The level of funding would be that of 1988, so budget cuts would be made in athletic and other extracurriculars, bus transportation, community programs and more. Voters will be asked to approve it again in November.
Our recommendation: This western Hamilton County district serves the communities of Addyston, Cleves, North Bend, and Miami Township.
Schools get a major share of tax support from industrial taxpayers such as a Cinergy power plant, Bayer, Marathon/Ashland Petroleum and others. Almost 80 percent of school funding comes from local taxes, with industry paying almost 63 percent of them. The tax rate for homeowners is among the lower half in Hamilton County and residents' income averages in the middle of the 22 districts in the county.
The district's per-pupil spending is $202 below the state average, and students perform above average in most measures. It meets 20 of the Ohio's 27 minimum requirements.
By such counts, Three Rivers schools are an education bargain for residents. Of course, residents, dominated by homeowners, have to okay tax levies to collect money from those industries. There is moderate growth with some new, higher-priced housing in Miami Township. But new students will arrive before any additional taxes Ohio allows only for new construction (and not inflationary growth).
Still, residents expect and get a lot from their schools beyond classroom academics. The budget reflects this. For example, school facilities are used year-round for all-age education and recreation; they pay for many athletic and extra curricular activities so popular in this riverside community. Busing costs are higher than some districts because all students in one grade are at the same school and bused directly without confusing transfers (which residents seem to want).
This levy rate is lower than the failed March request because the county auditor's revised appraisal of property raised the valuation, thus requiring fewer mills to raise about the same amount of money for the schools. The 2.9 mill increase is reasonable for this moderate income district and should well cover operating costs for quite a few years to come — as officials promise.
As new residents move in, expect pressure for academic performance to increase. The below-average graduation rate needs attention. And, the board should keep reins on budget growth so increases are more in line with inflation or well publicized new programs. To that end, next year's operating budget is estimated at 5 percent over this year's — much less than past increases and in line with inflation and slow growth. Fiscal accountability and candid communication about how money is spent, and why, is particularly important to residents here. They sent this message by actually rescinding a levy in 1993. (Treasurer Scott Hiles' “How Your Tax Bill Supports Your Schools” is one of the clearest explanations on the tax topic we've seen in local districts. Ask for it.)
Overall, this levy is a solid investment in sound, stable schools. We recommend a yes vote.
