For status updates, visit lucyburns.org.
Ballotpedia's coverage of elections held on March 3, 2015, was limited. Select races were covered live, and all results will be added once the merger is complete.
Buckeye Valley School District Income Tax & Bond Measure (August 2012)
This measure sought to implement an income tax rate of .25% for a period of five years in order to pay for current operational costs in the district. The measure would have also issued a bond in the amount of $30 million in order to help pay for renovations and facility improvement projects in the Buckeye Valley School District, as well as a new elementary school building.
If the bond had been approved, an additional levy of 3.5 mills would have been added to the local property tax rate, adding around $107, per $100,000 of assessed value to current homes in the district. The income tax would have generated an estimated $1.2 million a year in revenues. The school district had attempted a income tax measure in November 2011, but it was defeated with 64% of voters against the proposed tax.
|Buckeye Valley School Measure|
Text of measure
The question on the ballot:
| Shall the Buckeye Valley Local School District be authorized to do both of the following:
(1) Impose an annual income tax of 0.25% on the school district income of individuals and of estates, for 5 years, beginning January 1, 2013, for the purpose of providing for the current operating expenses of the school district?
(2) Issue bonds for the purpose of constructing school facilities, including an elementary school, and renovating existing school facilities; furnishing and equipping the same; improving the sites thereof, and acquiring land and interests in land in the principal amount of $30,000,000, to be repaid annually over a maximum period of 28 years, and levy a property tax outside the ten-mill limitation, estimated by the county auditor to average over the bond repayment period 3.5 mills for each one dollar of valuation, which amounts to $0.35 for each one hundred dollars of valuation, to pay the annual debt charges on the bonds, and to pay debt charges on any notes issued in anticipation of those bonds?
No formal organization or group of supporters had actively campaigned in favor of this measure, according to recent news reports. Opinion articles by supporters argued that having one large elementary school building for students would bring students closer together, offer room for future growth, more sustainable, motivation and help increase school ratings, according to studies in other school districts that have seen similar changes.
Those opposed argued that they saw the measure as a "no-win proposition." From their perspective, even if the measure had been approved, schools would be closed and merged. Since it was defeated, the district will not have the needed money to keep all the schools open. In this scenario, schools will still be forced to close.
Cost of election
- See also: Costs of administering local elections
Since this is the only issue on the August ballot, the school is paying an estimated $42,000 for administering the special election. Some have argued that placing it on the November ballot, which would only cost $2,000 to administer, would be more financially sound. School officials stated that the August date was chosen so that if it is approved, the money could be collected earlier.
- Delaware County board of Elections, Buckeye Valley information
- The Columbus Dispatch, "Backers of Buckeye Valley school tax have questions, too," June 8, 2012
- Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
- The Columbus Dispatch, "New elementary is best option in Buckeye Valley," August 4, 2012
State of Ohio
|State executive officers||
Governor | Lieutenant Governor | Attorney General | Secretary of State | Treasurer | Auditor of State | Superintendent of Public Instruction | Director of Insurance | Director of Agriculture | Director of Natural Resources | Superintendent of Industrial Compliance and Labor | Chairman of Public Utilities |