Voters in Portage County will see some renewal levies on their November ballots.
Renewal levies don’t raise taxes and generate about the same amount of revenue as originally intended, regardless of inflation or rising costs, said Portage County Auditor Matt Kelly.
If a renewal bid fails, and it is the last time it can be put on the ballot before it expires, that revenue stream stops. The taxing authority will lose money for at least one year, or until an additional levy is passed.
Taxing authorities can float levy bids in any election, but the taxes from levies that pass cannot be collected until the following year, Kelly said. If a renewal levy fails in November and is set to expire at the end of the year, the taxing authority stops receiving the money as of Jan. 1 of the following year.
If a renewal levy has outlived its lifespan, the taxing authority would either have to float a replacement or additional levy. Additional levies can fund multiple needs, but replacement levies must be for the exact purpose the original levy served, Kelly said.
When voters see a millage request on the ballot, they’re actually seeing what the auditor’s office calls a “gross” rate, Kelly said. The effective rate is usually less and is intended to keep property owners paying close to the same amount each year if renewed.
Townships asking voters to approve renewal levies are:
Atwater
Issue 3: a five-year, 2.9-mill renewal levy to fund the township’s fire and EMS services commencing in 2024, first due in calendar year 2025. The Portage County auditor estimates the levy would generate $156,000 annually, which amounts to $74 for each $100,000 of the county auditor’s appraised value.
Charlestown
Issue 5: a five-year, 1.5-mill renewal levy to fund current expenses commencing in 2023, first due in calendar year 2024. The county auditor estimates the levy would generate $17,000 annually, which amounts to $18 for each $100,000 of the county auditor’s appraised value.
Issue 6: a five-year, 0.7-mill renewal levy to fund current expenses commencing in 2023, first due in calendar year 2024. The county auditor estimates the levy would generate $8,000 annually, which amounts to $8 for each $100,000 of the county auditor’s appraised value.
Franklin
Issue 9: A five-year, 2-mill renewal levy to fund roads and bridges, commencing in 2023, first due in calendar year 2024. The county auditor estimates the levy would generate $348,000 annually, which amounts to $58 for each $100,000 of the county auditor’s appraised value.
Palmyra
Issue 12: A five-year, 1-mill renewal tax levy to fund fire and EMS, commencing in 2024, first due in calendar year 2025. The county auditor estimates the levy would generate $58,000 annually, which amounts to $24 for each $100,000 of the county auditor’s appraised value.
School boards asking voters to approve renewal levies are:
Streetsboro City Schools
Issue 17: a five-year, 9-mill renewal tax levy to fund current operating expenses, commencing in 2024, first due in calendar year 2025. The county auditor estimates the levy would generate $4,765,000 annually, which amounts to $272 for each $100,000 of the county auditor’s appraised value.
Crestwood Local Schools
Issue 20: a four-year, 3.56-mill renewal levy to fund emergency requirements for four years commencing in 2024, first due in calendar year 2025. The county auditor estimates the levy would generate $1.4 million annually, which amounts to $115 for each $100,000 of the county auditor’s appraised value.
Issue 20 is a renewal of an emergency levy district voters originally passed in 2012 and have renewed every four years since then, Crestwood Treasurer Katie Hoffmeister said.
“With that, we could keep the district afloat and running effectively. It is really an essential part of our budget for the school district. If we were to lose those funds we would have to take measures to figure out what we would do,” she said.
Crestwood uses levy proceeds for operating expenses, including but not limited to maintaining technology, buses, buildings and grounds, implementing new curricula and just about anything else school districts need, she said.
Should voters fail to pass Issue 20, district officials “will have to look at the budget and see how we would make do with those funds no longer being there,” Hoffmeister said.
Field Local Schools
Issue 21: a five-year, 10.75-mill renewal levy to fund current operating expenses and a five-year, 1-mill renewal levy to fund ongoing permanent improvements, commencing in 2024, first due in calendar year 2025. This is a combined levy. The county auditor estimates the levy would generate $5,665,000 annually, which amounts to $352 for each $100,000 of the county auditor’s appraised value.
Issue 22: a five-year, 7.3-mill renewal levy to fund current operating expenses, commencing in 2024, first due in calendar year 2025. The county auditor estimates the levy would generate $3,031,000 annually, which amounts to $179 for each $100,000 of the county auditor’s appraised value.
Rootstown Local School District
Issue 25: a 2.5-mill renewal levy to fund general permanent improvements, “for a continuing period of time” commencing in 2024, first due in calendar year 2025. The county auditor estimates the levy would generate $425,000 annually, which amounts to $47 for each $100,000 of the county auditor’s appraised value.
Waterloo Local School District
Issue 28: a five-year, 4.39-mill renewal levy to prevent an operating deficit, commencing in 2023, first due in calendar year 2024. The county auditor estimates the levy would generate $940,000 annually, which amounts to $141 for each $100,000 of the county auditor’s appraised value.
Waterloo Treasurer Scott Pittman said levy proceeds would continue to fund district programs, staff and daily operations.
“If we don’t have that money, we start spending more than we make,” he said. “The state looks at our five-year forecast, and if our fund balance gets into the negative, then we have to jump through a bunch of hoops through the Ohio Department of Education.”
State law prohibits school districts from operating in the red. That leaves districts asking voters for levies, searching for other funding sources or, worst-case scenario, allowing the state to take over all of the district’s financial decisions, Pittman said.
The last time district voters approved Waterloo’s bid for additional money was in 2013, with a renewal in 2018. Prior to the 2013 levy, voters hadn’t approved new money for the district since the mid-1990s, he said.
State and federal grants have allowed the district to maintain staffing levels, upgrade security systems and provide transportation. However, grants are not steady income and cannot be relied upon for long-term funding, Pittman said.
Waterloo’s board of education has not yet determined where funds will be cut if Issue 28 fails, Pittman said.
Wendy DiAlesandro is a former Record Publishing Co. reporter and contributing writer for The Portager.