On Campus

About On Campus

Dave Larsen writes about higher education.

August 2008

RSS Syndication

XML On Campus
XML More 'DDN' feeds

More recent entries

• The "ABC'S" of backpack use
• Sinclair partners with Ohio University
• Ohio State-Michigan ranks among top college rivalries
• Reserved RV parking available for OSU football season
• U.S. Department of Education rep reminisces at Wright State
• Wright State University gets grant for special education teacher training
• International students to cheer on Olympics at UD
• UD Law School listed among nation's most Mormon-friendly schools
• Sinclair to hold aviation open house
• Columbine survivor to speak at Wittenberg
• More entries...

Archives

• August 12, 2008
• August 11, 2008
• August 6, 2008
• August 5, 2008
• August 4, 2008
• July 30, 2008
• July 29, 2008
• More archives...

Home > Blogs > On Campus > Archives > 2008 > March > 05 > Entry

Analysis: Sinclair levy squeaks out a winner

By Stephanie Irwin Gottschlich | Wednesday, March 5, 2008, 01:02 AM

(Sinclair President Steve Johnson with his wife, Tonya, looking pretty exhausted and relieved at the post-election party Tuesday night on campus. Dayton Daily News photo.)

With the largest campaign in Montgomery County behind it — one that includes 17 campaign co-chairs, $794,183 in donations and endorsements from at least 93 local groups — Issue 39, the 3.2-mill levy for Sinclair Community College, barely met with voters’ approval Tuesday, March 4.

Final, unofficial results from the board of elections shows Sinclair’s win squeaked by with 52.39 percent of voters approving it compared with 47.61 percent of voters rejecting it.

After an extensive advertising campaign (about $350,000 spent by Feb. 21) that included television and radio ads, personal appearances and 50,000 phone calls to Montgomery County voters, the levy passed with a smaller margin than its last levy in 1998, when voters approved that 2.5-mill levy at 73 percent. Voter turnout this election compared to that election was about the same: 47 percent of registered voters in Montgomery County cast ballots in both elections, so clearly the levy had less support this time around.

Keep reading to find out what may have caused the drop in support, and to learn what Sinclair plans to do with the extra money it will get as a result of the new levy.

Sinclair officials weren’t surprised last night at the narrow win. The approval rate was consistent with what Cleveland-based political consultant Bill Burges expected, he said after calling the election a win with 97 percent of votes counted. As the levy campaign’s political consultant, he’s been nervous for a year, he said. He thinks the recent news in the last few weeks before the primary about an impending economic recession may have caused some voters to think twice about increasing their property taxes.

“This is the worst economic environment we’ve been in probably since the Rust Belt recession in 1979 to 1983,” he said. “I knew [Sinclair] was going to need every bit of effort they went through to get it passed. Considering recent economic news, this very, very good.”

The 10-year, 3.2-mill property tax levy that passed Tuesday will replace the 1998 levy, costing Montgomery County homeowners $98 a year for every $100,000 in current property value, a $42 increase over the amount homeowners currently pay. The new tax will be collected beginning in 2009.

With the new levy bringing in slightly less than $32 million beginning in 2009, a $12 million increase over the amount its current 2.5-mill levy brings in from Montgomery County homeowners, Sinclair will be able to grow programs to meet the area’s work force development needs, said Sinclair President Steven Lee Johnson on Tuesday night. Johnson and about 150 Sinclair employees and supporters celebrated the win at an on-campus party.

“We know there is a strong demand for nursing programs and other work force development needs, and these are very expensive programs,” Johnson said.

Sinclair will also be able to weather increased enrollment expected as part of Gov. Ted Strickland’s 10-year plan to increase the number of Ohioans with degrees by 230,000. With more than a fifth of its students receiving federal Pell grants — and indicator of a low-income student population — Sinclair says it’s important its tuition stays low for students who otherwise couldn’t afford college.

The levy helps buy down tuition for county residents, Sinclair says. Of the $20 million or so it was getting from its 1998 levy (which expires at the end of the year), about $11 million went directly to subsidizing Montgomery County tuition. The rest of it is spent on operations, scholarships and facilities, Sinclair said.

At $45 per credit hour, Sinclair’s tuition (for Montgomery residents - others pay $73.50) is about $13 lower than the average tuition for other Ohio community colleges with property tax levies. Six other community colleges in Ohio are supported by local tax levies, providing 10-35 percent of their income, according to data at the Ohio Board of Regents. About 70 percent of students taking at least one class at Sinclair are from Montgomery County.

Some readers have emailed me, called me, or posted comments on this blog suggesting Sinclair should raise its tuition a little to increase its revenue rather than go to voters for a new property tax. In the last 10 years, over the course of the last levy, tuition (in real dollars) has only increased about $5 per credit hour. Something to remember: Sinclair, at least for the next year, cannot raise tuition because of a state-mandated tuition freeze. Raise tuition, and it could price many of students out of an education.

And while its share of state support has steadily decreased, it does have that $14.4 million cash reserve (which a board of trustees mandate says it must preserve) that is a major sticking point with some readers, and zero debt (most institutions have debt on their facilities). Sinclair’s President Steve Johnson said before the levy that it wasn’t asking for an emergency bailout, which is usually the case we hear in this area. It’s financially stable, he said, but despite that the 3.2 mills it asked for will barely help it meet its projected budget over the next 10 years. In fact, there may be a slight shortfall. What it really needed, Johnson said, was 3.7 mills to meet its needs. But they knew voters would not support that.

Given all this information, should Sinclair start looking for other alternatives to meet its needs?

Permalink | Comments (21) | Categories: Sinclair Community College