Recount confirms Huber Heights school levy fails by 3 votes
On June 5, an official recount took place, confirming the school levy failed by just three votes.
School leaders say even though the levy failed, the district should be able to remain consistent with programs they offer students and class sizes for the next school year.
Huber Heights school levy fails by three votes: Official results
Officials say they are disappointed to have the levy fail by such a narrow margin, and now they must wait to see what they receive from state funding and property taxes to determine the impact.
They say these budgets provide them with funding for school resources for students and staff. The budget should be finalized by July.
Officials also say that staff reductions are not something they foresee as a result of the levy failing.
Superintendent Jason Enix says they are grateful for the support they did receive from voters throughout the campaign.
'But for right now, we are moving forward. Still some unknowns before any final decisions are made going forward into next school year,' said Enix.
Montgomery County Board of Elections says the most important thing during the recount was being transparent. 'We did have it live on Facebook, so you can see how transparent and how accurate the recount is and how accurate our Election Day results are,' said Jeff Rezabek, Montgomery County BOE director.
Enix says the district must wait to evaluate their budget for the next year before they can determine what cuts, if any could be necessary.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
8 hours ago
- New York Post
New Yorkers are still unsure if they'd welcome a socialist mayor, even as Zohran Mamdani leads pack: poll
They're not sold on the socialist. A majority of New Yorkers are uneasy about the possibility socialist Zohran Mamdani will take over City Hall — as a new poll points to a potential mayoral horse race if the firebrand's opponents thin out the crowded field. The proudly far-left Democratic nominee, maintained his frontrunner status in a four-way race with former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, incumbent Mayor Eric Adams and Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa, according to the poll released Tuesday and paid for by Wick Insights. Advertisement 4 The majority of New Yorkers have concerns about electing Zohran Mamdani as the next mayor of New York City. Paul Martinka But the race becomes neck-and-neck if Mamdani only faces Andrew Cuomo in a head-to-head contest, although the poll found the Queens assemblyman carries the highest favorability of any mayoral candidate. 'Understandably, Adams and Cuomo remain very unpopular,' said political prognosticator Ken Frydman. Advertisement 'Neither of them will become more popular before Election Day. In fact, they may become even more unpopular by then.' 'Voters tend to favor politicians with big smiles and winning personalities like Mamdani more than politicians with dour expressions and personalities like Cuomo.' 4 A poll released Tuesday paid for by Wick Insights shows Mamdani is the current frontrunner in a four-way race for mayor ahead of incumbent Mayor Eric Adams, ex-Gov. Andrew Cuomo, and Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa. James Keivom The poll — which surveyed 500 likely voters and did not include longshot independent candidate Jim Walden — provides a portrait of a New York City electorate not yet convinced about electing the untested Mamdani. Advertisement The lack of overwhelming support for the Democratic nominee, who has failed to gain the party establishment's backing, could be because New Yorkers are still uneasy about electing a socialist mayor. The poll shows just 46% of voters would welcome a socialist mayor, while 44% say they would oppose one in Gracie Mansion. 4 Political prognosticator Ken Frydman notes, 'Adams and Cuomo remain very unpopular.' John Roca for NY Post A further 10% said they were not sure whether they'd support or oppose electing a socialist mayor, the poll found. Advertisement And a slim majority of New Yorkers — 53% — said Mamdani's dreamy socialist vision for the Big Apple won't work in the real world, according to the survey. Mamdani, however, was viewed by roughly half of voters as the candidate most focused on the cost of living and to stand up for working people. He was also the only mayoral candidate whose favorability wasn't deep underwater, although the percentage of voters who viewed him favorably — 43% — was the same as those who did unfavorably. The fresh-faced Democrat Mamdani was the clear frontrunner with 39% support in the four-way race with two independents — Adams and Cuomo — and the Republican Sliwa, the poll found. 4 Mamdani leads the four candidates in the poll, receiving 39% of the vote with Cuomo in second place at 21%, Sliwa at third place with 18%, and Adams finishing fourth, recording a lacking 9% from voters in the upcoming general election. Michael McWeeney Cuomo, who was trounced by the upstart socialist in the Democratic primary in June, held onto his second-place status with 21%, while Sliwa came in third with 18%. In a distant fourth, the poll had Adams with an abysmal 9% of support. Mamdani would also handily beat Adams and Sliwa in face-to-face contests, but it was a different story with Cuomo, the poll found. Advertisement Cuomo came in just slightly ahead of Mamdani, 42% to 41%, well within the margin of error for the poll. But political insiders have been leery of taking too much stock in a single poll after the Democratic primary took nearly all of them off guard. Nearly every poll, save one, had Cuomo beating Mamdani in the ranked-choice primary — although they did show the socialist steadily narrowing the gap. Advertisement In the end, Mamdani trounced Cuomo by a 56% to 44% margin and garnered more primary votes than any Big Apple Democrat in more than three decades. Still, Cuomo's spokesman Rich Azzopardi welcomed the poll's finding. 'Make no mistake — this is a race and the governor is talking directly to voters about his practical plans to make New York City more affordable, safer and better run, in direct contrast to Zohran Mamdani's substance-free bumper sticker slogans and Adams' record of mismanagement, self-dealing and, according to his own former police commissioner, corrupting and demoralizing the NYPD,' he said.
12 hours ago
Gabbard's claims of an anti-Trump conspiracy are not supported by declassified documents
WASHINGTON -- Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard this month declassified material that she claimed proved a 'treasonous conspiracy' by the Obama administration in 2016 to politicize U.S. intelligence in service of casting doubt on the legitimacy of Donald Trump's election victory. As evidence, Gabbard cited newly declassified emails from Obama officials and a five-year-old classified House report in hopes of undermining the intelligence community's conclusion that Russian President Vladimir Putin wanted to boost Trump and denigrate his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton. Russia's activities during the 2016 election remain some of the most examined events in recent history. The Kremlin's campaign and the subsequent U.S. government response were the subject of at least five major investigations by the Republican-led House and Senate intelligence committee; two Justice Department special counsels; and the department's inspector general. Those investigations either concluded — or accepted the conclusion — that Russia embarked on a campaign to interfere in the election through the use of social media and hacked material. The House-led probe, conducted by Trump allies, also concurred that Russia ran an election interference campaign but said the purpose was to sow chaos in the U.S. rather than boost Trump. Several of the reports criticize the actions of Obama administration officials, particularly at the FBI, but do not dispute the fundamental findings that Moscow sought to interfere in the election. The Associated Press has reviewed those reports to evaluate how Gabbard's claims stack up: CLAIM: 'The intelligence community had one assessment: that Russia did not have the intent and capability to try to impact the outcome of the U.S. election leading up to Election Day. The same assessment was made after the election.' — Gabbard to Fox News on Tuesday. The documents Gabbard released do not support her claim. She cites a handful of emails from 2016 in which officials conclude that Russia had no intention of manipulating the U.S. vote count through cyberattacks on voting systems. President Barack Obama's administration never alleged that voting infrastructure was tampered with. Rather, the administration said Russia ran a covert influence campaign using hacked and stolen material from prominent Democrats. Russian operatives then used that information as part of state-funded media and social media operations to inflame U.S. public opinion. More than two dozen Russians were indicted in 2018 in connection with those efforts. Republican-led investigations in Congress have affirmed that conclusion, and the emails that Gabbard released do not contradict that finding. CLAIM: 'There was a shift, a 180-degree shift, from the intelligence community's assessment leading up to the election to the one that President Obama directed be produced after Donald Trump won the election that completely contradicted those assessments that had come previously.' — Gabbard to Fox News on Tuesday. There was no shift. The emails Gabbard released show that a Department of Homeland Security official in August 2016 told then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper there was 'no indication of a Russian threat to directly manipulate the actual vote count.' The public assessment the Obama administration made public in January 2017 reached the same conclusion: 'DHS assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying." CLAIM: The Obama administration "manufactured the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment that they knew was false promoting the LIE that Vladimir Putin and the Russian government helped President Trump win the 2016 election.' — Gabbard on Truth Social Wednesday. The material declassified this week reveals some dissent within the intelligence community about whether Putin wanted to help Trump or simply inflame the U.S. public. That same question led to a partisan divide on the House Intelligence panel when it examined the matter several years later. Gabbard's memo released last week cites a 'whistleblower' who she says served in the intelligence community at the time and who is quoted as saying that he could not 'concur in good conscience' with the intelligence community's judgment that Russia had a 'decisive preference' for Trump. Such dissent and debate are not unusual in the drafting of intelligence reports. The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee examined whether there was any political interference in the Obama administration's conclusions and reported that 'all analysts expressed that they were free to debate, object to content, and assess confidence levels, as is normal and proper.' In 2018, Putin directly addressed the question of whether he preferred Trump at a press conference in Helsinki even as he sidestepped a question about whether he directed any of his subordinates to help Trump. 'Yes, I did,' Putin said. 'Because he talked about bringing the U.S.-Russia relationship back to normal.' CLAIM: 'They used already discredited information like the Steele dossier — they knew it was discredited at the time.' — Gabbard to Fox News on Tuesday. The dossier refers to a collection of opposition research files compiled by a former British spy, Christopher Steele, whose work was funded by Democrats during the 2016 election. Those files included uncorroborated tips and salacious gossip about Trump's ties to Russia, but the importance to the Russia investigation has sometimes been overstated. It was not the basis for the FBI's decision to open an investigation in July 2016 into potential coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, the Justice Department's inspector general found. Some of the records released by Gabbard this week also reveal that it was a Central Intelligence Agency human source close to the Kremlin that the agency primarily relied on for its conclusion that Putin wanted to help Trump and hurt Clinton, not the Steele dossier. FBI agents on the case didn't even come to possess the dossier until weeks into their inquiry. Even so, Trump supporters have seized on the unverified innuendo in the document to undercut the broader Russia investigation. Many of Steele's claims have since been discredited or denied. It is true, however, that the FBI and Justice Department relied in part on the Steele dossier to obtain surveillance warrants to eavesdrop on the communications of a former Trump campaign adviser, the inspector general found. FBI agents continued to pursue those warrants even after questions arose about the credibility of Steele's reporting. The dossier was also summarized — over the objections of then-CIA Director John Brennan, he has said — in a two-page annex to the classified version of the intelligence community assessment.
Hamilton Spectator
15 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Gabbard's claims of an anti-Trump conspiracy are not supported by declassified documents
WASHINGTON (AP) — Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard this month declassified material that she claimed proved a 'treasonous conspiracy' by the Obama administration in 2016 to politicize U.S. intelligence in service of casting doubt on the legitimacy of Donald Trump's election victory. As evidence, Gabbard cited newly declassified emails from Obama officials and a five-year-old classified House report in hopes of undermining the intelligence community's conclusion that Russian President Vladimir Putin wanted to boost Trump and denigrate his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton. Russia's activities during the 2016 election remain some of the most examined events in recent history. The Kremlin's campaign and the subsequent U.S. government response were the subject of at least five major investigations by the Republican-led House and Senate intelligence committee ; two Justice Department special counsels; and the department's inspector general . Those investigations either concluded — or accepted the conclusion — that Russia embarked on a campaign to interfere in the election through the use of social media and hacked material. The House-led probe, conducted by Trump allies, also concurred that Russia ran an election interference campaign but said the purpose was to sow chaos in the U.S. rather than boost Trump. Several of the reports criticize the actions of Obama administration officials, particularly at the FBI, but do not dispute the fundamental findings that Moscow sought to interfere in the election. The Associated Press has reviewed those reports to evaluate how Gabbard's claims stack up: Russian election interference CLAIM: 'The intelligence community had one assessment: that Russia did not have the intent and capability to try to impact the outcome of the U.S. election leading up to Election Day. The same assessment was made after the election.' — Gabbard to Fox News on Tuesday . The documents Gabbard released do not support her claim. She cites a handful of emails from 2016 in which officials conclude that Russia had no intention of manipulating the U.S. vote count through cyberattacks on voting systems. President Barack Obama's administration never alleged that voting infrastructure was tampered with. Rather, the administration said Russia ran a covert influence campaign using hacked and stolen material from prominent Democrats. Russian operatives then used that information as part of state-funded media and social media operations to inflame U.S. public opinion. More than two dozen Russians were indicted in 2018 in connection with those efforts. Republican-led investigations in Congress have affirmed that conclusion, and the emails that Gabbard released do not contradict that finding. Shift in assessment? CLAIM: 'There was a shift, a 180-degree shift, from the intelligence community's assessment leading up to the election to the one that President Obama directed be produced after Donald Trump won the election that completely contradicted those assessments that had come previously.' — Gabbard to Fox News on Tuesday. There was no shift. The emails Gabbard released show that a Department of Homeland Security official in August 2016 told then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper there was 'no indication of a Russian threat to directly manipulate the actual vote count.' The public assessment the Obama administration made public in January 2017 reached the same conclusion: 'DHS assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying.' Putin's intent CLAIM: The Obama administration 'manufactured the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment that they knew was false promoting the LIE that Vladimir Putin and the Russian government helped President Trump win the 2016 election.' — Gabbard on Truth Social Wednesday. The material declassified this week reveals some dissent within the intelligence community about whether Putin wanted to help Trump or simply inflame the U.S. public. That same question led to a partisan divide on the House Intelligence panel when it examined the matter several years later. Gabbard's memo released last week cites a 'whistleblower' who she says served in the intelligence community at the time and who is quoted as saying that he could not 'concur in good conscience' with the intelligence community's judgment that Russia had a 'decisive preference' for Trump. Such dissent and debate are not unusual in the drafting of intelligence reports. The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee examined whether there was any political interference in the Obama administration's conclusions and reported that 'all analysts expressed that they were free to debate, object to content, and assess confidence levels, as is normal and proper.' In 2018, Putin directly addressed the question of whether he preferred Trump at a press conference in Helsinki even as he sidestepped a question about whether he directed any of his subordinates to help Trump. 'Yes, I did,' Putin said. 'Because he talked about bringing the U.S.-Russia relationship back to normal.' Steele dossier CLAIM: 'They used already discredited information like the Steele dossier — they knew it was discredited at the time.' — Gabbard to Fox News on Tuesday. The dossier refers to a collection of opposition research files compiled by a former British spy, Christopher Steele, whose work was funded by Democrats during the 2016 election. Those files included uncorroborated tips and salacious gossip about Trump's ties to Russia, but the importance to the Russia investigation has sometimes been overstated. It was not the basis for the FBI's decision to open an investigation in July 2016 into potential coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, the Justice Department's inspector general found. Some of the records released by Gabbard this week also reveal that it was a Central Intelligence Agency human source close to the Kremlin that the agency primarily relied on for its conclusion that Putin wanted to help Trump and hurt Clinton, not the Steele dossier. FBI agents on the case didn't even come to possess the dossier until weeks into their inquiry. Even so, Trump supporters have seized on the unverified innuendo in the document to undercut the broader Russia investigation. Many of Steele's claims have since been discredited or denied. It is true, however, that the FBI and Justice Department relied in part on the Steele dossier to obtain surveillance warrants to eavesdrop on the communications of a former Trump campaign adviser, the inspector general found. FBI agents continued to pursue those warrants even after questions arose about the credibility of Steele's reporting. The dossier was also summarized — over the objections of then-CIA Director John Brennan, he has said — in a two-page annex to the classified version of the intelligence community assessment. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
