Outlying districts voted down bond issue
But downtown precincts supported itBy Kate York, kyork@mariettatimes.com
Article Photos
Fact Box
Precinct by precinct results
- Marietta 1A: For 113; Against 202
- Marietta 1B: For 224; Against 275
- Marietta 2A: For 249; Against 168
- Marietta 2B: For 225; Against 174
- Marietta 3A: For 222; Against 268
- Marietta 3B: For 177; Against 176
- Marietta 3C: For 93; Against 140
- Marietta 4A: For 144; Against 166
- Marietta 4B: For 226; Against 303
- Marietta 4C: For 102; Against 97
- Fearing: For 88; Against 207
- Lawrence: For 6; Against 7
- Marietta East A: For 72; Against 236
- Marietta East B: For 129; Against 231
- Marietta East C: For 108; Against 222
- Marietta East D: For 202; Against 325
- Marietta West: For 6; Against 8
- Muskingum East A: For 256: Against 279
- Muskingum East B: For 149; Against 261
- Muskingum East C: For 179; Against 264
- Muskingum West: For 198; Against 343
- Newport Upper: For 6; Against 30
Twenty-two precincts of voters were able to cast a ballot for or against the Marietta City Schools bond issue and tax levy this month, but the measure passed in only four.
It was the downtown Marietta districts that seemed to support the issue, which would have funded the construction of new schools and the $48 million local share of a $78 million project.
Marietta's 2A, 2B, 3B and 4C precincts, all downtown, supported the levy while it failed in other areas including Reno, Norwood, Harmar, Harmar Hill, Oak Grove, North Hills and Devola.
"To me, this says this is done," said Paul Abicht, 52, of Reno. "It wasn't a close race, where if they had just 10 more votes or even 100 more votes if would have passed. This truly was not wanted by the voters."
When results were made final last week, there were 3,174 votes for the bond issue and 4,382 against it, meaning nearly 58 percent of voters said "no."
In the precincts that passed the issue, the vote counts were 249 votes for and 168 against in Marietta 2A, which includes Front, Putnam, Wooster and Butler streets, and 225 for and 174 against in Marietta 2B, which includes parts of Fifth and Sixth streets in downtown and extends to include Glendale Road and the surrounding neighborhoods.
In Marietta 3B, near the Washington County Fairgrounds, the issue passed by only one vote, 177 to 176, while in Marietta 4C, also downtown, the issue passed by five votes, 102 to 97.
The issue was most heavily defeated in Marietta East A in Devola and the Fearing precinct, which is comprised of the Stanleyville area.
Only 29.8 percent of the voters in that area voted yes and only 23.3 percent voted yes in Marietta East A.
"It was the times," said Devola resident Cheryl Miller, 39. "The job market is bad, people feel insecure or they're already struggling...it was not the time to pass a 37-year bond issue. I think people voted with their wallets."
Many voters agreed but some said it was the construction plan they most objected to. The partially-state funded project would have included a new elementary school for all district students, a new high school and a middle school created by the renovation of the current high school. All the buildings would have been located off Colegate Drive.
"I think it would have been a traffic nightmare," said Colegate Drive resident John Reynolds. "And I didn't care for the idea of having big schools for everyone. I wasn't a supporter."
|
killmcslevy
|
|
|---|---|
|
11-23-09 5:32 PM
|
Citizencane - GREAT QUESTION -- I called several districts who renovated, and pretty much universally, they all loved the results, as they were all sitting in nice new buildings. If you expected a different answer, sorry to disappoint you. This whole endeavor comes down to balancing priorities, sprinkled with a dose of avoiding all things stupid, and perhaps a dash of honesty. As an example, say you have high blood pressure, and I offer to build you a free new house to solve your problem. You see the disconnect here? If we just want new buildings, bunches of union jobs, and a bronze plaque at the conclusion, then let's just say that, and let voters place their vote based on honestly stated reasons. My vote was lost when all the disinformation started being spewed -- "renovated schools can't support modern technology", bogus energy savings claims, ignorance of big-school hazards, bogus claims that renovated schools couldn't be made security-conscious, etc...OUT OF CONTR
|
|
killmcslevy
|
|
|
11-23-09 5:23 PM
|
SUMMARY - Renovation is clearly the answer for all the issues raised by the Board, but pretending to know right now the precise scope and cost of renovations, on a per-school basis, is beyond me at this time. I will say this and said so in the blog -- it is inconceivable that the cost in any one grade school could be more than $5M-$6M if done responsibly. However, details matter, and where we all get into trouble is to just fling about numbers in MILLIONS like a difference between 3 and 6 somehow doesn't matter. It absolutely does, or at least it should. Regarding the high school that was proposed to become the middle school, I have VERY SERIOUS issues with any renovation number anywhere NEAR the amount the Board was using. That was just reckless -- I don't need any more "data" to know that just by performing a walk-thru inspection. The blog pointed out things that were clearly wrong and misguided, however, somewhat more effort is needed to zero in on what's correct.
|
|
citizencane
|
|
|
11-23-09 5:22 PM
|
KillMC- Well, I stated before that I was on the fence about the levy. I had seen positive results in other districts, but realize that this board and administration have failed to earn the community's trust or prove good stewardship. I respectfully ask you this---Have you, in all your research, talked to a district that went through the process with positive results? We all hear the negative cases that get the press, but what about the success stories? Too often we get so passionate about gathering evidence and anecdotes to support our viewpoint, we never stop to examine the other side. So I'm wondering if you visited or spoke with a district that is happy with the decision, because I know they're out there.
|
|
killmcslevy
|
|
|
11-23-09 5:17 PM
|
Citizencane - One more example -- There has been no statement of the technological "goals" for a typical grade school classroom, and these would determine the scope of electrical upgrades. I think it's a given that the buildings need near 100% rewiring if one assumes "modern technology" such as interactive distance learning kiosks, "whiteboards" (has become a platitude of sorts for this whole discussion), etc. are to be included in EVERY room....but again, I have no idea of the proposed scope as it was never stated by the BOARD. That was the source of frustration....why couldn't they just say, "We propose an electrical and HVAC loading of 20KW per classroom, consisting of.....devices." Listening to the actual words, all we ever heard was that "old schools" don't support modern technology, as if we are to believe that an 80W smartboard could not operate from an existing 15A outlet. Just ridiculous.
|
|
killmcslevy
|
|
|
11-23-09 5:09 PM
|
Citizencane -- Sorry if my words are imprecise -- Let's consider security only for a moment...Since the BOARD has NEVER EVER given a roster of the specific security guidelines which presumably cannot be met by existing schools (but which we all know can be met with proper renovation), how can I propose to make specific renovation recommendations on just this aspect? Are we using biometrics, retinal scan, ID cards (that would seem like a joke for grade school kids - you'd have hundreds lost every day), turnstiles, weapons scanners (think airport security), WHAT? I don't think any details exist, so how can I, at this point in time, pretend to have a plan? I searched like crazy before the vote, and never found ONE DOCUMENT, either state or federal, which spelled out EXACTLY what security measures are recommended or mandated for a typical K-5 school (but which the Board readily claimed couldn't be met). I think my post about security solicited help in uncovering "rules" but t
|
|
Lizard
|
|
|
11-23-09 4:52 PM
|
Boxerman- the only way to do that is through state legislative action. Our only hope is to get John Kasich elected and try to get him interested in considering that avenue of change. Stuckland has not done as he promised to Constitutionalize the unfair school funding issue state wide so I know he would not be willing or able to change the county board issue.
|
|
boxerman
|
|
|
11-23-09 4:43 PM
|
what they should do is go back to one county school board than we would not need more levys.
|
|
citizencane
|
|
|
11-23-09 4:26 PM
|
KillMC---you say "On a personal basis, I'm not sure of the extent of renovations truly needed." So you expended all that time and energy extolling renovation over new construction, without even knowing the extent of renovation needed at Marietta?? If you want to take a lot of credit for the failure of the levy, then you should also take responsibility for being misleading. Your blog never stated you were "third person"---you gave the impression you supported renovation. I will be curious to see where you stand if one or more buildings is evaluated and found to be too expensive to properly renovate.
|
|
GOTOSCHOOL
|
|
|
11-23-09 4:14 PM
|
absolutely Indian...we all should jump in...
|
|
Lizard
|
|
|
11-23-09 3:26 PM
|
Unfortunately, if history is any predictor, I fear that the school board will direct the spending of the "held back" funds (over 1 million dollars according to Moberg) without any real overall plan or evaluation of how it would be best spent to avoid needing new buildings. If we assume, as we were shown by their efforts with the bond/levy issue, that they are not interested in really fixing and renovating the current schools, why would we think they would spend this money wisely to the benefit of the long-term viability of our existing structures??
|
|
killmcslevy
|
|
|
11-23-09 3:09 PM
|
We have enough excess classroom capacity to take buildings completely out-of-service for a period of time to perform a robust and cheaper renovation (cheaper because you're not working around students, or running a summer-only plan). Given the history of the middle school (former high school), I would think that renovation of that school should be fully endorsed and funded by OSFC, given the precedent of Edward Lee McClain High School. I'm taken aback that we don't already have that position on the table, but I suspect that members of the Board were unaware of the McClain precedent, or chose not to highlight the historical aspect of the school, since that would have involved some effort and research beyond just flinging out random bogus claims about why renovation is unworkable or too expensive. Validated research of facts and alternatives is going to be necessary to arrive at a correct path forward. The "flood plain" morass is probably the biggest challenge to address.
|
|
Indian
|
|
|
11-23-09 2:51 PM
|
Sounds like the expertise is here, alive and well. Please jump in at the next board meeting and pass on your information. I think we all need help in this area, and I am open to that.
|
|
SilenceDogood
|
|
|
11-23-09 2:47 PM
|
Not talking about pyramid schemes. Get folks who know how to evaluate buildings and their structure. Add an educator or two on what is needed inside the classroom. Also, a person or two who are considered tax watch dogs. Reachout to the public with 2 or 3 options on how to move forward and see what is they want from their schools and what they will support. Time to move back to square one and rethink the entire project and what it is that needs to be accomplished.
|
|
killmcslevy
|
|
|
11-23-09 2:33 PM
|
I wrangle, Jack wangles. We're only separated by a single "R".
|
|
killmcslevy
|
|
|
11-23-09 2:31 PM
|
Have some respect for creativity! Most folks doing MLM pyramid schemes just go with Avon or Amway...the vitamin supplement avenue is a non-traditional approach to wangle cash from the unsuspecting.
|
|
SilenceDogood
|
|
|
11-23-09 2:18 PM
|
I would agree that there are plenty of local folks with construction/building experience that could do an excellent job of reviewing the buildings and formulating a plan to move forward. They may even do this at little or no cost to the Board. That is why I think a panel or committee made up of local people to review what is actually needed to upgrade Marietta schools would be a better approach to gaining the trust of the voters instead of an outside firm that has a vested interest in the amount of money spent of the project. Greater money spent on the project would equal greater profits for those associated with the OSFC.
|
|
Lizard
|
|
|
11-23-09 1:55 PM
|
Does that mean, killmcslevy, then that we cannot accept any further information or opinions from Jack Moberg since he is unemployed and directly pays no taxes himself?
|
|
killmcslevy
|
|
|
11-23-09 1:50 PM
|
Incidentally, I am an electrical engineer, registered Ohio PE, which is one of the reasons why I was SO OFFENDED by the entire pro-levy presentation. Voters were treated like mushrooms, and I refuse to be a mushroom on issues that involve my pocketbook. When it became obvious I was being asked to get a 37 year note to provide union trades with jobs, plus fund the retirements of a cadre of OSFC lifers, I definitely went on the offensive. There are PLENTY of PE's right in Washington County, yet the Board found it necessary (at the 11'th hour as far as I can tell) to bring in Cleveland-based consultants to tell us what we need. We have all the construction, labor, architectural, engineering, and management expertise right here in the valley to carry out the necessary upgrades. Step ONE to obtaining my endorsement is to toss all the out-of-town consultants overboard, and have only people with "skin in the game" allocating the expenditure of taxpayer monies.
|
|
SilenceDogood
|
|
|
11-23-09 1:35 PM
|
killmcslevy...how about "outsidethebox" since that is where one should be looking now instead of to the Ohio School Facilities Commission.
|
|
SilenceDogood
|
|
|
11-23-09 1:31 PM
|
While I am not an electrial engineer, I would believe that most of the buildings are close to being maxed out electrically. Remember, the newest school is over 40 years old. New technology at that time was the electric typewriter. Harmar has appox 150 computers for 310 students, Phillips 160 for 390, Putnam 63 for 257, Washington 132 for 350, Marietta MS 265 for 670. Not sure of what the HS has for it's appox 1,000 students. Add in the fact that improved HVAC is needed, including air at all the buildings, upgrading the electrical entrance to all the schools would be a must. Additional security measures, a must in today's society, will need additional electric. Thermal imaging of the schools is a great idea. Most of the heat loss could be contained thru new windows and doors without insulating walls. These are things that need to be done before coming back to the voters.
|
|
killmcslevy
|
|
|
11-23-09 1:26 PM
|
Since I am not necessarily against all future levies, I will change my moniker going forward. Suggestions? Bloviator? Gasbag? Vacuumhead?
|
|
killmcslevy
|
|
|
11-23-09 1:19 PM
|
Regarding renovation, my blog was somewhat "third person" in that it espoused renovation in lieu of new construction because of the overwhelming data that points toward smaller schools (which we already have!), and also because of the SOLID data that renovation costs are substantially cheaper than what was being said by the pro-levy campaign...actual costs for a responsible, focused project are probably in the range of 25% of the numbers being mentioned by the pro-levy folks. On a personal basis, I'm not sure of the extent of renovations truly needed. For example, are electrical dist. upgrades needed for "modern technology"? Do the true heat-loss numbers (I plan to get a thermal imaging system to assess this and put all the trash-talking to rest, once and for all) support exterior wall insulation additions? What are the architectural ramifications of required safety/security measures (unstated by Board)? etc....thus, my personal viewpoint is uncertain.
|
|
SilenceDogood
|
|
|
11-23-09 1:11 PM
|
At the end of the 5 years, evaluate what you have done and ask for it to be renewed for another 5 years and continue with the other buildings. This will take longer to accomplish, but in the end it could be more cost effective. You would have total control of the project vs the loss of control if the Ohio School Facilities Commisson is involved. Plus, it is apparent that the voters like the 4 smaller elementary schools vs 1 large one. Time to re-evaluate the issue with some kind of community panel that gives the Board new direction as to what the town wants and will support.
|
|
SilenceDogood
|
|
|
11-23-09 1:07 PM
|
While I would have liked to have seen the Bond Issue pass, the vote count shows that the people of the Marietta school district were resoundingly against the issue in it's current format. However, the idea of updating and improving both education and facilities in Marietta should not be abandoned. I would suggest a new issue, one that is totally funded with local tax dollars and would not include the Ohio School Facilites Commission. A new temporary improvement levy that would generate somewhere in the neighborhood of $1 million a year for 5 years. The Board should make it a priority to renovate the 4 elementary schools first. Replace old window and doors, upgrade the electrical entrance to these buildings to support up to date HVAC and the growing need for more technology in the classroom. While this dollar amount may not do all 4 schools in the 5 years, it would be a start.
|
|
Lizard
|
|
|
11-23-09 1:06 PM
|
That's the best kind of question, Indian. I would like to see a concerted effort by the school board to reach out to the community and possibly Marietta College to seek educated and experienced input into how to change the culture of education within the current buildings we have. The school board has withheld over a million dollars, as admitted to by Jack Moberg after the vote, which was to be used for repairs and renovations to the existing schools. That money should go a long way to help, in addition to further funds received from the PI levy we are all paying. (The board should be accountable for their actions in holding this money back improperly, in my opinion!) Marietta College, as well as WSCC, has resources that the city schools don't have in approaching a realistic community problem like this. It may involve some unusual or creative classroom as well as employment issues. Can the board change any union demands which affect teacher performance in the classroom? etc...
|