Central Buckeye Conference 2025

The levy situation at Tecumseh sounds interesting…lots of possible cuts. Of course sports is always used as a bargaining chip, but they haven’t passed a levy there since 1995 and it’s not like it’s a booming area.
 
Slightly longer term, but the levy situation at Shawnee could end up being interesting. People are very unhappy about the tax situation for the 4 new developments. Have even seen people openly hoping to force the district into such dire straights that the state has to come in and take over.
 
Don’t forget NE-KR has a levy up also. That district has traditionally had trouble passing levies. It will be interesting to see how this goes now that the new building are all online. But with the state budget now done and it being less for the schools than was expected there will be more levies coming in November.
 
I have always been a bit confused with the school levies and why they are needed.

Just peeking at the gaming commission and lottery.

In 2024 "A record $1.51 billion in lottery profits was handed over to the Lottery Profits Education Fund, which supports K-12, vocational and special education programs in Ohio, nearly $50 million more than last year."
---------------------
Author: Clay Gordon
Published: 6:42 PM EST February 15, 2024
Updated: 6:45 PM EST February 15, 2024

OHIO, USA — More than $7.6 billion was wagered on sports gambling since it became legal in Ohio just over a year ago. Although bets were instant, state services didn’t see money for months.
Numbers released this month show that Ohio made $935 million in taxable revenue during the first year of legal sports betting. Lawmakers earmarked 98%, or $193.8 million, of that for schools and the state’s five scholarships.

That money started hitting school bank accounts in September, combined with dollars from the state’s general funds and the lottery. 10 Investigates followed the money and discovered that Columbus City Schools is receiving $197 million in total state support.
CCS is the largest school system in the state but receives the third most funding. Cleveland Metropolitan School District was allotted $332.2 million for fiscal year 2024, while Toledo Public Schools receives $208.6 million.
Other school systems in the Columbus area are receiving millions in funding, which is also a combination of gambling money and general funds:
· Pickerington: $63.6 million
· Hilliard: $54.4 million
· Reynoldsburg: $52.2 million
· Westerville: $43.6 million
· Newark: $41.9 million
· Groveport-Madison: $40.7 million
· Olentangy: $36.9 million

Why the disparity? Well, Cleveland and Toledo gamble more than Columbus. Each casino is taxed on revenue not profits and that seems to show in the distribution of weatlth. Dayton area? they have higher payouts than Toldeo but less revenue...

Since casinos were legalized over $1 BILLION dollars have been distributed to "school districts"

Here is a link to the Clark Shawnee Audit from 2023. Though I am a bit leery of a state agency performing audits of state funded funded schools. I question the monies provided to CS through the lottery and gaming commission. I am not an accountant and do struggle to understand the complexities of money and investments but where is the portion of the gambling revenues applied in this audit? More so, why is there a need for a school levy or an income tax?


Finally, the gaming commission, casinos, since 2012, has amassed $1.2B for education. What was/is CS cut of this pork?
 
Last edited:
CedarBuck92 said:
Slightly longer term, but the levy situation at Shawnee could end up being interesting. People are very unhappy about the tax situation for the 4 new developments. Have even seen people openly hoping to force the district into such dire straights that the state has to come in and take over.
Click to expand...
I get that but with the big one in particular, Melody Parks, that frustration should be geared at the City of Springfield handing out long-term tax abatements at the expense of Springfield Township and Clark-Shawnee Local Schools.

Frankly, IMO the school district should be going to court against the city. Existing taxpayers in the school district are going to get bent over by the city’s actions.
 
nwwarrior09 said:
I get that but with the big one in particular, Melody Parks, that frustration should be geared at the City of Springfield handing out long-term tax abatements at the expense of Springfield Township and Clark-Shawnee Local Schools.

Frankly, IMO the school district should be going to court against the city. Existing taxpayers in the school district are going to get bent over by the city’s actions.
Click to expand...
And who pays for that? Is CSLS within the boundaries of the city for litigation? Could the same be said for Greenon, Northwestern, Northeastern SD?
 
Gamma Gobbler said:
And who pays for that? Is CSLS within the boundaries of the city for litigation? Could the same be said for Greenon, Northwestern, Northeastern SD?
Click to expand...
I am not sure Greenon or Northwestern have any boundaries within Springfield proper.. maybe Springfield Township.

Shawnee, absolutely.

This is an interesting situation that could get messy if not handled swiftly and correctly.
 
Gamma Gobbler said:
And who pays for that? Is CSLS within the boundaries of the city for litigation? Could the same be said for Greenon, Northwestern, Northeastern SD?
Click to expand...
Ultimately the taxpayers, unless some lawyer living in the district wants to step up for some pro bono work.

The situation is wrong. The city is going to badly screw over CSLS by both flooding them with additional enrollment while at the same time trying to deny them the additional property tax revenues that should be coming with the enrollment. I do not understand how the city can pass abatements that negatively impact other jurisdictions such as school districts or township services.

If these projects mature to expectations with the proposed tax abatements the current taxpayers of CSLS are going to get hit up for additional bond and operating levies. When you build a new school (I.e. Shawnee Elementary) with some degree of state funding the size of the building is based on current actual enrollment. If these developments fully mature CSLS, through no fault of their own, is going to likely have to pursue additional bond revenue to build an addition to that new K-6 building. I can’t believe district residents haven’t been seeking legal options against the city.
 
nwwarrior09 said:
Ultimately the taxpayers, unless some lawyer living in the district wants to step up for some pro bono work.

The situation is wrong. The city is going to badly screw over CSLS by both flooding them with additional enrollment while at the same time trying to deny them the additional property tax revenues that should be coming with the enrollment. I do not understand how the city can pass abatements that negatively impact other jurisdictions such as school districts or township services.

If these projects mature to expectations with the proposed tax abatements the current taxpayers of CSLS are going to get hit up for additional bond and operating levies. When you build a new school (I.e. Shawnee Elementary) with some degree of state funding the size of the building is based on current actual enrollment. If these developments fully mature CSLS, through no fault of their own, is going to likely have to pursue additional bond revenue to build an addition to that new K-6 building. I can’t believe district residents haven’t been seeking legal options against the city.
Click to expand...
Warrior, you are a smart dude and know so much more than me. I ask you what state funding are the Springfield area schools missing that would necessitate any levy? Why is the CSLS in such a bind to propose an Income Tax for the May election? Is this different than a school levy?

I have provided an example of the gambling revue that should augment school district expenditures without the need for a levy...your take? If there is amount of cash laying in the state coffers, why is it not reported by the local school districts or why are they not blowing the lid off the state for not providing this funding? There have been a billion + dollars over the past 13 years ear marked for education for some 600 public schools (districts).
 
Gamma Gobbler said:
Warrior, you are a smart dude and know so much more than me. I ask you what state funding are the Springfield area schools missing that would necessitate any levy? Why is the CSLS in such a bind to propose an Income Tax for the May election? Is this different than a school levy?

I have provided an example of the gambling revue that should augment school district expenditures without the need for a levy...your take? If there is amount of cash laying in the state coffers, why is it not reported by the local school districts or why are they not blowing the lid off the state for not providing this funding? There have been a billion + dollars over the past 13 years ear marked for education for some 600 public schools (districts).
Click to expand...
Somebody would have to ask specifics at a board meeting and/or to your state rep, but my hunch would be that over the years “sin taxes”, first the lottery and now gambling, have not been used at the state level to supplement school funding. They’ve probably been used instead to replace the state tax funds that went to school funding while the state spends that money on other budget items. There is no actual sin tax windfall for schools.

I don’t know the exact current local funding situation for CSLS, but most districts seem to have 1) a bond issue property tax (locally I think only Southeastern does not currently have this), 2) a permanent improvement fund tax that is usually on property, 3) an operating expenses levy on property, and increasingly 4) an earned income tax that is somewhere between 0.75% and 1.25% for operating expenses. I’m surprised Shawnee doesn’t already have income tax, but it appears to me that they have a local utility tax? Increasingly it seems that most schools are hitting up the taxpayer every 4-5 years to either renew a permanent improvement or income tax or to add on to an existing one. The local tax burden on rural schools seems to be increasing.
 
Last edited:
nwwarrior09 said:
Somebody would have to ask specifics at a board meeting and/or to your state rep, but my hunch would be that over the years “sin taxes”, first the lottery and now gambling, have not been used at the state level to supplement school funding. They’ve probably been used instead to replace the state tax funds that went to school funding while the state spends that money on other budget items. There is no actual sin tax windfall for schools.
Click to expand...
Those sin taxes damn well should be since casinos are taxed on 33% of their gross revue and a percentage of that is for "schools" as agreed upon by state law. Maybe the electoral base that pays taxes into the respective school district should ask such a questions before agreeing to support such levies...
 
Gamma Gobbler said:
Those sin taxes damn well should be since casinos are taxed on 33% of their gross revue and a percentage of that is for "schools" as agreed upon by state law. Maybe the electoral base that pays taxes into the respective school district should ask such a questions before agreeing to support such levies...
Click to expand...
Somebody should ask and I imagine the school district fiscal financials can be found online. The “state funding” percentage of funding that school district is probably static if not receding year to year regardless of casino taxes.

Ultimately there is some degree of politics here, and I hate talking about politics. The property tax oriented local funding thing was deemed to be “unconstitutional” at least two decades ago and it’s still the life support of local school funding. At the state level the House passed a budget that is short a few hundred million dollars of “fair funding” for education and with a disproportionately high portion going to EdChoice programs and charter schools. The state has zero interest in fixing funding for traditional public education and won’t do so unless state officials are actually held accountable for doing so.
 
Rural districts IMO are going to get taxed into oblivion in the coming years without a major change.

The communities are broke and are getting more local tax burden. I expect a lot of consolidation down the road.
 
nwwarrior09 said:
Rural districts IMO are going to get taxed into oblivion in the coming years without a major change.

The communities are broke and are getting more local tax burden. I expect a lot of consolidation down the road.
Click to expand...
Clinton County is an area I expect to be hit heavily by this. Clinton-Massie is facing issues with their levy getting passed and they have made several cuts to the district already. All four county schools are losing enrollment as well, not sure if there is room for 4 high schools in Clinton County. I joked about it already, but I wouldn't be completely shocked if the Clinton County schools looked a lot like how the Fayette County schools look. One High school that serves the county seat (Wilmington and Washington CH), and another high school that serves the rest of the county (CM/EC/Blan all consolidated into one, and Miami Trace). I even gave that school district a name LOL, Kenton Trace Local School District!! Pays homage to all three schools history with the KTC athletic conference, and follows the 'Trace' name sake to troll the Fayette County schools.
 
footballsalads43 said:
Clinton County is an area I expect to be hit heavily by this. Clinton-Massie is facing issues with their levy getting passed and they have made several cuts to the district already. All four county schools are losing enrollment as well, not sure if there is room for 4 high schools in Clinton County. I joked about it already, but I wouldn't be completely shocked if the Clinton County schools looked a lot like how the Fayette County schools look. One High school that serves the county seat (Wilmington and Washington CH), and another high school that serves the rest of the county (CM/EC/Blan all consolidated into one, and Miami Trace). I even gave that school district a name LOL, Kenton Trace Local School District!! Pays homage to all three schools history with the KTC athletic conference, and follows the 'Trace' name sake to troll the Fayette County schools.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure that you’re all that far of here.

This last week I caught some bits of Madison-Plains’ school board meeting livestream. Due to issues with facilities and inability to pass a bond issue, it seems they are exploring using new incoming tax revenues from local solar farms to self-finance building a new school. There does not seem to be a similar case study of pursuing that in Ohio. Without the solar revenues this an example of a rural school that I could see going belly up within the next decade, and I think there are many similar districts in this region.
 
nwwarrior09 said:
Somebody should ask and I imagine the school district fiscal financials can be found online. The “state funding” percentage of funding that school district is probably static if not receding year to year regardless of casino taxes.

Ultimately there is some degree of politics here, and I hate talking about politics. The property tax oriented local funding thing was deemed to be “unconstitutional” at least two decades ago and it’s still the life support of local school funding. At the state level the House passed a budget that is short a few hundred million dollars of “fair funding” for education and with a disproportionately high portion going to EdChoice programs and charter schools. The state has zero interest in fixing funding for traditional public education and won’t do so unless state officials are actually held accountable for doing so.
Click to expand...
Dude, you are good at politics, and I have seen you on the Debate forum calling dirt mud without mentioning water. You have some of the best PC posts I've seen, lol....

Remember when the soda tax was voted down in 1994 but we still have a soda tax? I digress.

The bottom line, there is funding through the gambling and lottery tax systems that school boards are not reporting, clearly, on their fiscal ledgers and somehow those districts need a levy to support the shortfalls. This would not be an issue other than we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars annually to be distributed amongst OH school districts. Where is this money going? Who should ask those questions? Maybe those that are being asked to support levies?

Have you ever wondered why a school district proposing levies that do not pass are still in operation without state oversight?

The district response is a pay to play but where is that captured on the district fiscal ledger? What school in Clark, Champaign County has actually shut down all extra circular activities due to a failed levied? How does a school still function operating in the red? It has been pointed out several local school districts have not passed a levy in decades, yet here they are still open. Why is that? How is that?
 
The state legislature did pull a sleight of hand with the casino money and just used it to substitute what they had already alocated. This budget they also pulled another change,five years ago the legislature laid out a budget plan providing a certain amount of funding for public schools through this budget cycle. Many districts took the legislature at their word and planned according To that plan. This budget they also pulled legislature said no we don’t have the money for that promised plan but we do have a significant raise for vouchers and the way here’s a couple billion for the Hallam family and the a new stadium for the Browns. Of course two days later the Bengals went to Columbus for their handout.
 
Gamma Gobbler said:
Dude, you are good at politics, and I have seen you on the Debate forum calling dirt mud without mentioning water. You have some of the best PC posts I've seen, lol....

Remember when the soda tax was voted down in 1994 but we still have a soda tax? I digress.

The bottom line, there is funding through the gambling and lottery tax systems that school boards are not reporting, clearly, on their fiscal ledgers and somehow those districts need a levy to support the shortfalls. This would not be an issue other than we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars annually to be distributed amongst OH school districts. Where is this money going? Who should ask those questions? Maybe those that are being asked to support levies?

Have you ever wondered why a school district proposing levies that do not pass are still in operation without state oversight?

The district response is a pay to play but where is that captured on the district fiscal ledger? What school in Clark, Champaign County has actually shut down all extra circular activities due to a failed levied? How does a school still function operating in the red? It has been pointed out several local school districts have not passed a levy in decades, yet here they are still open. Why is that? How is that?
Click to expand...
Bottled water…🥸
 
Gamma Gobbler said:
Warrior, you are a smart dude and know so much more than me. I ask you what state funding are the Springfield area schools missing that would necessitate any levy? Why is the CSLS in such a bind to propose an Income Tax for the May election? Is this different than a school levy?

I have provided an example of the gambling revue that should augment school district expenditures without the need for a levy...your take? If there is amount of cash laying in the state coffers, why is it not reported by the local school districts or why are they not blowing the lid off the state for not providing this funding? There have been a billion + dollars over the past 13 years ear marked for education for some 600 public schools (districts).
Click to expand...
The underlying issue here is that school funding is a combination of state money and local taxes. So the state provides a certain amount of money per student in the district and then (for CSLS) property taxes make up the rest of the funding. The 4 new housing developments were given tax agreements (by the city of Springfield over the protests of the district and district residents) that will result in CSLS not receiving any property taxes from them for multiple years (10-15 depending on development) while still being required to educate the children who live there. The district is going for an income tax because it would apply to everyone (Excluding retirement income) including those in the new developments. The projected growth will result in the need for additional building space, additional teachers, bus drivers, and other staff.
 
The state needs to fund schools operating expenses and salaries with a consumption tax levied against everyone. The more you spend the more you pay. Use levies for construction and improvements. Guarantee the salaries of teachers to be above a living wage. They are the most important people in a school system. Coaches should be paid from gate receipts of each school and then bonused through their regular salary, based on results. Coaches are not paid enough for the work they put in and the crap they deal with. Just my opinion.
Property owners are saddled with too much and penalized for being a property owner. Eliminate taxing folks over 65. The younger generation needs to pay more since they are the ones with the young children. They are at the peak of their earning years.
 
Gamma Gobbler said:
Dude, you are good at politics, and I have seen you on the Debate forum calling dirt mud without mentioning water. You have some of the best PC posts I've seen, lol....

Remember when the soda tax was voted down in 1994 but we still have a soda tax? I digress.

The bottom line, there is funding through the gambling and lottery tax systems that school boards are not reporting, clearly, on their fiscal ledgers and somehow those districts need a levy to support the shortfalls. This would not be an issue other than we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars annually to be distributed amongst OH school districts. Where is this money going? Who should ask those questions? Maybe those that are being asked to support levies?

Have you ever wondered why a school district proposing levies that do not pass are still in operation without state oversight?

The district response is a pay to play but where is that captured on the district fiscal ledger? What school in Clark, Champaign County has actually shut down all extra circular activities due to a failed levied? How does a school still function operating in the red? It has been pointed out several local school districts have not passed a levy in decades, yet here they are still open. Why is that? How is that?
Click to expand...
I’m not old enough to remember the soda tax proposal lol.

Shutting down all extracurriculars is a recipe for having an exodus of enrollment. I don’t think they’ve ever actually done it, but Graham has toyed with that idea before and will likely be doing so again if they fail their levy this spring.

I may be incorrect, but I don’t believe a school district can legally operate in the red. They get taken over by the state if that occurs. Schools that can’t pass levies like Graham cut corners and get as lean as possible. The biggest factor there as to the bolded (and to a few other rural districts that come to mind) is declining enrollment helping offset costs and maintain reasonable class sizes as cuts have progressively been made to staff.

Shawnee has probably done quite a bit of trimming in recent years between declining enrollment and elementary school consolidation. A lot of the day to day operating expenses I imagine have leveled off — if not decreased — going from operating three antiquated elementary schools to operating one new building. Their big issue on the horizon is if there actually is a notable surge in enrollment when these new tax abated developments mature. Suddenly prior cuts to keep budgets lean and right size with declining enrollment has you in a potential situation of being very under staffed and overcrowded.
 
red123 said:
The way the state of Ohio funds schools was found illegal nearly 20 years ago.....yet here we are, the same broken system.
Click to expand...
Yes, it was absolutely found to be unconstitutional and is absolutely BS. Using an arbitrary home valuation is ridiculous. If kids are all equal, it shouldn’t cost more/less to educate them based on my home.
 
Bless Em All said:
The state needs to fund schools operating expenses and salaries with a consumption tax levied against everyone. The more you spend the more you pay. Use levies for construction and improvements. Guarantee the salaries of teachers to be above a living wage. They are the most important people in a school system. Coaches should be paid from gate receipts of each school and then bonused through their regular salary, based on results. Coaches are not paid enough for the work they put in and the crap they deal with. Just my opinion.
Property owners are saddled with too much and penalized for being a property owner. Eliminate taxing folks over 65. The younger generation needs to pay more since they are the ones with the young children. They are at the peak of their earning years.
Click to expand...
If the state could just provide for the full cost of education that would be great. I could live with levies for improvements and construction to an extent but I think even that should be someone covered by the state. IE. if I need new buildings because of age or outgrowth, the state should help. If I just want to build the next football/basketball/theatre/etc mecca, levy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top