Cuyahoga Heights treasurer warns county valuation error may leave district about $2.3 million short

Cuyahoga Heights — Treasurer Matt Buccio told the Cuyahoga Heights Board of Education on Oct. 15 that a discrepancy in county valuation and certification appears to have left the district roughly $2.3 million short of the property-tax revenue it expected for tax year 2024/collection year 2025.

Buccio said the mismatch arose after the county produced a different Division of Tax Equalization (DTE) report in May that reduced commercial/industrial (Class 2) valuations for a nearby jurisdiction, Village of Valley View, by about $93,000,000. That adjustment, combined with DTE reporting differences, produced county totals that — unless effective rates were recalculated upward — lower the district's gross levy projections from the district’s expected $17.3 million to about $14.7 million.

"They told us that there was an overstatement of $90,000,000 valuation," Buccio said while walking the board through three rates-and-amounts spreadsheets and two DTE 5-15 reports. "When I plug those inputs in, it gives me the purple output numbers for the total gross amount — $17,357,601 on one sheet and about $14.7 million on another when their valuations are reduced." (Buccio presented the district's calculations on screen and uploaded the county sheets to BoardDocs.)

Why it matters: property-tax advances and settlements fund operating expenses and planned levies. Buccio said the county's collection-information report showed the district receiving 15.1 percent of the expected collections, compared with a baseline estimate of about 17.3 percent; he estimated the district's shortfall at approximately $2,300,000 and said the issue could require legal action if the county cannot explain or correct the calculation.

The board and treasurer described the next steps. Buccio said he sent 14 pointed questions and two public-record requests to the budget commission and that the district had a follow-up meeting scheduled for about a week after the Oct. 15 meeting to let the county explain how it arrived at the adjusted figures. "We will respond based on what they present," Superintendent Young said, adding that the district is coordinating with counsel. Young said the district had also notified Valley View's mayor's office because the reappraisal adjustment affects that village's levies as well.

Board members pressed for timing and mechanics of remittances. Buccio reviewed the county's standard advance/settlement schedule (an advance in mid-January and February, settlement in March, and a second-half settlement in July and August) and said that the district already received its tax-year '25 collections but that the amounts received did not match the district's baseline expectations. "We're still trying to figure all that out," he said. "It's either the county charged the businesses the correct amount and withheld our money, or they charged the wrong amount and never collected it."

Buccio also described possible technical causes: a second certification by the county to the Department of Taxation that generated a later DTE and inconsistent effective-rate calculations. He told the board he had asked for the county's schedules and internal documentation to reconcile the calculations and would continue to press for answers. The district has begun coordinating with other treasurers and expects legal fees if the matter proceeds to formal recovery actions.

The superintendent and board emphasized the seriousness of the issue and thanked Buccio for the detailed analysis. Young said the district will reconvene once the county provides reconciliation details and that the board will consider further action, including possible legal remedies, depending on the county's response.

What the county said: at the Oct. 15 meeting county representatives acknowledged an issue and narrowed it to Class 2 appraisals in Valley View, but did not yet provide a complete explanation of where the error occurred in the chain of certification.

Next step: the district meets again with the budget commission and county staff within about a week to review reconciliation work; Buccio expects to receive the county's answers to his 14 questions and the public records he requested and will update the board thereafter.

(Reporting note: all quotes and figures in this article are taken from the Oct. 15 board meeting transcript and documents Buccio uploaded to BoardDocs.)