Aug. 26, 2010
Cabell Taxpayers Supreme Court Petition Argues Vote Required on University Heights Location
Board Improperly Collected Levy Appropriations after Retirement of Bonds
By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter
Huntington, WV (HNN) – Opponents of the proposed new middle school at University Heights have petitioned the West Virginia Supreme Court. Judge Pancake had ruled in May that the Cabell County Board of Education did not have to submit the site to voters. Judge Pancake ruled that levy bond funds would not be involved in the new school’s construction.
Johnny & Karen Nance and Paul and Susan Gillette, as representative taxpayers, contend that county residents should vote on the location of the consolidated Beverly Hills and Enslow Middle Schools which will be behind the Prestera Center on U.S. Route 60 East. Although a two story school would have preserved a historic orphanage, the Board of Education selected a one story plan which will demolish the former children’s home.
The Petition for Appeal argues that the West Virginia Constitution compels a vote by taxpayers on indebtedness. In 1990, taxpayers approved construction of a new Huntington High and Cabell Midland , as well as renovations to the former HHS and HEHS for use as middle schools. When the site now known as Kinetic Park was deemed unsuitable for the new school, Tom McCallister challenged the board’s authority to make a site change. In a 1992 case, Cabell County Circuit Judge L.D. Egnor agreed that a referendum was necessary for relocation of the proposed school to the current location Route 10 location diagonal to Kinetic Park.
“The location is just as important as the construction,” the judge wrote in the 1992 opinion which was not appealed.
During the current underlying Cabell County Circuit Court action, the Board admitted that approximately $34,000 in 1990 bond funds were rolled into the permanent improvement fund. Further, the Board stated that the indebtedness was repaid by 1997, yet they continued to collect the excess levy funds from taxpayers.
Instead of renovating the two former high schools for middle schools, the Board chose to use the former Huntington East as offices for the Board of Education. The former Huntington High became an arts center and apartments as part of an agreement with the City of Huntington pertaining to the board’s unpaid taxes to the city.
“When we vote for a bond issue, we are not giving the school board a blank check,” Nance wrote in the Petition for Appeal. “Our tax collections are meant to serve a specific purpose listed on the ballot, not to cover indebtedness resulting in the funding of unapproved projects.”
Nance argues that the case has statewide implications and would presumably have implications to the 2006 Cabell County School Board levy.
“Since the interest rate has dropped dramatically , the School Board will undoubtedly wish to refund” money to taxpayers from the issuance. School boards throughout the state have likely received lower interest rates and face the possibility of refunding taxpayer money. “A decision of this Court on what can and cannot be done with excess tax collection is relevant.” collections and whether a vote of approval will be required is very relevant.”
Prior to submitting her motion for Summary judgment in support of taxpayers, Nance offered the following analogy:
“I gave my child $60 to buy six items at the store; he came back with four items and said he ran out of money. He removed the tags and said he lost the receipt. In his back pocket was an $18 movie that he said was bought with his money, but he really bought it with my money, and he kept $2 of my funds without telling me.”
For a detailed argument by the taxpayers, click: http://archives.huntingtonnews.net/local/100120-rutherford-localtaxpayer.html
Judge Pancake in his May ruling disagreed with the taxpayer plaintiffs and concluded that the Cabell Board did nothing wrong in rolling the remaining bond money into another fund, deciding not to use the old H.E.H.S. and H.H.S. for the purposes voted, and that levy funds did not have to be refunded.
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
Cabell Taxpayers Supreme Court Petition Argues Vote Required on University Heights Location
Board Improperly Collected Levy Appropriations after Retirement of Bonds
By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter
Huntington, WV (HNN) – Opponents of the proposed new middle school at University Heights have petitioned the West Virginia Supreme Court. Judge Pancake had ruled in May that the Cabell County Board of Education did not have to submit the site to voters. Judge Pancake ruled that levy bond funds would not be involved in the new school’s construction.
Johnny & Karen Nance and Paul and Susan Gillette, as representative taxpayers, contend that county residents should vote on the location of the consolidated Beverly Hills and Enslow Middle Schools which will be behind the Prestera Center on U.S. Route 60 East. Although a two story school would have preserved a historic orphanage, the Board of Education selected a one story plan which will demolish the former children’s home.
The Petition for Appeal argues that the West Virginia Constitution compels a vote by taxpayers on indebtedness. In 1990, taxpayers approved construction of a new Huntington High and Cabell Midland , as well as renovations to the former HHS and HEHS for use as middle schools. When the site now known as Kinetic Park was deemed unsuitable for the new school, Tom McCallister challenged the board’s authority to make a site change. In a 1992 case, Cabell County Circuit Judge L.D. Egnor agreed that a referendum was necessary for relocation of the proposed school to the current location Route 10 location diagonal to Kinetic Park.
“The location is just as important as the construction,” the judge wrote in the 1992 opinion which was not appealed.
During the current underlying Cabell County Circuit Court action, the Board admitted that approximately $34,000 in 1990 bond funds were rolled into the permanent improvement fund. Further, the Board stated that the indebtedness was repaid by 1997, yet they continued to collect the excess levy funds from taxpayers.
Instead of renovating the two former high schools for middle schools, the Board chose to use the former Huntington East as offices for the Board of Education. The former Huntington High became an arts center and apartments as part of an agreement with the City of Huntington pertaining to the board’s unpaid taxes to the city.
“When we vote for a bond issue, we are not giving the school board a blank check,” Nance wrote in the Petition for Appeal. “Our tax collections are meant to serve a specific purpose listed on the ballot, not to cover indebtedness resulting in the funding of unapproved projects.”
Nance argues that the case has statewide implications and would presumably have implications to the 2006 Cabell County School Board levy.
“Since the interest rate has dropped dramatically , the School Board will undoubtedly wish to refund” money to taxpayers from the issuance. School boards throughout the state have likely received lower interest rates and face the possibility of refunding taxpayer money. “A decision of this Court on what can and cannot be done with excess tax collection is relevant.” collections and whether a vote of approval will be required is very relevant.”
Prior to submitting her motion for Summary judgment in support of taxpayers, Nance offered the following analogy:
“I gave my child $60 to buy six items at the store; he came back with four items and said he ran out of money. He removed the tags and said he lost the receipt. In his back pocket was an $18 movie that he said was bought with his money, but he really bought it with my money, and he kept $2 of my funds without telling me.”
For a detailed argument by the taxpayers, click: http://archives.huntingtonnews.net/local/100120-rutherford-localtaxpayer.html
Judge Pancake in his May ruling disagreed with the taxpayer plaintiffs and concluded that the Cabell Board did nothing wrong in rolling the remaining bond money into another fund, deciding not to use the old H.E.H.S. and H.H.S. for the purposes voted, and that levy funds did not have to be refunded.
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
