Loveland, Ohio – We wanted to let the community in on the excitement that is building as the Loveland High School Women’s Basketball team heads to the Division I District Finals tomorrow. Cassie Mattia went to the school Friday afternoon and interviewed Head Coach Darnell Parker and the team just before they were to begin their last practice before taking on Mount Notre Dame Saturday at 3 PM.
They have put themselves in the position to beat the #3 team in the nation. MND is also rated the top team in Ohio.
You will be needed as the 6th woman/man/girl/boy and that’s why we wanted you to meet the team. Both LHS and the community of Loveland encourage everyone to come out and show their support for the LHS Women’s Basketball team tomorrow as they continue to change school history!
Game time is 3 PM and it will be played at Princeton High School in what is predicted to be a jam packed gym. (MAP 100 Viking Way, Cincinnati, Ohio.)
Below is the exclusive interview with Coach Parker and the Tiger’s!
Junior Jenna Batsch (above) scored 17 on 7-9 shooting from the field. She had 5 rebounds, 3 assists. and blocked 2.
Loveland, Ohio – It will be the Loveland Tigers vs. #1 seed Mount Notre Dame Saturday, February 29 at 3 PM (at Princeton H.S.).
Mount Notre Dame defeated Edgewood 85-25 Monday night to get to the finals. MND is undefeated, ranked #1 in Ohio by MaxPreps, and has a #3 national ranking. The Tigers are the #6 seed and defeated Mason Monday night 55-41 to reach the District Finals. Loveland Tigers now 22-3 and Walnut Hills both from the ECC advanced Monday night.
A strong 22-7 1st quarter with shots coming from every part of the court was too much for Mason to overcome.
Senior Jillian Hayes led the Tigers with a game-high 20 points shooting 50% from the field. and 4-5 from the foul line. She had 7 rebounds, 2 assists and 3 blocked shots.
Junior Jenna Batsch scored 17 on 7-9 shooting from the field. She had 5 rebounds, 3 assists. and blocked 2.
Senior Kate Garry finished with 10 points, 6 coming from behind the 3-pt line, 4 rebounds, and 2 assists.
A young Tiger high-5’s Jillian Hayes before she heads into the locker room after the win.
MND is led by Sophomore 5’9″ forward K.K. Bransford who averages 20.2 points per game and scored 40 on the road against Lincoln Gahanna in October. Senior 5’6″ guard Makira Cook averages 17.6. and scored 27 against Huntington St. Joseph Academy on February 1.
Loveland’s Hayes scored 27 in a December win over Walnut Hills.
Kim and Rick Donaldson live on Paxton Road in Miami Township
by Kim and Rick Donaldson
At its February 18th business meeting, the Loveland City School District Board of Education reviewed the administration’s updated five-year financial forecast, which includes annual operating expenditure cuts averaging $2.5 million and fee increases averaging $0.2 million.* The updated forecast still requires passage of a 6.95 mill operating levy, which will raise annual revenue by $6.3 million, to maintain an adequate cash balance through fiscal year 2024. Indeed, the included budget cuts were made for the express purpose of limiting the levy to only 6.95 mills. So, after cutting $2.5 million from expenditures, why do we need an additional $6.5 million (taxes plus fees) in revenue? Let’s look at the numbers.
This graphic is the Donaldson’s original presentation of the data sourced from the Ohio Department of Education and the US Bureau of Labor Statistics as noted on the chart and in the list of references.
As shown in the included chart, both five-year forecasts start from a very high baseline expenditure level established in 2019 when operating expenditures increased 13% from the previous year.**That increase was the culmination of an accelerated spending trend that started in 2015, bringing the total four-year increase to 26%.By comparison, the cumulative inflation rate was only 7.7% during the same period.***This rapid expenditure increase quickly overtook the 23% annual revenue increase in the years following the 2014 levy.
Since median income tends to be tied, albeit loosely, to inflation, expenditure increases that exceed the inflation rate make our schools increasingly less affordable to taxpayers.
Furthermore, it is important to recognize that the spending cuts and fee increases included in the updated forecast are all relative to the previous forecast, which anticipated increasing expenditures by 4% annually.Since the Federal Reserve Board targets a 2% annual inflation rate, the plan was to increase spending by twice the rate of inflation.The updated forecast anticipates annual increases of 3%, which is still 50% above the target inflation rate.Since median income tends to be tied, albeit loosely, to inflation, expenditure increases that exceed the inflation rate make our schools increasingly less affordable to taxpayers.
As a more affordable alternative, we advocate limiting operating expenditures to 2015 levels on a per student basis, adjusted for inflation.As shown on the chart, this approach would result in spending much lower than the updated five-year forecast and, more importantly, lower than current projected revenue.It would thus obviate the need for any additional operating levy.It is worth noting that this would be consistent with, and a continuation of, expenditure trends from 2006 through 2015.
If a 2015 baseline seems too aggressive, the same approach using a 2018 baseline could be considered.Although it would require an additional levy, the levy vote could be postponed to November 2021 and would only need to be around 1 mill to maintain the same cash balance as in the updated forecast.
These particular cuts, chosen by the administration, raise some serious questions.
So, what would we cut?After all, in the same February 18th presentation we were told that we will have to eliminate teaching and staff positions even if we approve the levy in March.We have also been warned that failure to pass the levy in March will result in additional cuts, including staff, teachers and high school transportation.These particular cuts, chosen by the administration, raise some serious questions.If we could afford current staffing levels in 2018, why can we not afford them in 2021 with nearly 13% higher expenditures in the updated forecast?****Even if we choose to defeat the levy and limit expenditures to inflation-adjusted 2018 levels, why could we not continue to support essentially the same staff and transportation that we did in 2018?Where is the additional money going, and why has the administration chosen to cut staff and transportation?
Before we head to the polls in March, we need to have satisfactory answers to these questions that are quantitative, complete and transparent. We need to know whether the proposed budget and associated cuts are indicative of fiscally responsible management for the benefit of our children, or emotional manipulation designed to get the levy passed.Ultimately, it comes down to a question of trust.
Our youngest Loveland Tigers know these three words well. Here in Loveland schools, we care for each other.We respect each other. And we take responsibility for our words and actions.
The Loveland Board of Education strives to do our best to live up to the expectations our teachers and staff have for our students. We care about each and every member of our school community and demonstrate that with leadership and fiscal responsibility. That care means we regularly need to place tax levies on the ballot in order to ensure the operation of programs that our students need and deserve.
The way taxes work in Ohio means that a school board respects the right of our district citizens to vote on these levies. We need to show the necessity for new operating funds and do so with the publishing of budgets, expenditures, and five-year forecasts. We publish the evidence of the success of our students as well.
The last operating levy passed in 2014 was designed to move the district from a “stay put” mode of operation to a time of forward progress and was strongly supported by our community. Our teachers and students delivered significant achievements as a result of that change in direction and now we need to protect that investment and optimize that effort.
Acting responsibly means telling the truth and sometimes means that you cannot respond in kind when false, harmful accusations are made.
Acting responsibly means telling the truth and sometimes means that you cannot respond in kind when false, harmful accusations are made.But responsible public servants also stand up for what is true. There are many false statements being made about the March 2020 levy, about the Board of Education, and about the people who work with us and for us. The Loveland school district and this Board of Education are committed to optimizing resources, to extending the adequacy of 2020 levy funds as long as possible, and to continuing progress for Loveland students.
Please take the time to review the information on our website, lovelandschools.org under the levy tab.Take the time to talk to our board and our administrators.Attend a board meeting or an information session.Get the right information right now.
We know our community cares about our schools. We respect the right of our citizens to vote on March 17. Each of us has a great responsibility for the future of Loveland schools.
Kathryn Lorenz is the President of the Loveland Board of Education and lives in Miami Township
Loveland, Ohio – On February 4, the Loveland City Hall was filled with a crowd to witness and hopefully influence a vote for or against the building of an apartment complex at Loveland’s 102 Oak Street. As the meeting commenced, the public heard Rodney Sabo of Sabo Design Associates, describe the plans for the complex, budget, and method of parking and traffic.
The proposal the Planning and Zoning Commission was considering during the public hearing was to build four 16 unit apartment buildings on Oak Street in the Clermont County side of the City. “Oak Apartments” would have been four levels each with parking garages below each building. The proposal was for 106 total parking spaces with 1.6 parking spaces per unit. The lot is 1.033 acres.
Sabo Design submitted the application on behalf of their client, Hunt and Whitacre. To build the project the City would need to create a Special Planning District (SPD) which if approved would have erased the existing zoning restrictions and protections for the immediate neighborhood and create a separate zoning district with distinct restrictions, permissions, and guidelines.
The current zoning of the immediate neighborhood is Residential-Medium Density (R-MD). The existing R-MD zone does not permit high-density multiple-family uses.
Commission Chairman Al Kressler, Mark Redmond, Michael Kady, Brian O’Neill, and Tim Butler posed questions for the plan such as the possible rewards and pitfalls from the building of this complex before they each voted, “No”.
In opposition to the plan, the public bound together to declare and stand for the preservation of the land and current zoning, as each speaker presented individual points to support their cause. Many of the points included environmental damage, blockage of people’s home views, out-of-place aesthetics, lowering of the water pressure, and the promotion of in-and-out rental, not community bound estates.
The Commission heard both sides and decided with a 5-0 vote to not develop the land into an apartment complex.
The filled room disbanded in agreement around 9:10 PM.
Scroll down through this story to see a photo slideshow and watch post meeting interviews. You can watch the speeches during the open-forum, the proponent explaining the proposal, the staff report, and the questions P&Z had for the applicant.
Oak Street Apartments Interviews
Connie Crawford on Oak Street Apartment Proposal
Julie Fuson comments of Oak Street Apt. proposal
Neil Kluender wants his neighborhood protected
Becky Hasselbeck speaking about preventing more apartments
Steve DeFosset explains potential water supply problems if Apartments are built
Todd Osborne talks about proper use of SPD Zoning
Rocky Carpenter speaks up to preserve sanctity of his neighborhood
Mary Ann Bird discusses Oak Apartment proposal
Scott Lindgren talks about traffic conditions if Oak Street Apartments are built
Mark Krum talks about tearing down a home built in 1870s to built apartments
Cati O’Keefe lives immediately downhill from Oak Apartment and talked about how unstable the hillside is
Real Estate Agent Keli Williams’s take on Oak Apartment proposal
Tom Smith introduces staff report
Rodney Sabo with Sabo Design Associates explains his proposal for Oak Apartments
Loveland, Ohio – The Loveland City School District Board of Education has announced that it is seeking community members for a Planning Commission. The commission will assist the board with researching and evaluating a variety of assigned issues and topics relating to the schools.
“We see this as an opportunity to engage our community in a variety of issues affecting our schools on an ongoing basis,” said Board President Dr. Kathryn Lorenz. “I’m hopeful that we’ll be able to capitalize on residents’ expertise, ideas, and dedication to the success of our schools as it relates to finances, facilities, school improvements, student experience, communications, and community engagement.”
The Planning Commission will have a maximum of 25 participating members. At capacity, it will be composed of seven faculty and staff members and 18 citizens of the school district. The residents, who will be appointed by the Board of Education, will reflect the diversity of the community. Student participation will also be sought, in particular for the committee on school improvement and student experience.
A progressive night out in Historic Downtown Loveland beginning at 6pm. Treat your special someone to a unique experience in the land of love. Two packages to choose from. One LOVE to celebrate – YOURS.
2020 Plans:
**Please note pricing is for each COUPLE. Please register only 1 person and put your spouse/partner’s name in the “Company Name” section of the registration.
Sweetheart Package ($170/Couple)
Renew your vows at Loveland City Hall, Officiated by Mayor Kathy Bailey
Drinks, Apps and Pottery, Whistle Stop Clayworks
Dinner at The Works in the train car (Dinner includes soup or salad, pasta and wine)
Dessert and bourbon beverage at Bishop’s Quarter
Soulmate Package ($250/Couple)
Renew your vows at Loveland City Hall, Officiated by Mayor Kathy Bailey
Drinks, Apps and Pottery, Whistle Stop Clayworks
Dinner at Tano Bistro (Dinner includes soup or salad, choice of entree and bottle of wine)
Dessert and bourbon beverage at Bishop’s Quarter
Our Gift to You (included in both packages):
Chocolates from Loveland Sweet Shoppe
Sterling Forever Entwined pendant from Welling Jewelers
Triple Chocolate Caramel Apple from Trailside Provisions
Ornament and gift card from Haven Grey
Sweet Potato Chips from Hometown Cafe
Gift Certificate from Alley Boutique
Photos by Loveland Creative Solutions
Heart Ornament from Whistle Stop Clayworks
2 Bundlets and BOGO coupon from Nothing Bundt Cakes
Heart Necklace from Lemons and Limes Boutique
Loveland Dried Flowers (by Botanica) and Gift Card from Bond Furniture
Realtors Sarah Pfammatter & Richie Hill will present the stages of the home buying process from start to finish. In addition, Amanda Marcero, Loan Operations Specialist at Queen City Mortgage will be on hand to answer all lending & financing questions. No registration required.
Enjoy books, songs, activities, and more while learning early literacy skills. For preschoolers and their caregivers. Ages 3-6. No registration required.
Jim Hooper lives in the Loveland High School neighborhood
Jim Hooper
Catchy common phrase. Heard it used a couple times at the LCSD Adhoc committee meetings. Thought I ‘d try it out to gain perspective on the LCSD Levy situation.
Whoa, it’s high up here!
I see Loveland as a whole, comprised mainly of ranch style homes, modest neighborhoods, occupied by homesteader types who have lived in Loveland for decades – more semi-rural/rural than urban. Look down on West Loveland Ave, Rich Road, Rte 48, The Heights, Lebanon Road, the Glen Lake neighborhood, out towards Grailville , all the smaller roads off these arteries and you will see Loveland. Pocketed among these byways are sub-divisions like Chatham Woods, Pheasant Hills on the Lake, Woodford, White Pillars.
I see the Loveland School system. Led by the Board of Ed and the LCSD Superintendent. The BOE members are elected officials which automatically makes them politicians, whether they see themselves that way or not. We all know how politics works – from the local constituency the politician seeks out his/her core bloc of voters, those voters who will deliver the necessary votes to successfully elect. These politicians (BOE) are beholden to this core bloc. The bloc group influences the Board by way of their backing.
So what influence does 2,447 bloc voters have on a School Board and Superintendent?
In the case of the LCSDBoard of Ed I think we can fairly safely establish the core bloc of voters is 2,447 persons. I am thinking anyone voting FOR a 16.78 mil levy is definitely a BOE core bloc voter. So what influence does 2,447 bloc voters have on a School Board and Superintendent?A LOT!Especially under the “normal circumstances” of a levy issue – off year voting, little interest by the silent majority who assume their financial
The “Board Whisperers”
interests are being conservatively managed – the 2,447 voter bloc, under these conditions, pretty much guarantees the election of their candidates.And, pretty much guarantees the Board of Ed will be very receptive listeners. These people are the Board influencers – the “Board Whisperers” – the people in the ear of the Board members. They are the localized version of lobbyists. And, many of them are inside the school system where their voice is amplified many times over. Their job circumstances are directly impacted by money the LCSD spends.
Now I’m listening, now I’m reading, now I’m researching, now I’m in it with both feet.
Now under normal conditions, I don’t really mind this influencing activity. The only time I would perk up my ears and take an outsized interest would be, let me think,perhaps when this influencing campaign produced an unheard of, unconscionable, state record 16.78mil levy. Now I’m listening, now I’m reading, now I’m researching, now I’m in it with both feet.
I have heard a lot about trajectory, vision, maintaining forward growth, maintaining gains. Hey, I’m all for it! I support 2-3% trajectory, 2-3% vision gains, 2-3% growth gains. I fully support increase in hard work, efficiency, increased productivity. I fully support the LCSD taking baby steps to move up the rankings ladder. Set a vision of moving up 5 steps at a time. Great! Let’s not set a vision to move from a Value-Added rank of 433 to 22. I applaud the excellent 22 ranking. I do not applaud the fact that a lot of taxpayer dollars went into buying that result!
You know, the Bengals could be in the Super Bowl – all it takes is spending$$$. You know, the Reds could be in the World Series, all it takes is spending $$$. You know, the LCSD could be better than Indian Hill and Sycamore – all it takes is spending $$$ – taxpayer money!
My opinion is that there are “silent agendas” in our schools that the silent majority know nothing about.
Returning to the LCSD/Superintendent vision for LCSD. Firstly, what is that vision? I know only one thing about it – it costs lots of money($$$). Sorry, I do know another thing, that 78% of voters do not know Dr. Crouse’s vision for LCSD. Although, I am beginning to get some hints – $6,365,528 spent on technology improvements. Is this a Dr. Crouse vision, to be the most technologically advanced school system in the area. A four year 69.1% spending increase in “Support for the Instructional Staff”. $5,717,737 spent with Hamilton County ESC over 5 years. My opinion is that there are “silent agendas” in our schools that the silent majority know nothing about. These silent agendas are driven by the “Board Whisperers” – backed up by their votes at election time.
The taxpayer asked for $20/month over and over doesn’t realize they are slowly being taxed to death.
Again let me say, I have no issue with school agendas moving forward at a conservative, sustainable, within a budget pace ( 2-3% a year). I do have a huge problem with the LCSD making quantum leaps bought with my tax dollars. Now I have heard it said, “it is only $20.27/month per $100,000 appraised home value. Let me use an old saying – the frog in a pot of cold water over low heat doesn’t realize it is being slowly boiled to death – and the taxpayer asked for $20/month over and over doesn’t realize they are slowly being taxed to death.
What is really beginning to bother me is the total lack of self-reflection by the 22%. Based upon all I have read on social media the attitude is that “nothing wrong here – nothing to see here”, we know what is right, you (78%) are uninformed, and get out of our way. I must interpret that to mean spending will continue unabated. Not exactly the response hoped for (or expected) after a 78% to 22% drubbing at the polls.
I also hoped the myriad of testimonials from “forever” Yes voters that had been pushed to the difficult position of voting No would have enlightened the minority to question maybe something does need to change.
A consequence of losing a vote by a landslide 78-22% and in so doing shattering a trust that had been working for decades is the “trust but verify” is now “verify, verify, verify”. All aspects of the LCSD are now under a microscope for review.
The child learns not to touch a hot stove once; it seems the adults must touch the hot stove twice before a lesson is learned.
I am a “Know Vote”!
Jim Hooper lives in the Loveland High School neighborhood
before they were to begin their last practice before taking on Mount Notre Dame Saturday at 3 PM.
![[Photo Album] Tiger women vie for District title on Saturday vs #3 team in nation](https://lovelandmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/jenna-batsch-feature.jpg)
![[Videos and Photos] Citizens successfully organize to preserve their neighborhood](https://lovelandmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/feature-julie-fuson-2.jpg)
