*Note: This is reader-submitted. Opinions and letters to the editor can be sent to news@crawfordcountynow.com

This is a response to the Wynford Levy Public Meeting held on April 16, 2026, at Wynford High School. As is often the case with these types of meetings, attendance was limited. Most in attendance appeared to be members of the levy committee, board members, and district employees—some of whom live within the district—while relatively few residents were present.

First, Superintendent Trisler stated for the record that he and Treasurer Lisa Smith were committed to presenting factual information. However, serious concerns arose during the presentation. The information provided appeared one-sided and, in some cases, questionable in accuracy.

Second, the superintendent referenced “Primary Peer School Districts” from other parts of the state, but did not include comparable districts from this immediate area. Additionally, while the presentation cited “Only Crawford County” data for home market values and average income, information from Wyandot County—also part of the Wynford District—was entirely omitted. Why were both counties not fully represented? This raises concerns about whether the data was selectively presented.

The figures presented—$156,452 for average home market value and

$55,477 for average income—were described as factual. However, these numbers were reportedly derived from Zillow and 2020 census data. Why not rely on the Crawford County Auditor’s Office for more accurate, locally verified data? Zillow is a private entity and may not reflect precise or current values.

Third, while written question cards were allowed, the most meaningful discussion came from direct, in-depth questions asked afterward. At one point, the superintendent appeared to contradict an earlier statement. The meeting might have benefited from being held later, allowing for more complete and verified information to be presented. The accuracy of the data remains in question.

Fourth, while it is acknowledged that the district may face financial challenges by 2028, it raises a fundamental question: how does a district plan to spend money it does not yet have? Was there adequate long-term financial planning—such as 3-, 5-, or 10-year projections? Were sufficient reserves maintained? Additionally, questions arise regarding administrative compensation, including mid-contract raises and salaries exceeding

$100,000 for several top positions.

Fifth, although the district has made cuts in the past, it is worth examining whether those cuts were made in the most effective areas. Further reductions are anticipated, but addressing root causes should come first. One example is open enrollment. Does the district receive sufficient funding per student to cover actual costs? Does it receive property tax revenue from those students’ home districts? Concerns also extend to transportation policies, including whether services are applied equitably among students.

Sixth, there are concerns about fairness in the structure of the proposed income tax levy. Some individuals are reportedly exempt, yet no clear explanation was provided regarding how many or why. This raises questions about equity—whether all residents are contributing fairly—and whether those exempt from the tax should have a say in its approval.

These concerns could potentially invite legal scrutiny.

In closing, I cannot support this proposed income tax levy and encourage others to carefully consider a “NO” vote. A 1.75% income tax, combined with existing local taxes, could result in a total local tax burden of 2.75% to 4%. This is in addition to current property taxes, as well as state and federal income taxes.

There are alternative approaches that should be explored—particularly in cost management and financial planning—that could better serve the community as a whole. It was also stated that the levy would be placed back on the ballot in November if it fails, along with the possibility of immediate and significant cuts. Some may view this as a form of pressure rather than a constructive solution.

Ultimately, the choice belongs to the voters. Your vote matters.

Respectfully submitted, Greg White

1125 Hillcrest Drive

Bucyrus, Ohio 44820