Editor’s note: The Summiteer publishes letters to the editor from the community. The opinions expressed are published not because they necessarily reflect those of the publication but because we feel they contribute meaningfully to the local discourse on matters of public interest.

Submitted by a reader

I am writing as a taxpayer because I believe we need a greater understanding regarding how district funds are being budgeted and spent. Although providing the financials via a public records request might be considered transparency by some, it does not mean the average taxpayer can understand the information provided. 

After reviewing the district's financial information — even with AI assistance — I continue to come back to one fundamental question: Where is the money actually going? The information provided is ambiguous, as it does not provide a clear breakdown of how expenditures compare to the approved budget at a granular level. Many of the expense descriptions in the report are cryptic and an explanation should be provided.

I am not accusing anyone of wrongdoing. I simply believe taxpayers should be able to understand where our money is going without having to piece it together from multiple financial reports and statements that are not concise.

For every major area of district spending — including academic subjects, music programs, athletics, transportation, technology, administration, facilities, special education, and other major functions — I would like to see the total district budget and departmental/cost-center budget versus actual expenditures. 

The current format, which primarily shows year-over-year monthly comparisons, may be useful for internal purposes, but I believe taxpayers would benefit much more from seeing budget versus actual year-to-date spending by department or cost center, along with the remaining budget. A brief description of each cost center or department would also help taxpayers understand what each area encompasses and where the funds are being spent.

In summary, taxpayers would like to see:

I also have questions regarding the expiring emergency levy. Given the substantial increase in property values within the district — approximately 25% to 35% — and the resulting impact on property-tax revenue, I believe taxpayers deserve a clear explanation of how these increased revenues have affected the district’s financial position. Under Ohio’s property-tax system, this level of valuation growth can translate into an estimated 5% to 7% increase in tax revenue.

The taxpayer would like to know exactly what the expiring “emergency” levy pays for and, most importantly, what specifically would happen if it expired. One question I — and many others in the community — have raised is whether an “emergency” levy should continue indefinitely, or whether an emergency measure should eventually be allowed to expire. 

Most parents I speak with want their children to develop strong skills in reading, writing, math, science, and history, and to graduate well-prepared for whatever path they choose next.

Parents also want their children to have opportunities to participate in things that make school more meaningful— band, choir, orchestra, athletics, and other extracurricular activities that help create well-rounded individuals.

We have parents who demonstrate what those priorities are with their own volunteer time and money. Booster organizations raise money because the community cares deeply about certain programs, like athletics, band, choir and others. That's meaningful evidence of what our community values.

At the same time, we may be paying for programs, services, initiatives and expenditures that taxpayers may not have specifically asked for—and may not consider priorities.

One example that raised this question for me is Satchel Pulse. I am not suggesting that this single expense is responsible for the district's financial situation. Rather, it illustrates a broader question about priorities: When taxpayers are being asked for additional funding, how are discretionary initiatives being weighed against direct academic needs and other district priorities?

Another more challenging topic that deserves discussion is retirement benefits. The most generous retirement arrangement I am personally aware of is a 6% employee 401(k) contribution with a 100% employer match. That type of benefit has already become uncommon in corporate America. There has been significant discussion in the community regarding retirement benefits for school district employees. Shouldn’t school employee retirement compensation be reasonably aligned with the retirement opportunities available to the taxpayers who ultimately fund those benefits? Transparency and understanding of this topic are required.

In closing, I am respectfully requesting two primary areas of action:

I am not opposed to funding our schools or the employees who provide meaningful educational value to our students. I am opposed to asking taxpayers for additional or renewed “emergency” funding without first demonstrating the financial necessity for doing so. The raw financials do not provide an understanding. 

Thank you for your consideration.