Milford - Miami Twp Eagle Eye

Milford - Miami Twp Eagle Eye Milford-Miami Twp Eagle Eye is a page for Residents of our community to find information, discussion

Chris Hicks is not wrong.https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=656185926702176&id=100069323225015&mibextid=2JQ9oc
11/02/2023

Chris Hicks is not wrong.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=656185926702176&id=100069323225015&mibextid=2JQ9oc

Milford Schools is wanting MORE money. Funny, when looking at their past horrible financial stewardship. In 2019 they settled for $50k a year from FC Cincinnati in lieu of taxes on the FC site. The taxes would have been something like $1m with about $650k per year going to the schools.
👉MEVSD easily could have held out for 1/2 of that ($325k per year) and still been supporting a big incentive to FC.

BTW, the FC Milford location is a fail. I cannot find any reference to joint MEVSD / FC events there on the Milford Schools page. Maybe it happens but between $650k and $325k worth?
👉If I lived in this district, I would not give them one cent more until they clean up their act.

Why an Emergency Levy?This question has been asked many times on social media.The short answer is that the board members...
10/02/2023

Why an Emergency Levy?

This question has been asked many times on social media.

The short answer is that the board members who wanted to pass a permanent levy at the April BOE meeting did not have the four votes needed to pass it. The two dissenting board members wanted the administration to find additional cuts, reducing the size of the levy. Even though there was no rush to vote on the levy that night, three board members passed an "emergency" levy, overriding the other two members.

This should have been a regular operating levy and not an emergency levy. The State Auditor CAN place a school district in fiscal watch/caution/or emergency, and compel a district to place an emergency levy on the ballot, but this is NOT what happened here. The State Auditor's office is not involved at all. The District declared that the emergency levy is needed to -Prevent- going into deficit. A District does not even have to prove they are in deficit spending, only say that they will be some time in the future, and it does not have to meet a certain dollar criteria.

The district has stated that if it doesn't pass, then $2 million worth of 'permanent cuts' will be made and voters will have to pass a "larger levy" next year. So why not "save money by passing it now"?

BUT... going the emergency levy route (an emergency levy being a levy for a limited time and specific dollar amount), voters will have to pass a renewal with an increase - a larger levy - in 3 years anyway, even if there are no 'permanent cuts'. Voters should understand that this emergency levy expires in five years, and will need to be replaced in 3 years by a regular/replacement/permanent levy that will be larger in millage, and will be ongoing.

Two seats are up for grabs in November's election for Milford's Board of Education. The paperwork needs to be submitted...
07/17/2023

Two seats are up for grabs in November's election for Milford's Board of Education. The paperwork needs to be submitted to the Clermont County's Board of Election by 4 pm on Wednesday, August 9th.

Property taxes will significantly increase next year.
04/19/2023

Property taxes will significantly increase next year.

Some homeowners in Ohio could soon see a drastic change to their property value, which may have an impact on their future property taxes.

Written by a local resident:In the past few weeks, I've watched BOE monthly meetings and a work meeting, and Mr. Espy's ...
03/31/2023

Written by a local resident:

In the past few weeks, I've watched BOE monthly meetings and a work meeting, and Mr. Espy's Money Matters meeting. The main topic of conversation has been our district's financial outlook and the need for an operational levy.

The financial downward spiral is a problem for other districts too. See Mr. Espy's chart below.

At Monday's work meeting, board member Melissa Nolan addressed our district's largest expense - salaries and benefits. Since 2013, salaries and benefits have increased 52%. Staffing has increased 3.7%. Yet student enrollment has remained flat.

On a side note, while student enrollment is currently flat, there's a possibility that it will drop in 18 months. There is a bill (HB-11 aka The Backpack Bill) being considered by our state legislature that, if it passes, will give parents the option to have their children attend private school or be homeschooled, and the state's share of funding will follow the student. There are no income restrictions. And it would go into effect for the 2024/2025 school year.

At the work meeting, board member Jerry Combs highlighted some of the benefits the school district offers that are above state minimum.
- The district fully funds an HSA (Health Savings Account) for all 827 full time employees at $3,600 a year. This benefit costs the district 3M per year.
(To put this in perspective, private employers' average annual contribution for HSAs is around $600 for individuals and $1,250 for family plans.)
- The state minimum for sick leave accrual is 120 days, we offer almost twice that. Our sick leave payout (days they can cash in when they leave) is 58 days. The state recommendation is 30 days. Our cost of sick leave accrual and sick leave payout above the state minimum is 1.2M per year.
- We fund STRS (State Teachers Retirement System) at 14%. We fund SRS (School Retirement System) (for other school employees) at 10%. We fund retirement for Administrators from 24% to 28%.
- Thirty-five administrators have "Pick-up on Pick-up", which means that we pay their share of retirement contributions to SRS, and that amount is also included in the member's salary for SRS retirement purposes. Pick-up on Pick-up is above the state mandated retirement funding. This costs the district 580K per year. During the state audit in 2008, the state recommended that our district eliminate the Pick-up on Pick-up.

Board member Combs believes that every dollar above state minimums should be on the table. He acknowledged that some of these benefits are included in the union contracts and cannot be negotiated until the contracts expire. Mr. Espy stated that the classified contract expires in 2024, and the teacher's contract expires in 2026.
Board member Nolan expressed her concern that they are asking taxpayers to fund benefits that most taxpayers don't receive themselves. Board members Emily C and Emily M, and Superintendent Speiser, are concerned that if we reduce benefits, some employees may leave and go elsewhere.

In conclusion, only see four possible solutions. 1) The district makes no significant changes, and residents dutifully comply with what the district asks. We continue to pay permanent operating levies every three years, until we can no longer afford to live in our homes. 2) Cut expenses by reducing above state mandated benefits, and renegotiate the contracts for personnel and services as they expire. With this option, we would still need a levy, but possibly one that isn't as large. 3) Vote in an Earned Income Tax. Revenue would increase as wages increase, so new levies wouldn't be needed. This option will also assure that seniors on a fixed income are protected. Or 4) Reject the levies, and the state will have to provide oversight. When the state ends up having to manage many districts, they will be forced to change the way they fund schools.

Written by a member of the community.Four years ago, our school district placed a huge bond on the ballot. The 98M bond...
03/10/2023

Written by a member of the community.

Four years ago, our school district placed a huge bond on the ballot. The 98M bond was to be utilized for a new junior high, high school maintenance and remodeling, a new auditorium, and athletics. Residents voted, and the bond was soundly defeated.

Starting back at square one, and wanting to pass a much needed bond, district leaders chose to engage residents by forming a Community Advisory Team, the former superintendent held coffee chats and town halls, and the school board hired Clout Research to survey voters in our district. They were interested in knowing why the bond failed.

Results of those surveyed was that support for a new auditorium was low, and support for rebuilding/reconfiguring athletic facilities was similarly low.

And it appeared that they listened. In 2021, a smaller bond for 55.9 was placed on the ballot for the construction of a new junior high and for site circulation. Milford Schools also secured 11.6M in co-funding from the OFCC. No funds were allocated to the auditorium or athletics.

In the past few years, the Athletics Boosters raised money to pay for new artificial turf. According to former board member's Andrea Brady's blog, "The installation of this artificial turf is 100% privately funded, and it will not cost taxpayers a penny." Milford schools also partnered with Cullen Electric to upgrade the athletic facilities and structure improvements at Eagle Stadium and Lucas Field.

Last year, a generous alumni also donated 100K for improvements and renovations to the auditorium.

Kudos to all those involved in securing private and corporate funds for the auditorium and athletics because taxpayers certainly don't want to pay for it.

Three weeks ago, I watched the school board meeting, and Mr. Epsy (our new treasurer) made a Powerpoint presentation. They're already 9.5M over budget on the new junior high construction. They're using 2.6M in the general fund to either remodel (or build) the auditorium. And they're purchasing new bleachers for the football field for 1.8M. What happened to acknowledging that taxpayers don't want to pay for this? Make no mistake. If it comes out of our district's general funds, it's coming out of our pocket. Why don't they seek donations from a big business like FC Cincinnati? After all, with the sweet deal that was approved by our former board members, they're saving 500K a year on property taxes that they should have been paying the school district.

The current wrestling building is being displaced when the new junior high is built. The cost to replace the wrestling building/field house is 12.5M. The replacement cost was included in the 2019 bond. Shouldn't it have been part of the 2021 bond, too? In order to pay for it, they're securing a bank loan for 10M. The terms are 1M per year for 15 years. We're paying 15M on the bank loan - 5M in just interest.

According to Mr. Epsy, "As we look at the major item, the largest single item that's affecting the forecast is capital projects." So basically, capital expenditures are helping to deplete the general fund.

Let's add this up – 55.9M for the 2021 bond + 11.6M OFCC contribution + 9.5M already over budget (and the build hasn't even started) + 2.6M for the auditorium + 1.8M for athletic bleachers + 12.5M for two field houses = 93.9M. And, if you add the 5M in interest for the bank loan, the total is 98.9M. That's certainly within the range of the bond that was rejected by voters in 2019.

What we didn't want to pay for, and wasn't included in the 2021 bond, is now being paid out of the general fund. We were duped.

10/23/2021

Our group has chosen to halt comments on our posts on our group page only. We did this because of constant harassment and bullying comments from a "Yes for Milford" member. We always share our posts in open Milford Facebook groups so everyone has the ability to comment and discuss.

10/23/2021

Another post by a local resident about the school bond and how our schools are funded (or not funded though poor choices): Over 60% of our property tax dollars is distributed to the Milford school district. All property owners pay property taxes, including businesses. Some communities offer tax abatements to promote economic development and create jobs. Tax abatements are basically a property tax break for a limited amount of time. The more businesses move into our area, the better off we are. They not only bring in jobs, but they also bring in more tax revenue. Our school district benefits through the property tax revenue. Although I may not personally agree with every parcel of vacant land being developed, it does bring in more property tax revenue.
A parcel of vacant land only brings in a fraction of what that parcel brings in with a house or a business on it. Our property taxes are based on the assessed value of the land + the building. School districts like Mason have nice things and new school buildings because they have a large business base. Our school district had a chance to receive approximately 550K per year from the property taxes on the FC Cincinnati practice facility, and they rejected it. Instead, they agreed on 50K per year in lieu of taxes. That's only 18K per year more than the district received from the prior owner of the property.
Why did this happen? According to what I've read, our elected officials wanted the facility here. This facility is not only a training facility for a professional soccer team, but they also host youth soccer clubs and youth camps. City officials thought it would bring in more people to Milford, who would stay, shop and dine here. And new businesses, restaurants and hotels would open, bringing in more tax revenue and jobs to our area.
How they did it is complicated. The two former softball fields were purchased by the Clermont County Port Authority. Then the property is leased to FC Cincinnati for $1. The Port Authority also issued bonds to pay for the 35M training facility. FC Cincinnati agreed to buy back the bonds. The debt service for the land purchase will come from the implementation of an additional 1% lodging tax. Clermont County Convention & Visitors Bureau made the projections of the lodging tax that would be collected, and the City of Milford agreed to have their residents make up the difference, if the lodging tax collected comes under the projections.
Documents obtained by Cincinnati Enquirer, "show that the revenue generated from the additional tax falls short of the full amount needed by Milford for full debt service." "The 1 percent lodging tax is estimated by the visitor's bureau to bring in nearly $224,000 annually. Debt service, according to the documents, is projected to be nearly $270,000. Milford tax-payers will be on the hook for the remaining annual balance of $43,000 to $47,000."
To me, this sounds like a shell game so that taxpayers would pay for the property and the 35M facility, while FC Cincinnati had no cash outlay, and would never be burdened with ever-increasing property taxes. FC Cincinnati made a deal with the City of Milford and our BOE to avert paying property taxes for the assessed value of the 35M facility and property for the long term. It was a bad deal for the residents of the City of Milford, and a bad deal for the residents of the Milford school district.
How did FC Cincinnati get this sweet deal? The CVB (Clermont County Convention & Visitors Bureau) board was involved in negotiations with the City of Milford and the Port Authority as far back as February of 2018. There were back room meetings with the mayor of the City of Milford and the city council, and with the members of the Milford Board of Education. Rachel Richardson (a freelance journalist and administrator of the Neighborhood group) sued the City of Milford and our school board for the back room deals, and both settled.
Chris Hamm (a member of the BOE, and who is up for re-election) was also the head of the Port Authority until they reached the deal with FC Cincinnati. Soon after the Port Authority signed the deal with FC Cincinnati, he resigned from the board of the Port Authority. He was also on the Convention & Visitors Bureau board, and was the former Director of the Chamber of Commerce.
Andrea Brady (another BOE member) also worked at the Chamber of Commerce, and is now their director. Ed Brady, Andrea's husband, served on the City Council when the deal was made with FC Cincinnati. He served two terms on the City Council until his term ended in 2020.
Both Chris Hamm and Andrea Brady were on our Board of Education when the board reached the deal with FC Cincinnati. Chris Hamm was knee-deep in the FC Cincinnati deal. He's currently the president of the Board of Education, and now is running for re-election. We would have had more than enough money for a new middle school if our BOE had been more mindful of our district's needs, before that of wealthy investors.

10/17/2021

A great post by a local resident about moving the 6th grade in to the middle school: Moving the sixth grade is a huge strike against this bond. It’s the main reason some of us feel forced to vote NO. It is actually a terrible disservice to our children. Here’s why…
A large body of research says sixth grade children do better in elementary school settings. It is really simple. Sixth grade children, some as young as ten years old, are just not suited for learning in a mini-high school format. While I’m sure there are some exceptions, when making a choice for the masses of children on what is the best placement for this grade, it is going to have to be the elementary school. Researchers at Harvard, Duke, Columbia, Southern California, to name a few, have all concluded through careful study that elementary schools are where sixth grade kids do best. Movement to Middle School settings results in lower average test scores (that can signal permanent educational losses), more behavioral problems, and social emotional issues, right at the time when these students are sitting at an important crossroads in their human development – moving from childhood to adolescence. This is a time when they are vulnerable and need more support. The elementary school setting gives them that. Also important is that there is a lack of evidence to suggest otherwise. While the district insists this is best for the kids, they cannot point you to the proof. Instead, they cite logistics issues in connecting students with opportunities. Moving the sixth graders might be easier for the administration. It is not better for the students.
You list several reasons why sixth graders belong in a Middle School. The first is that it creates opportunities. In fact, the district creates these opportunities for the students. Teachers have been tasked with differentiation based on individual student ability and interest for decades. Providing opportunities to move through content more quickly or more slowly has never been easier given advances in technology and digital options. It is happening in our schools today. And moving them to a new building will not magically create new options. It is all about what the district chooses to offer and support. Advanced / honors math sounds great, but again, the district can and does offer this now to sixth graders. And STEM opportunities….these should be happening now at the elementary schools if they are not already. No excuses – it is the job of the schools to teach appropriate contact and provide appropriate opportunities in every school building. Moving the sixth graders might make this easier for the district logistically, but it is not better for the students.
As far as participation in band, that is another misunderstanding I think. Sixth graders currently have the opportunity to participate in band. I think that is great. My kids did it. In fact, I was a Milford band student as well! But to make issue of the fact that some kids can’t participate because it takes place before school makes me wonder if there is a good understanding of what this activity entails. Participating in band at Milford is not the same as taking a music class. Band is a big commitment for the entire family. Band parents are required to get their students to practices, rehearsals, and events. Drop off times can be wee hours of the mornings and pick up times can be middle of the night. They will be pressed to take their kids to private lessons. They will have to get their kids to summer events in the middle of the day, and daily practices toward the end of summer. All this on top of expensive instruments and maintenance, fees for lessons, events, travel, uniform items. This…for year after year after year. Band is a serious thing at Milford. To suggest that moving it to the regular school day would somehow make it like any other class and accessible for everyone, is simply not accurate.
Your third point, curriculum guideline groupings is something the district has tried to make an issue. I have been shocked to hear them say it because I know they are aware of how curriculum works in our state. Every district chooses and uses the curriculum they want. The state does not dictate these things. Ohio Dept. of Education (ODE) provides standards (what students should know and be able to do) by grade. Districts need to use a curriculum that addresses the standards. Milford has many pieces of curriculum. They do not go K – 5 and then 6. Not at all. Some are K – 12. Some are just one grade level. There is everything in between depending on the subject matter. Throughout the ODE website, standards and curriculum are discussed in terms of a variety of groupings. One of these is 6 -8. There is also K – 6 and others. Certainly there is NOTHING in these informational pieces that suggests or guides grade level arrangements in buildings.
As for the last point, freeing up space in our elementary schools is not a priority. These schools are not overcrowded. The student population has been flat for over a decade and is predicted to fall according to the OFCC. These spaces were built for our sixth graders as recently as five years ago.
Twenty years ago our community committed to a plan to provide better educational settings for our kids. We fought and won to have neighborhood schools for our K – sixth graders because we knew that was best. We have supported that plan through the building of six new elementary schools and a massive addition to the high school. The plan included an addition to the Jr High for seventh and eighth grade. Why the sudden change? We knew what we wanted. We have supported it. We will be paying for it all for many years into the future. We have done our part as a community. Let’s finish what we started. Let’s vote NO and ask for a better plan for the Jr. High – one that does not misplace our sixth graders

Something to consider when voting on a bond. A local resident asks some good questions: My topic today is the wording ...
10/16/2021

Something to consider when voting on a bond. A local resident asks some good questions: My topic today is the wording on the ballot. We've been told over and over that this is a bond for the new junior high building. No athletic facilities. No auditorium. No renovations. See attachments 1,2, & 3. Believe what's written on the ballot, not what they're saying. The wording of the bond says otherwise.

10/10/2021

Today we are sharing a post about the Success Academy from a local resident:
Let's talk about Success Academy today. Success students are high school students (grades 9-12) who are more successful completing their high school courses online, rather than in a conventional classroom setting.
Success Academy was housed in one of the modular building next to the junior high school until last year. In 2020, they were moved to the PreK building on Business 28.
According to my youngest daughter, her friend (who was a student at Success) said that most students were not happy about this relocation. These high school students now share a school building with the PreK students. In my opinion, Success students should be in the high school. They are high school students that can't participate in JROTC, sports, band or choir. They already felt ostracized and segregated from their friends and peers. I don't think they should've been moved to the PreK building. I also disagree with moving them to the new junior high building, where they don't belong. And here's the clincher: their plan is to move the Success students to the new junior high building.
The new junior high will be built to house 1,600 students. There are already 1,008 7th & 8th graders, and approximately 500 6th graders. According to Superintendent Speiser, who spoke at the June 16th BOE work session, there are currently 50 to 75 students at Success (I don't know why he didn't provide the exact amount of students). Their plan is to add more students next year, so that there will be 100 to 125 students enrolled at Success. This means that the new building will be at capacity before even opening its doors.

In the BOE work session, Superintendent Speiser said that they plan to change the name of Success to "The Academy", they will request an IRN, and make The Academy" a stand-alone school. The assistant principal will become the principal of "The Academy" (and I'm sure his salary will match his new title). There are likely many reasons to justify that Success should be separated and become a stand-alone school. One that immediately came to my mind is that this change will likely affect the high school percentages, rankings, and enrollment numbers. The high school's rankings have fallen in the past few years. If you eliminate low performing students, the percentages will improve, and you'll move up in the state and national rankings.

Another post by a local resident regarding the Milford school bond: Let's discuss other expenses. 6M for site circulati...
10/09/2021

Another post by a local resident regarding the Milford school bond: Let's discuss other expenses. 6M for site circulation and 850K to raze the current junior high building. The OFCC is contributing $454,725.29 towards site safety. OFCC is contributing towards the 7th & 8th grade portion. If they are contributing 27%, the cost for site circulation for 7th & 8th grade, is $1,684,167. If you add half of that amount for 6th grade (based on 500 students per grade, 6th grade is â…“ of the student population), the total for site circulation for the junior high should be approx. $2,526,250. Since we've been told over and over that this a clean bond for the junior high, I questioned why 6M, and whether the number was padded. Wendy Patlicka answered, "We are not padding the numbers. We received three estimates and the average of all three is the $6 million. OFCC calls it "site safety" and we're calling it "site circulation" so it's easier understood. It includes a lot more than just plopping down a road (for lack of a better phrase!). Site circulation for the new middle school does not just include the middle school site - because they share the campus it is for site circulation for BOTH buildings." So, since the current plan is to build the new junior high adjacent to the high school, we're also paying for site circulation for the high school. See attachments for clarity. The first photo is from Google Earth as it appears now. The second is SHP's rendition of the campus. This rendition was created around 2018. This is just one more reason to build the junior high where originally planned - behind the current building. We'd save money by not redoing the site circulation for the high school too. According to Jeff Johnson (in the BOE work session of June 16, 2021), two years ago they received two estimates - one came in at 7.5M and the other at 5M. More recently, they got a third estimate for 6M. Would they be able to negotiate those numbers down? I called Brian Rabe over a week ago because I'd like to know who the firms are that gave the estimates, and what were the parameters that our district gave them. I haven't heard back from Brian Rabe yet. According to Jeff Johnson, their biggest concern is separating bus and vehicular traffic, and pedestrians. So they want to improve the flow of traffic? There will be an additional 500 students, more buses and more parents dropping them off and picking them up, with only two entrances, no traffic light, or an officer directing traffic on 131. Traffic on both 131 and Wolfpen will continue to be a mess. Let's compare our campus to another school in our district - Live Oaks. They have an officer directing traffic every afternoon. With a law enforcement officer directing traffic, they clear out their parking lot and buses quickly in an orderly fashion. Live Oaks is going through a 38M renovation and expansion, with no need to ask for a bond. And they're addressing the traffic logjam at their exit, by adding another entrance/exit on 28. On the topic of razing the current junior high for 850K. Milford Main cost 360K to raze in 2016. The two story PreK building will be razed for 350K. Why is the current junior high building costing 850K, half a million more than the PreK?

Another great post from a local resident about the Milford school bond issue: Let's discuss square footage today. Costs...
10/03/2021

Another great post from a local resident about the Milford school bond issue:
Let's discuss square footage today. Costs will be discussed separately. The reason I want to discuss square footage first, is that square footage determines the cost.

Superintendent Speiser has given us preliminary numbers of a 217,600 square foot building for 1,600 students. During the June Q&A, I asked, "If there are currently 1,008 7th and 8th graders, and the plan includes moving the 6th graders into the new building, wouldn't a new building with a capacity of only 1,600 students be very close to the current numbers, and not planning for future growth?" Superintendent Speiser replied, "In the lower grade levels we are averaging 465-500 students per grade level. This has remained consistent for many years. We are confident with the 1,600 number." And I followed with, "That only leaves approx 100 openings for the next 30 years." The reason I mentioned 30 years, was that it would be the life of the proposed bond, and I don't think they should ask for another bond to expand the school while the bond is open.

We've established that they believe that a new building with a capacity of 1,600 is adequate now, and for the future.

Superintendent Speiser provided the preliminary attachment (see attachment #1). It has also been posted in the Milford Schools website, under the Facilities Planning tab, on the Facilities Presentation (highlighted) made to the BOE at their June 21 work session.

One of the things that residents requested of the school district for a new bond, was OFCC co-funding, and oversight. In this proposed bond, the OFCC has committed to fund 27% of the costs for a new junior high for 7th and 8th grade students. Since OFCC already contributed towards 6th grade through our neighborhood elementary schools, they will not co-fund the 6th grade portion of the new middle school.

As I mentioned in another post, I was not on the CAT. But, I have access to their handouts. One of the handouts refers to the OFCC square footage recommendations for a middle school. It's titled, "Master Plan Options", "Documents/Planning Information from OFCC". The header is "Middle School Square Foot Allowance", "Chapter 2, Bracketing". Their square foot recommended for a 1,600 student middle school is between 119-128 square feet per student. If we use the higher number of 128 square feet × 1,600 students = 204,800 square feet. Superintendent Speiser's preliminary number is 217,600. A difference of 12,800.

So, why do we need 12,800 square feet more? When asked, Wendy Patlicka stated, "We do not know where the 217,600 square feet came from as was in the comments." I also posed the same question to Susan Abt (she's on the Yes for Milford committee) on a post in the Neighborhood group over a week ago. And I haven't received an answer yet. I think we need to understand the difference between what OFCC recommends, and what our school district is asking.

Address

Terrace Park, OH

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Milford - Miami Twp Eagle Eye posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Milford - Miami Twp Eagle Eye:

Shortcuts

Share

Category