The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a local school district in a case of a property tax dispute.
[DOWNLOAD: Free WHIO-TV News app for alerts as news breaks]
On Friday, the Springfield City School District announced that the Supreme Court had ruled in the district’s favor regarding the continued collection of the 2013 bond levy.
TRENDING STORIES:
“This important decision affirms the District’s position and ensures that debt service payments will remain funded as intended by voters, without placing additional financial burden on the District,” the district said in a statement.
News Center 7 previously reported that in 2024, the district filed a lawsuit against the Clark County Auditor, arguing to extend the deadline to collect the property tax.
In May 2013, voters who live within the Springfield City Schools District approved a nearly $14 million bond levy that was expected to run over a max of 12 years.
School officials issued nearly $6 million in bonds in 2013 and the remaining more than $8 million in 2019. For repayment, Springfield City Schools argues in the lawsuit that it means two separate 12-year windows, according to a previous News Center 7 report.
The district wanted to collect taxes on the 2013 bond until 2026 and the 2019 bond until the end of 2031.
A district spokesperson confirmed that the Supreme Court ruling applies to both years.
As a result of the ruling, the district is working to remove the contingency Permanent Improvement levy from the November 2025 ballot.
The district said that the levy is “no longer necessary as the Court’s decision guarantees continued funding in alignment with Ohio law and the expectations of the District’s community.”
“We are grateful for the support of our Board of Education and community throughout this process, and we remain committed to strong financial stewardship on behalf of our students and taxpayers,” SCSD Chief Financial Officer Nicole Cottrell said.
In the 2024 lawsuit, Clark County Prosecutor Dan Driscoll represented the Clark County Auditor.
“Our argument is that 12 years is 12 years,” Driscoll told News Center 7 in 2024. “And that’s what the voters approved, and that’s what the school should be held to.”
Clark County Auditor Hillary Hamilton issued the following statement in response to the court’s ruling:
“As Auditor, I felt it was my duty to the taxpayers who voted on this levy to have the Court, not my office, decide this issue. When voters approve a levy for a specific length of time, they deserve confidence that the terms will be honored. The Court, in their ruling did not address if the school board may extend the time period of collection for the levy, only that the Auditor’s Office did not have the authority to refuse the Board’s request for additional funds. While I respect the Court’s ruling, my office will continue to stand for transparency and fairness, making sure property owners clearly understand what they are being taxed on and why.”
Clark County Auditor Hillary Hamilton
Hamilton said that the Auditor’s Office will comply with the court’s ruling and will review the ruling to ensure proper implementation.
News Center 7 will continue to follow this story.
[SIGN UP: WHIO-TV Daily Headlines Newsletter]