Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Taxation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Preschool Promise urges a renewal; treasurer outlines levy options as board weighs timing
Summary
The Cincinnati Preschool Promise board advised the district to seek a renewal of the existing levy at the same level and to favor a 10-year term; Treasurer Wagner and staff outlined levy types and state budget developments as the board discussed timing and messaging.
Cincinnati Preschool Promise representatives told the board April 7 that they favor a renewal — not an increase — of the current levy and prefer a 10-year term to provide long-term stability for preschool funding.
Shara Fisher Jackson, executive director of Cincinnati Preschool Promise, said the organization’s board believes current funding levels are insufficient for long-term expansion but that “this is not the right time to go ask the voters for more.” Fisher Jackson said Preschool Promise’s board would prefer a 10-year renewal that preserves the current funding level and allows partners to plan jointly for a future ask.
At the same time Treasurer Wagner and finance staff briefed the board on options and constraints for a November ballot measure. The district’s primary operating levy (often described at $48 million) is currently on a five-year renewal cycle. The treasurer outlined four basic paths: renew the levy for five years, renew for ten years, pursue a substitute levy (which keeps the tax rate but captures new-construction growth to increase revenue) or pursue a replacement levy (which would reset the millage to original levels and raise property-tax bills). Treasurer Wagner cautioned that replacement levies have been targeted in pending legislation and that the state legislative landscape is in flux.
The treasurer also presented income-tax options as an alternative revenue approach (examples: a 0.5% resident income tax would generate an estimated $64 million annually; a 1.0% tax would generate roughly $129 million in his calculation for resident-based traditional income tax). Staff recommended two practical tracks for the district: pursue a $48 million 10-year renewal or pursue a substitute levy in November, and consider an income-tax measure in 2026 to address longer-term operational needs and facility repairs.
Board members pressed for timing and messaging. Board Member Lindy said voters will expect a clear “what’s different” case if the district asks for new money, pointing to relatively flat performance-index scores since 2016 despite higher spending. Members discussed the overlap of potential city tax proposals and the need to avoid ballot-fatigue for voters. The treasurer said a legal board resolution certifying the district’s levy choice must be filed with the county by late July, and recommended the board aim to finalize direction by May to allow time for planning and outreach.
State budget bills under consideration further complicate planning: presenters described House and Senate proposals that would change how growth and fixed-sum levies interact with the 20-mill floor, limit levy replacement mechanisms, and cap carryover balances; if enacted, those changes could reduce local revenue options for districts. The administration told the board it will return with scenario materials (what different levy choices would fund) and recommended messaging to present to voters.
