Lexington Local — OH
1. Snapshot — the community-rejection blowout of the batch
Suburb-Small district in Lexington (Richland County), just south of Mansfield in north-central Ohio. 2,210 students across 6 schools. SAIPE poverty 8.3%. Demographics 88% White / 6.5% Multiracial / 2.8% Hispanic / 1.9% Black — homogeneous suburban. Per-pupil expenditure $16,758 (FY2020).
26.57% Yes / 73.43% No is the lowest Yes percentage in the 7-district batch, and one of the lowest in the entire 42-district Ohio May 2026 failed cohort. 2,402-vote margin out of 5,126 ballots cast. This is not a campaign-design failure. This is not a “narrowly defeated” margin. This is the community telling the district “no” by 3-to-1. Strategic framing throughout this brief: the data won’t fix this. The relationship is what’s broken.
2. Why this was a hard sell — community context (ACS)
| Metric | Lexington | National median (typical) |
|---|---|---|
| Median household income | $69,435 | ~$75K |
| Median home value | $183,900 | ~$340K |
| Bachelor’s+ | 33.1% | ~33% |
| Owner-occupied | 73.8% | 65% |
| Gini index | 0.470 | — |
| Non-English household | 3.1% | — |
Slightly below-median income, modest home values (54% of national), Bachelor’s at the national median, 73.8% owner-occupancy. Gini index 0.470 — the highest in the 7-batch (Independence is 0.404, Fairfield 0.409). High intra-community inequality in a modest-home, moderate-income district means tax-burden incidence falls unevenly: a 1.5% EIT hits the upper-quintile and lower-quintile households very differently, and the campaign has to address both audiences with different framing.
The 1.5% CPT EIT (highest rate in the 7-batch) on a moderate-income, modest-home-value community is structurally too large. Voters did the math: on a $69K HHI, that’s $1,040/year permanently. On a $40K HHI in the lower quintile, that’s $600/year permanently. In a 73% owner-occupied community where ~30% of the electorate is over 60 (typical Richland County age profile) and many seniors are on fixed incomes, 1.5% permanent EIT was a structural non-starter.
3. The gap story (what the data would have shown voters)
Lexington’s data position is actually strong for an ops ask — and the campaign apparently failed to surface any of it:
- Plant operations spending: $787.73 / pupil vs national median $1,324 — 41% below the national median. Second-lowest in the 7-batch behind Fairfield. Lexington is dramatically under-funded on facilities upkeep relative to comparable districts.
- Per-pupil instruction: $6,860 — also low. Combined with the plant-ops gap, Lexington is systematically under-funded relative to peers across the major expense buckets.
- Capital construction outlay (FY2020): $11,124,000 — the highest in the 7-batch by 7x. Lexington just did a major capital project. This is the opposite of Vermilion-style “zero capital” — Lexington recently invested heavily in buildings, and now wants ongoing operating dollars.
- Utilities/energy: $351,000.
- Chronic absenteeism: 14.4% — low, well below peer norms. Suspension rate 5.6% — moderate. 0 expulsions. School climate is strong.
- Counselor ratio: 334:1 — middling.
- All 6 schools have a nurse (6 nurse FTE) — full coverage.
The most defensible argument the campaign missed: “We just invested $11M in capital construction; we’re 41% below the national median on plant operations; the 1.5% EIT operates the buildings we just built.” That’s a coherent story. The 26.57% Yes suggests it was either not told or not believed.
Why probably not believed: $11M in capital construction in a district of 2,210 students = ~$5,000 per pupil of recent capital activity, which means Lexington recently passed a bond. Voters may have approved that bond (~2020-2022 era, validate) and now feel they’re being asked twice — once for the buildings (passed) and again for the operations (rejected). This is the textbook “we already voted yes once” backlash pattern.
FMX peer operational benchmarks (live)
Lexington has three FMX-customer peers in the top 15, all in Ohio. This is the best in-state FMX peer set of any district in the 7-batch.
| FMX peer | Bldgs | Total sqft | Portfolio age | Resolution rate | Cost/sqft | WO/1K sqft | HVAC % of WOs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Granville Exempted Village (OH, 42 mi south, 90% similarity) | 12 | — | — | 97.4% | — | — | 3.0% |
| Perkins Local (OH, 52 mi north, 89% similarity) | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Tiffin City Schools (OH, 43 mi NW, 88% similarity) | 11 | — | 36.3 yr | 97.4% | — | — | 0% |
All three FMX peers are within 52 miles of Lexington — all in north-central Ohio. That is the strongest in-state peer set of the entire 7-district batch and a load-bearing outreach signal: comparable districts immediately adjacent to Lexington are running FMX and publishing operations data. Tiffin’s 36.3-year portfolio age is notable context (an older-stock peer running 97.4% resolution); Granville (a wealthier Licking County peer) at 97.4% resolution with HVAC 3.0% of WOs is the cleanest comparison.
4. Bond/levy history (Ballotpedia + news)
Lexington has a multi-cycle ballot history. Per Ballotpedia: - ~2020-2022 (probable): Bond passed — funded the $11.1M FY2020 capital construction visible in the data. Validate exact year. - Prior operating levy attempts (validate exact dates). - May 5, 2026: 1.5% EIT, CPT, failed at 26.57% Yes / 2,402-vote margin.
The 26.57% Yes is the strongest community pushback in the batch. November 2026 re-attempt is highly likely but will face the same structural objections unless dramatically re-scoped.
5. What voters / opposition actually said
Limited surfaced coverage so soon after election. Likely operative factors (the 73% No tells you the story is community-wide):
- “We just passed a bond”: ~$11M capital construction in FY2020 implies a recent bond. Voters who said yes to the bond feel they were promised the operations would follow from existing revenue. Asking again for 1.5% EIT permanently breaks that implicit deal.
- 1.5% rate is too high: highest in the batch. On a moderate-HHI community with high Gini inequality, the rate is structurally unsupportable.
- CPT (permanent): tied with East Clinton, Fairfield, Jefferson Township as a flashpoint. Lexington voters appear to have especially strong anti-CPT sentiment.
- No visible campaign engagement: a 73% No with no surfaced opposition committee suggests the district didn’t engage the community meaningfully. Two-way silence.
Strategic framing for the brief: the 26.57% is a community-rejection blowout — not a campaign-design problem, a relationship problem. The district leadership has lost the room. The next campaign needs trust rebuilding before any data story can land. FMX can help with the data story; FMX cannot fix the trust gap.
6. What we could have told them
- “We’re 41% below the national median on plant operations — $788 per student vs $1,324. Granville Exempted Village (42 miles south) spends $1,000+ and is on FMX publishing those numbers. Tiffin (43 miles NW) spends similarly. We’re the under-invested district in the neighborhood and the EIT closes that gap.” Concrete, in-state, peer-benchmarked.
- “We just invested $11M in capital — the buildings are new. The 1.5% EIT operates them. Voting no isn’t ‘no buildings’; it’s ‘no maintenance’ on the buildings you already paid for.” Direct address of the “we already voted yes” backlash.
- “Our chronic absenteeism is 14.4% — well below the Ohio average. Our suspension rate is 5.6%. Zero expulsions. We run a good district on under-funded operating dollars. The EIT preserves that.” Lead with what’s working — Lexington’s school climate is genuinely strong.
- The real problem: 1.5% CPT is too aggressive. A 73% No on a 1.5% rate doesn’t get flipped by data — it gets flipped by re-scoping. Drop to 0.75% or 1.0%, drop to 5-year (not CPT), and rebuild trust between district leadership and the community over 18-24 months before re-running.
- The trust diagnosis: 26.57% Yes with no organized opposition committee means the community has quietly lost confidence. Town-hall listening sessions, a published 5-year operating plan, and visible administration transparency are prerequisite to any future ask succeeding. Data is necessary but not sufficient.
7. FMX outreach hook
Lexington Local is not currently on FMX. Three FMX-customer peers in the top 15, all within 52 miles in Ohio — the strongest in-state FMX peer set in the 7-batch.
- Granville Exempted Village (OH, 42 mi south, enroll 2,517, 90% similarity,
gevsd.gofmx.com) — 12 buildings, 97.4% resolution, HVAC 3.0% of WOs. Wealthier Licking County peer, ideal voter-narrative reference. - Perkins Local (OH, 52 mi north, enroll 2,036, 89% similarity,
perkinsschools.gofmx.com) — 8 buildings tracked, partial snapshot. Erie County peer. - Tiffin City Schools (OH, 43 mi NW, enroll 2,232, 88% similarity,
tiffincityschools.gofmx.com) — 11 buildings, 36.3-year portfolio age, 97.4% resolution. Seneca County peer with mature operational data.
Opener for the call: “Your May 5 1.5% EIT failed at 26.57% Yes — a 2,402-vote margin and the lowest Yes percentage in the entire Ohio May 2026 failed cohort. That’s not a campaign-design problem; that’s a trust problem. The data story you could have told is strong — 41% below national on plant ops, $11M in recent capital investment — and three of your closest in-state peers (Granville, Perkins, Tiffin — all within 52 miles) are already publishing this data through FMX. We can have your portfolio benchmarked against them in 60-90 days, but the bigger play is an 18-24-month engagement that pairs the data work with the community-trust rebuild your next campaign needs.”
Realistic engagement: 18-24 months for the next ballot attempt (likely re-scoped to 0.75% or 1.0%, 5-year not CPT). Lead with Treasurer/CFO; pair the data story with explicit acknowledgement that the trust problem is independent of the data work.
8. Recommended angle
The community-rejection blowout of the batch. 26.57% Yes is a trust failure, not a data failure. FMX can deliver the data story; the district has to rebuild the relationship independently. The strongest in-state FMX peer set in the 7-batch (Granville, Perkins, Tiffin — all within 52 miles) makes the data pitch credible. Frame as 18-24 month engagement aligned with a re-scoped (smaller %, shorter term) next ballot attempt.