Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Levy Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Nordonia Hills board sends multiple levy scenarios to county after lengthy budget debate; $7.3M emergency option proposed
Summary
After extended discussion of projected deficits and lost revenue from MGM, the Nordonia Hills board agreed to send several levy scenarios to the county for certification, including a $7.3 million emergency option over eight years and a range of operating and restricted options for voters to consider.
Board members debated the district’s fiscal outlook for roughly two hours during the Jan. 13 organizational meeting before agreeing to forward multiple levy scenarios to the Summit County Fiscal Office for millage certification. The board did not adopt a final ballot question on Monday; instead, members asked the treasurer to certify five options so the board can choose a final proposal at a subsequent meeting.
The scenarios the board directed staff to submit for county certification included:
- A 1-mill permanent-improvement (PI) levy for five years to fund capital needs such as building repairs and equipment; - A 1-mill safety and security levy for five years to fund SROs and other school safety services; - A combined package totaling 5 mills (4.5 mills operating, 0.5 mills PI) as a limited package the board discussed for a five-year period; - A 5-mill continuous operating levy (ongoing operating support); and - An emergency, dollar-based levy request the treasurer estimated at $7,300,000 with an eight-year term (the county will translate that dollar request into a millage rate for the ballot).
Members framed the certification step as preparatory: county staff compute the millage equivalents for dollar-based emergency requests and return certified options to the district so the board can select what to place on the ballot. The treasurer and other staff cautioned that the district’s forecast already assumes the loss of MGM revenue (about $2.4 million in prior years) and that permanent-improvement savings likely won’t fully materialize until later years. The treasurer said his modeling estimates the district may need roughly $6–7 million a year under current-service assumptions to stabilize operations without additional significant cuts.
Board members and staff reviewed alternative scenarios and stressed trade-offs. Multiple trustees urged a single, unified proposal that could command broad support, while others said separating PI or safety funding on distinct ballot questions might draw more targeted support. Several members warned that sending two separate questions to voters on the same election (for example, a PI or safety request plus an operating levy) risks one question passing and the other failing.
The board discussed past cuts already implemented — including about 14.5 positions districtwide and other cost reductions — and considered additional steps such as transportation changes or building consolidation. Staff estimated one-time savings from consolidating a building at about $700,000 but noted most district costs are personnel-related and recurring.
The board’s direction to district staff was procedural: send the five levy certification options to the county and return to the board with certified millage figures and a recommendation. The treasurer indicated he would submit the scenarios and prepare the certification returns for the board’s formal vote at the next meeting.
The board did not finalize a single ballot question on Jan. 13; members emphasized the need to balance voter affordability and levy fatigue against the district’s need for operating revenues to certify payroll and services in future years.
