“This tax issue would have helped to secure the long-term financial stability of the district,” said Superintendent Brian Kuhn. “We also understand this was a big request of our community and it was a difficult decision. Our mission has not changed, and together, we will move forward as a school community.”
The 1% earned income tax levy would have paid for the regular operating expenses for the district, which includes salaries, maintenance, materials, utilities, vehicles, equipment and more.
If it would have passed, the five-year levy would have raised around $3.1 million each year. For a resident with $50,000 in annual taxable income, the tax would have cost $500 per year.
Voters rejected the same tax levy the first time in May, with 68% against.
Since the levy failed again, the district plans to reduce “the equivalent of one support staff position,” which doesn’t mean one staff member will be cut, but rather that hours will be trimmed here and there.
It will also increase the general student fee from $80 to $100 and pay-to-participate sports fees would go up for middle school students from $100 to $125, and for high school students from $200 to $250. The cap for families will go from $400 to $500.
These fees have increased over the last six months. Before the May levy, these fees were $75 for middle school and $150 for high school. When that levy failed, they increased to $100 for middle school and $200 for high school.
Kuhn said they will implement the reduction in force this month and the increase to the fees will begin right away.
“We will also begin conversations about what our next steps are to try and shore up our financial position. With no new local revenue as a result of the vote and no indicators of additional funding from the State of Ohio, our only option is to make additional cuts to reduce expenditures,” Kuhn said.
With the levy measure failing twice, Kuhn said he knows it’s a challenging time for schools in the county and nation, “given the unprecedented levels of uncertainty facing families today.”
“I understand that supporting Clark-Shawnee cannot always equate to a ‘yes’ vote when family budgets are strained. Additionally, I believe that Clark County saw a lot of divisive issues related to money on this most recent ballot, which is also a significant hurdle,” Kuhn said.
The district’s last operating levy for new money was passed in 2014, which it then projected would support it for four years. Funds were stretched for 11 years through a combination of strategies, including how the money was managed and changes in the state funding formula.
Kuhn said 94% of the district’s revenue comes from state funding and local property taxes.
The district makes projections for five years out, predicting more than $23 million in total revenue for 2025 and 2026, and more than $24 million each year for 2027-2029, followed by about $25 million in 2030. But the district anticipates more than $600,000 in deficit spending this school year, and up to almost $2 million in deficit spending in 2030.
There are two active continuing levies collecting property taxes for the district with one being a $4,721,331 fixed sum (meaning it will collect the same amount regardless of property values, but could increase with new residents) and one being at the 20-mill floor (which will fluctuate for individual property owners based on property values).
The school board will discuss in the coming months if they plan to place the levy back on the ballot next year in May. Kuhn said if the state doesn’t increase funding then they are left with only one other revenue source, which is the local taxpayers, but they will continue to “operate as efficiently as possible.”
“Our goal has always been for reductions and efficiencies to have as little impact as possible on our student experiences in the classroom, on the field, and on the stage,” he said. “That being said, we now must look at reductions that could have an impact on students. All areas of operations are on the table as we work to offset our deficit spending scenario.”
About the Author
