by Pamela Leist | Jan 14, 2016 | Board Policy & Representation, Construction & Real Estate, School Finance, School Management
On December 30th, 2015, the Ohio Supreme Court unanimously declared that real property owned by a public school district board of education is tax exempt regardless of whether it is currently used for school purposes. Ennis Britton Shareholder Gary Stedronsky represented the Talawanda City School District Board of Education at all levels of appeal, including before the Supreme Court.
The case involved a provision in Ohio law that generally exempts real property owned by a public school district from property taxes, which is codified in Ohio Revised Code section 3313.44. In this case, the Talawanda City School District Board of Education (the “Board”) purchased 154 acres of land to build a new high school. A portion of this land was not needed for the high school and was leased by the Board to a farmer.
In January of 2010, the Board filed an application to exempt all 154 acres from real property taxes. The Tax Commissioner approved the exemption application for all but the portion of the land that was leased to the farmer. The Tax Commissioner concluded that the pecuniary benefit realized by the farmer disqualified the land from tax exemption because the property was not being used for school purposes.
The Board appealed the Tax Commissioner’s decision to the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA”), which affirmed the Tax Commissioner’s decision. The Board further appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether the BTA decision was supported by the language in Ohio Revised Code section 3313.44. The applicable version of section 3313.44 simply states: “Real or personal property owned by or leased to any board of education for a lease term of at least fifty years shall be exempt from taxation.” The Board argued that this statute requires that a board of education merely own real property in order for it to qualify for tax exemption. In other words, there is no requirement in the statute that the property must be used for school purposes in order for the tax exemption to apply.
The Ohio Supreme Court agreed with the Board’s argument and concluded that the property that was leased to the farmer was exempt from taxation regardless of the specific use of the property. The Supreme Court acknowledged that past interpretations by the Tax Commissioner may have correctly interpreted an implied use restriction in the prior version of the statute. However, the Court recognized that the General Assembly chose not to include such a restriction when the statute was amended in 2010 even though it had authority to do so. Therefore, the Court held that the statute does not include an implied use restriction and the Board’s property is entitled to tax exemption even though it was leased to a farmer.
The Court also dismissed the Tax Commissioner’s argument that the Board’s request for tax exemption must be denied on grounds that the Board overstepped its legislative authority by leasing the land to a farmer for a commercial purpose. The Court held that a Board of Education’s property is entitled to tax exemption as long as it meets the conditions of the exemption statute in Ohio Revised Code section 3313.44, which merely requires ownership.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court decision clarifies that a board of education is entitled to a property tax exemption for all real property owned by the board of education regardless of how the property is currently being used. This decision is very favorable to school districts and will be used in the future to support applications for tax exemptions.
Talawanda City School District Board of Edu. v. Testa, Tax Commissioner (Ohio 2015), Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-5450.
by Pamela Leist | Nov 3, 2015 | Board Policy & Representation, General, School Management
The Ohio Attorney General’s office recently issued an opinion that concluded a deputy sheriff who is employed in classified service may simultaneously serve as a member of a city or local school district board of education with a few limitations. The opinion was released on October 27th, 2015. The question of law turned on an interpretation of Ohio Revised Code §124.57(A), which states that an officer or employee in the classified service of the state or a public municipality is prohibited from 1) receiving any contribution for a political party or candidate for public office; 2) being an officer in any political party; or 3) taking part in politics other than to vote.
In analyzing the issue, the drafter of the opinion relied on a seven-question test to determine whether the two public positions were compatible. The test includes the following:
1. Is either of the positions considered classified employment within the terms of R.C. §124.57?
2. Do the empowering statutes of either position limit employment in another public position or the holding of another public office?
3. Is one position subordinate to, or in any way a check upon the other?
4. Is it physically possible for one person to discharge the duties of both positions?
5. Is there an impermissible conflict of interest between the two positions?
6. Are there local charter provisions, resolutions, or ordinances which are controlling?
7. Is there a federal, state, or local departmental regulation applicable?
The first question about whether a deputy sheriff serves as classified staff was answered in the affirmative, unless the deputy is assigned special duties which alter his or her status as a classified employee. In analyzing the second question, since a board of education member is elected in a nonpartisan election, and no other laws expressly prohibit a sheriff from serving as a board member or vice versa, the Attorney General opined that a deputy sheriff may lawfully run for the position subject to a few limitations discussed more fully below. And, in review of the third question, the opinion concluded that the deputy’s position in particular was not really subordinate to the board of education even when that deputy served as the district’s DARE officer, since the county sheriff and not the board generally determined specific duties and assignments. The opinion quickly dispensed with any concerns about whether an individual could physically perform the duties of both jobs under the fourth question, again affirming there was no issue as long as the deputy was able to serve on the board through use of leave or some other means when he/she was simultaneously assigned to active duty as a deputy.
However, when analyzing the fifth question in the test, the opinion concluded there was the potential for a number of conflicts of interest to arise when the individual carried out his or her duties as deputy and board member. First, there is a potential conflict of interest in preparation of and submission of budgets to the county commissioner, since the county sheriff and the board of education may compete for limited funds. This conflict could be avoided as long as the member did not appear before the county commissioner for budget matters on behalf of either organization. Second, the attorney general also recognized a potential conflict in the event both the sheriff and the board of education sought levies. However, the opinion recognized that the chance for conflict was low, and further could be avoided as long as the individual did not participate in any board member discussions, deliberations, and votes concerning the levy. Third, the opinion notes there is a potential conflict when the deputy is required to investigate an employee or member of the board of education, which can be avoided by reassigning the investigation to another deputy or another law enforcement agent. Fourth, there could be a conflict when contracts are negotiated between the board and the sheriff’s office. Again as long as the deputy refrains from any board deliberations about the contract, and as long as the deputy is not assigned to serve the board through the contract, the conflict is avoidable. Finally, the deputy may avoid any conflict with regard to allocation of trust fund grants such as through the D.A.R.E. program as long as the deputy is not a part of the internal control policy that determines how money is allocated.
The answers to the sixth and final questions in the test mentioned above were in the negative, since there were no applicable state or local regulations that applied in this case. Therefore, as long as the deputy avoided the potential conflicts mentioned above, the attorney general concluded that the positions of deputy sheriff and board of education member were compatible. In closing, however, the author of the opinion recognized that it may be impossible to consider all possible conflicts that could arise. Should the board member find that he or she must frequently refrain from deliberations, it is possible the member will eventually have a duty to resign from one position.
Click here to review the opinion in full.
Ohio Attorney General Opinion No. 2015-032.
by Ryan LaFlamme | Oct 27, 2015 | Board Policy & Representation, Construction & Real Estate
Stetz v. Copley Fairlawn School Dist., 2015-Ohio-4358
The Ninth Appellate District Court of Appeals has reaffirmed political subdivision immunity for public school districts in a slip and fall case. The Copley Fairlawn School District was sued after a student slipped and fell. The student worked in the office during her study hall. During her office time, the student was directed by a vice principal to go and change the letters on a marquee. The student did so and reentered the building. Forty five minutes after re-entering the building, the student slipped as she began to descend a stair case. The student fell backwards and hit her head on concrete. The student did not recollect any water being present on the floor at the time of her fall.
The school moved for summary judgment on the basis that it was immune from suit under Ohio law. The trial court denied summary judgment, finding that there were genuine issues of fact in dispute for the jury to decide as to whether an exception to immunity applied.
There are five exceptions to political subdivision immunity provided by Revised Code Chapter 2744. If one of these exceptions applies, the school district is not protected by immunity. The exceptions for which political subdivisions (including school districts) are liable for injury, death, or loss to person or property are as follows:
1. The negligent operation of any motor vehicle by their employees when the employees are engaged within the scope of their employment and authority.
2. The negligent performance of acts by their employees with respect to proprietary functions of the political subdivisions.
3. Negligent failure to keep public roads in repair to remove obstructions from public roads.
4. Injury, death, or loss to person or property that is caused by the negligence of employees and that occurs within or on the grounds of, and is due to physical defects within or on the grounds of, buildings that are used in connection with the performance of a governmental function (e.g., a school building).
5. Civil liability is expressly imposed upon the political subdivision by a section of the Revised Code
The student here argued that the buildings and grounds exception (number 4 above) applied. However, the Court of Appeals found that the student had not set forth sufficient evidence that there was a defect in the building where she fell or that the school employees were negligent. Particularly here, the defect would have been that the staff permitted a wet substance to remain on the floor causing a safety hazard. The court found that there was not sufficient information to determine if the floor was even wet at the time she fell, let alone whether a hazard had negligently been permitted to remain. Accordingly the school district was entitled to immunity and the case was dismissed.
Districts should keep in mind that while they may be protected by the immunity grants of Chapter 2744, immunity is not automatic as there are exceptions to the rule.
by Giselle Spencer | Sep 25, 2015 | Board Policy & Representation, Construction & Real Estate, General, Labor and Employment, Legislation, School Finance, School Management, Special Education, Student Education and Discipline
As with most other provisions of the budget bill (Am. Sub. HB 64) some significant provisions impacting Ohio school districts go into effect on September 29, 2015, including the following:
- The maximum amount of a scholarship awarded under the Autism or Jon Peterson scholarship programs increases to $27,000 (up from $20,000).
- School districts must offer real property it intends to sell first to a “high performing community school,” then to other community and college preparatory boarding schools located in the district.
- ODE, in conjunction with an Ohio educational service center association and an Ohio gifted children’s association, must complete and submit a feasibility study for establishment of sixteen regional community schools for gifted children.
- The State Board must develop rules waiving any additional coursework requirements for renewal of an educator license for teachers who are consistently high performing.
- The duration of a pupil activity permit for individuals holding a valid educator license is changed from three (3) years to the same number of years as the educator license.
- The State Board of Education will develop a standards based framework for the evaluation of school counselors. Furthermore, all school districts must adopt a counselor evaluation policy by September 30, 2016, that conforms to the framework and will be implemented beginning in the 2016-2017 school year (will include annual evaluations with ratings of accomplished, skilled, developing, and ineffective just like OTES).
- The alternative teacher evaluation framework is revised to decrease SGM to 35%, maintain the performance rating at 50%, and authorize school districts to determine the appropriate measure or combination of measures for the remaining 15%.
- Exemplary community schools may now operate a preschool program for general education students.
- School districts may enroll under interdistrict open enrollment policies an adjacent or other district student who is a preschool child with a disability. ODE will deduct $4,000 from the resident district and pay that same amount to the enrolling district.
- School districts cannot appropriate monies to purchase an assessment developed by PARCC for use as the state elementary or secondary achievement assessments. Additionally testing for the 2015-2016 school year is reduced.
- Safe harbor provisions in effect during the 2014-2015 school year for state report cards are extended by two years.
- School districts may now enter into a contract with a health care provider for the provision of health care services for students.
- The new requirements for issuance of diplomas to home school students and students from non-chartered nonpublic schools are now in effect.
STEM schools can now enroll out-of-state students.
- Schools may install security doors or barricades as part of an emergency management plan.
- The filing date for financial disclosure statements with the Ohio Ethics Commission is May 15 (instead of April 15).
by Pamela Leist | Oct 30, 2014 | Board Policy & Representation, General, School Management
As districts transition to the new minimum school year reporting system, the Ohio Department of Education (“ODE”) recently released guidance about how it will allocate funding for students that attend school for less than a full day. In July of 2013, House Bill 59 became effective and mandated that the state funding formula for schools be based on annualized full- time enrollment (“FTE”). In order for a district to receive full per pupil funding, each student is expected to receive instruction for the entire day that the student’s grade level is scheduled to attend.
However, school districts typically have a number of students that do not attend for a full day, including students who participate in alternative school programs or who receive home instruction. Currently, districts are required to report in EMIS the percent of time that these students attend school as compared to the full day. In its guidance, ODE states that schools may experience a decrease in funding for part- time students as follows.
Alternative School Programs
Many students who are enrolled in alternative school programs are given the option to complete online modules independently. Often these students do not attend school for the entire day. According to ODE’s guidance, beginning this school year districts will be expected to provide an entire day of instruction for alternative school students unless they apply for and receive a waiver from ODE. ODE cites ORC §3313.533(B)(1), which states that an alternative school student must attend school or participate in another program named in the district’s plan for a period equal to the minimum school day mandated by state law. ODE states that a district may obtain a waiver if it can demonstrate that “the minimum hourly requirements are not workable for a particular student population.”
Districts that wish to apply for a waiver this school year are instructed to submit an email request to ODE at daystohours@education.ohio.gov.
Home Instruction
ORC §3323.12 requires a board of education to provide home instruction for children with disabilities who are unable to attend school. The statute further clarifies that for the purpose of determining formula ADM, five hours of home instruction is equivalent to five school days. Relying in part on this statute, school districts sometimes place students temporarily on home instruction, and provide five hours of instruction each week to ensure full funding. However, ODE notes that unless an IEP expressly requires home instruction, students who receive home instruction for less than a full day, including special education students, must be reported in EMIS as attending part-time. These students may trigger a percentage reduction in funding as a result.
Senior Late Arrival and Early Release
For years, school districts have rewarded seniors who have completed most of their graduation requirements early with the option to arrive late or leave early from school each day. Beginning this summer, ODE indicated to districts that these students must be reported as attending school part-time. ODE recognized in the new guidance that districts may lose funding for the percentage of time the seniors are out of school because of late arrival or early release.
However, ODE also indicates that districts may apply for a waiver from the state superintendent that would allow them to count certain seniors who miss one period of class as fully enrolled, but only if those students take sufficiently rigorous courses. The guidance includes several examples of what would be considered “rigorous” for the waiver, such as when a student 1) takes two or more AP classes; 2) takes two courses through a dual enrollment program, or 3) completes a certain number of hours in an internship or apprenticeship program. A district that wishes to request this waiver/exemption should send the request along with a draft policy to daystohours@education.ohio.gov.
Work Release Programs
For work release, a district may count a student’s work time as instruction time if he/she participates in an official work study program or an approved educational option. However, if a student has been released for employment due to financial hardship, a district has two options:
1) The district may report the student as part-time and include only the hours the student actually attends class (this is required if the absence is for more than ten days); or
2) Under certain circumstances, the district can count the absence as an excused absence if in accordance with board policy and approved by the district’s superintendent as an emergency or some other circumstance considered “good and sufficient cause” for an absence from school. Under this option, the absence will not impact the school’s funding but will affect the attendance rate.
Zero Periods
The last exemption for FTE that was included in the guidance involves zero periods. A zero period occurs when a district offers an additional period of instruction that is optional for students. With regard to the zero period exception, ODE will permit a district to report a student as attending full-time if he/she attends a district-created optional instruction period/zero period but is released from a period later in the day.
If you would like to view ODE’s guidance on Annualized Full- Time Enrollment, click here.
LEGAL REFS: ORC 3313.533, 3317.03, 3321.04, 3323.12
by Pamela Leist | Jun 10, 2014 | Board Policy & Representation, General, Labor and Employment, School Management
Ohio legislators have once again modified the Ohio teacher evaluation system this month through passage of House Bill 362. The bill, which still awaits the Governor’s signature, reduces the frequency of evaluations for certain teachers and also creates an optional alternative evaluation framework that districts may elect to use as early as the 2014-2015 school year. Changes from the bill include the following.
First, HB 362 modified ORC 3319.111 by granting a board of education the discretionary authority to evaluate teachers who receive a rating of “Accomplished” on their most recent evaluations every three years. Likewise, Boards may also choose to evaluate “Skilled” teachers every two years. The law further specifies that in order to qualify for either of the above, a teacher must receive a student growth measure score of average or higher on the most recent evaluation (note that under the state-approved rubric, a teacher cannot receive a summative rating score of “Skilled” or “Accomplished” unless he or she received a SGM score that was average or higher). If a board elects either option, a credentialed evaluator must conduct at least one observation and hold at least one conference in each year that a teacher is not formally evaluated. The new law is silent as to whether a district must also gather student growth measure data in off years.
Additionally, the bill permits a board of education to elect not to evaluate teachers who have been on leave for at least fifty percent (50%) of the school year, and/or who have submitted a notice of retirement which has been accepted by the board no later than December 1st.
Finally, HB 362 establishes an alternative teacher evaluation framework under a new statute, ORC 3319.114. The alternative framework reduces the value of the teacher performance and student growth measure scores, and incorporates an additional measure derived from one of the following: student surveys, teacher self-evaluations, peer review evaluations, or student portfolios. The statute specifies that should a board elect to use the alternative framework for 2014-2015, a teacher’s final summative rating must be based on the following:
- 42.5% teacher performance rating;
- 42.5% student growth measure; and
- 15% from one of the additional measures listed above
For 2015-2016 and beyond, a school board has some discretion to determine the value of the three components. However, the teacher performance and student growth measures must each count for at least 42.5% of the score. And, the new law requires that an equal percentage of the final summative rating be allocated to teacher performance and student growth. The remaining percentage of the summative rating will be derived from the chosen alternative tool.
Under the new statute, the Ohio Department of Education must compile a list of approved instruments for districts to use with the alternative framework. School districts are required to select evaluation instruments from amongst that list.
As with previous OTES and OPES modifications, a number of questions remain about whether the changes will actually improve the process and ease the burden of evaluations for school administrators and teachers, or whether they will merely create additional traps that snare the unwary. One of the primary concerns is the fact that the bill will not become effective until mid-September, nearly one month after most districts begin the 2014-2015 school year. And, in order to roll out the new system by 2014-2015, the Department has only a few months to select alternative evaluation tools, and even less time to determine the validity of the data each tool captures. Finally, while the prospect of reducing the frequency of evaluations is enticing, this practice may weaken the validity of future evaluation results for teachers, which will ultimately impact a board of education’s ability to make solid employment decisions. For these reasons, districts should be cautious to embrace the new changes until additional analysis is conducted. In the least, districts should contact legal council before adopting evaluation policy changes for this upcoming school year.
To review HB 362 in its entirety, click here.
