FACTS AND CITIZEN QUESTIONS REGARDING WHAT THIS LEVY ENTAILS

  1. The November Levy is for $140 million dollars to go towards Perrysburg District building renovations and deferred maintenance.  Included are:
    • renovations, improvements and/or additions to six current school buildings
    • add on to the transportation building
    • a new Steinecker stadium entrance and restrooms
    • one new $36 million-dollar elementary school building
      Also included is:
    • $60 million in deferred maintenance
  2. Plans for a Phase 2 asking for additional monies ($60 million bond Issue) have been presented at Perrysburg Board of Education
  3. Perrysburg school district is experiencing extreme administrative bloat.  Many examples can be provided where staff and administrators have been hired at top salaries that aren’t necessary. Operational cuts should be considered to show the district is being a good financial steward of taxpayer money.
  4. Conflict of interest: Only 50 members of the community were selected to serve on the Facilities Planning Committee, and many of these committee members are either current or past district employees or related to a district employee.
  5. Lack of actual feedback from the community.
    • No community survey was ever conducted to gauge ideas and feedback on this levy from the thousands of citizens in the district.
    • Less than 1% of the population had their voices heard (planning committee members) on this massive levy. 
    • The Facility Planning Committee meetings were intentionally closed to the public. Citizens were not even allowed in the room to listen (nor speak).
  6. The November Levy is an additional tax. $140 million and the $60 million bond levy requests do not include the 5-year operating incremental levy that was passed in 2019 which the final year will be applied in 2024.
  7. The November Levy estimates are NOT based off recently adjusted property valuations.
    • Wood County Auditor just applied its increased property values estimated at an increase of 25%, thus automatically increasing the amount of tax money going to the district, without any voting.
    • This process occurs every three years in the county.
    • The levy did not consider these adjustments in their calculations.
  8. Ohio Facilities Construction Committee (OFCC) are NOT guaranteed.
    • The district has applied for state funding with the Ohio Facilities Construction Committee (OFCC), however there is no guarantee of how much money or when the funds will be received from the state. 
    • Perrysburg is currently 417th in line to receive state funds out of 609 schools in the state where the order of priority is based on the state calculation of community wealth.  Perrysburg has moved up 48 spots on this list since 2019.
  9. The Facility Study does not account for increased inflation. Inflation rate was set by OFCC, 5 years ago, at 3.16%.  This was determined when the facilities study was conducted.  The current monthly inflation rate in August 2023, according to US CPI Official Data was 3.7%.
  10. Misuse of facilities and funding. The facilities plan calls for Frank Elementary to be used for a preschool.  Why is Perrysburg finding it necessary to dedicate an entire elementary campus to opening a pre-school when this is not required by the state to offer pre-school?
  11. A $2.5 million dollar upgrade to the Steinaker Stadium entrance and bathrooms is included in the levy. Why isn’t the athletic department managing this project through fundraising?
  12. A $1.5 million upgrade to the transportation center is noted in the $140 million dollar levy, what exactly is being done to this building and is it necessary?
  13. If a new elementary building costs $36 million to build, why wouldn’t we consider building new elementary buildings versus renovating and adding on to existing buildings?  The Facilities Planning Committee, by a 57% vote, recommended demolishing Frank and Toth Elementary and rebuilding new, yet the board voted to add on and renovate these buildings.
  14. Director of Development salary position oversight: The school district pays the salary of the Director of Development in the Foundation and all the supporting positions. They are charged with raising private donations for projects.
    • Who is developing the job goals for this position?
    • Where are the funds going that they generate?
    • How much money has this team raised for the district?
    • Is this good financial stewardship on the count of the district?
  15. Why is the district continuing to hold on to the land (Route 199 soccer fields)?  Is this the best use of the land and is it being financially leveraged as best as it could be?
  16. Why did the district purchase a building for $700K, for the IT department when it could have been consolidated that department into the Commodore building? 
  17. Why weren’t any recommendations from the state district audit implemented by the administration?
  18. How were the ESSER funds used?  We know that the DEI Director and assistant were hired using ESSER funds that end in 2024.  Local taxes will then be used to pay for these positions.  ESSER funds could have been used to replace or upgrade the air filtration systems at the schools.
  19. How much money is being spent on diversity, equity and inclusion programs and initiatives including CQ student surveys?
  20. How many students have left this district over the last 5 years?
  21. HPI did not follow the OFCC standards when it was built.  This caused the expense of that building to be greater than it needed to be because the district wanted to make their own custom design choices and not follow a state guide to construction expenditures.  How much extra did that decision cost the taxpayers? 

Check back often as this list of facts and questions will be continually updated.