Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Levy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board tables levy decision, asks treasurer for homeowner-impact scenarios at 3.24, 4 and 5 mills
Summary
After a lengthy discussion of expiring emergency levies, state 'clawback' effects and homeowner impacts, the board voted to table a levy resolution and requested detailed fiscal scenarios for 3.24, 4 and 5 mills ahead of a future vote.
The Stow-Munroe Falls City School District board on April 27 tabled a proposed levy resolution and asked Treasurer Mr. Hammond to provide detailed homeowner-impact and revenue scenarios for three options (3.24, 4.0 and 5.0 mills) before the board revisits the question.
Treasurer Mr. Hammond briefed the board on levies pending expiration and rough revenue estimates, saying that “a 1 mill levy would bring us about $1.46 million; a 4 mill levy would bring about $5.84 million; a 7 mill levy would bring about $10.2 million.” He also warned the board about a state-level “clawback” that the administration estimated at roughly $2 million in lost collections, and explained that emergency levies cannot be renewed as simple continuations under current statute.
Board members debated several considerations: whether to ask the community for the same total amount that is expiring, to ask for more to account for inflation and ongoing program needs, or to plan internal expense reductions and stagger future levies so voters are not asked repeatedly in close succession. One board member noted that asking for the same nominal amount is, in practice, a reduction because voter approval fixes a millage that does not automatically adjust for inflation.
The board also discussed the likely taxpayer impact using sample home values. Treasurer staff provided rough household estimates: a $300,000 home (taxable value basis applied per local rules) would see an approximate increase of $250 per year switching from 3.24 mills to 5 mills; other comments used a $280,000 median home to illustrate similar mid‑hundreds annual impacts.
A motion was made to table the levy resolution so staff could return with precise certified numbers and a short and long-term levy timetable; the motion was adopted. Board members asked Mr. Hammond to come back with certified revenue estimates, term-length options (three, five, longer), and the levy’s projected effect on the district’s multi-year forecast and cash position.
Treasurer and board comments stressed the tension between limiting taxpayer burden and maintaining sufficient revenue to avoid deeper classroom cuts. The discussion concluded with a request that staff present the three scenarios at the next board meeting so the board can decide whether to move a levy to the November ballot.
