To the editor,
It is a giant leap to assume that voters who reject a school levy “don’t care about education.” Often we are saying we would like other thoughts considered. Those thoughts may include pared down options or another way of solving the perceived issues.
I attribute my successful career to my BBA from the University of Toledo and a lot of hard work! I value education and have supported Perrysburg Schools in the past as is the case with most people in Perrysburg. I have no axe to grind, I simply want the best plan for students that the taxpayers can afford.
Many thanks to the people who served on the Facilities Planning Committee but they represent a tiny fraction of the school district. Input from the entire school district is a key component when creating a twenty year plan yet our input has not been solicited. If the community wants one or two high schools, that would then determine other building needs and where they need to be located.
My preference is to create a system that requires builders to partially subsidize the schools based on the impact the development has on the schools. Impact fees are illegal in the state of Ohio, however, are there other options that could be used? Long term, should we promote changing the law to allow impact fees?
Other concerns include: How did we acquire $60 million in deferred maintenance? Will the incremental levy that expires this year be renewed or increased?
Terry Kuhn
Perrysburg
