The numbers
behind our YES.

The district’s FY2025 annual report gives the existing-levy estimate as $8,412,524. The chart consistently rounds that common benchmark to $8.41 million. The original 2023 renewal and Issue 9 both have five-year terms; the November 2024 proposal was continuing.

This is a comparison of annual funding packages, not a reduction in a homeowner’s current tax bill. The older levy collects through December 2027 and Issue 9 begins collecting in 2027. Both streams therefore collect during that transition year.

The downloadable endorsement letter uses this same annual-package meaning. Its comparison header has been clarified for this website edition.

The $7 million proposal and its July 2024 timing are Better Ohio PAC’s account of its proposed funding plan, as recorded in the endorsement letter. The August 2, 2024 Strongsville GOP statement independently documents the public call for a smaller, 3.5-mill levy and five-year voter reviews. A campaign proposal is distinct from a county-certified levy amount.

We say the overall outcome goes further because the intervening expiration also caused the district to use accumulated reserves. We do not claim Issue 9’s certified annual amount is below $15.41 million.

FY2023 revenue is the forecast’s historical revenue total plus $25,978.07 of interest in the other operating account. Spending is counted once across the combined operating accounts. The letter’s “nearly $10 million” is a rounded description of this result.

June 2024 consists of $49,467,515.11 + $25,581,871.50. June 2025 consists of $46,111,939.29 + $21,260,337.49. June 2026 consists of $36,318,615.34 + $21,769,497.02. These components reconcile to the district’s monthly financial statements.

The passage estimates come from the district’s August 27, 2026 board presentation, page 56. They are rounded projections, not audited future balances. The full district model continues to use reserves beyond 2028. Our endorsement supports restoring dependable revenue alongside continued financial discipline; it does not claim that future budgets automatically balance.

The 2023 renewal was certified at $9.854 million annually; the letter describes the lost stream as roughly $9.8 million a year. FY2025 included the last half-year of collections; FY2026 had no collections from that levy. This timing explains why the full annual effect did not fall in a single fiscal year immediately after the vote.

Issue 9 authorizes tax years 2026–2030, with first collections in 2027. It does not impose collections for the expired levy’s missing 2025–2026 calendar years. The reserve drawdown also reflects spending and other changes; it is not attributed exclusively to one revenue stream.

Page 20 states that these reductions are incorporated into the forecast. The current district levy information confirms they remain if Issue 9 passes. We describe them as modest reductions already begun, not as proof that total annual expenditures will decline every year.

The certified estimate is $15,427,256 a year. The authorization covers tax years 2026–2030, with collections 2027–2031. This is operating funding for current expenses.

The five-year term matters to our endorsement: continuation beyond the authorization requires another voter decision. It is not the continuing levy rejected in November 2024 and it is not the separate school-construction bond considered in May 2026.

Historical revenue uses forecast line 1.070 plus interest reported in the other operating account. The interest additions are $25,978.07 (FY2023), $555,893.43 (FY2024), $929,867.99 (FY2025) and $811,498.36 (FY2026).

For FY2027, the model adds $59,144.64 in July interest and $7.6 million in modeled Issue 9 receipts to the $84,699,820 base forecast: $92,358,964.64. FY2028 adds modeled levy receipts of $15.1 million to base revenue of $80,654,730: $95,754,730.

FY2023 and FY2024 expenditures are the historical totals of $78,331,763 and $84,308,107. FY2025 combines $88,664,721 + $590,947 = $89,255,668. FY2026 combines $92,344,507 + $4,875,215.22 = $97,219,722.22. The monthly reports distinguish current-year project spending from cumulative project costs; we use only the current year.

FY2027 expenditures are the published $96,008,342 forecast plus $31,071.11 of project spending already recorded in July, producing $96,039,413.11. Remaining project commitments are assumed to be covered by the forecast, rather than counted again. These totals include operating-account capital projects, so year-to-year changes reflect project timing as well as operating costs.

The district’s rounded forecast receipts and the county’s certified annual levy estimate serve different purposes. We use the certified number for the package comparison and modeled receipts for the district’s cash scenario. Chart projections are displayed at an appropriate rounded precision.

Cash is a year-end balance; revenue and spending are annual activity. They share a dollar scale but measure different things. Projection segments are dashed. The line-chart axes start above zero and show their dollar labels; the package bars start at zero.

The FY2027 estimate updates Strongsville’s FY2025 all-governmental spending by the change in combined operating spending. Other spending and accounting adjustments stay at FY2025 levels:

The estimate uses the latest published headcount of 5,643. It is our analytical estimate, not a district-published all-funds forecast. Future enrollment and capital spending can change it. Levy revenue is not treated as additional spending.

The graph deliberately labels the forecast year: Strongsville’s FY2027 estimate is compared with the available FY2025 peer actuals. Totals include capital and debt costs. The separate state operating-spending comparison below uses a different, consistently defined measure.

Removing each district’s reported capital/facilities-outlay line gives the secondary FY2025 comparison below. This is a useful check on construction effects; it still includes debt service.

Brunswick’s published total is supported by its audited statement. Its construction program explains the unusually large capital component.

Rounded to whole dollars, that is $17,857 versus $17,609. This comparison uses the state’s total operating expenditure per pupil measure for both. It is distinct from the audited all-governmental totals in the letter, which include capital and debt costs.

The original workbook cells are DistrictData!AU139 for Strongsville and StatewideData!B45 for Ohio. Strongsville is identified by IRN 044842. The October 6 research workbook preserves these underlying values.

The district’s update also reports five stars in Achievement, Progress, Gap Closing and Graduation. This supports our commitment to preserving excellent schools while insisting on responsible funding. The rating is a report-card result; it is not a claim that a levy alone determines academic outcomes.

The financial records establish the change in circumstances. The conclusion—“a victory for taxpayers and students”—is Better Ohio PAC’s assessment of that progress. We support dependable school funding and continued scrutiny of spending together.

The history page identifies the distinct proposals so that a renewal, a continuing operating levy and a construction bond are not treated as the same question. The 2018, 2019 and 2021 records recovered are Cuyahoga County results; the site states their outcomes without presenting those county vote counts as districtwide totals.

For November 2024, the official Cuyahoga and Lorain county contest summaries document the school-levy defeat. Both records are linked below.