Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permanent Improvement Levy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Perrysburg board reviews five-year renewal of permanent-improvement levy ahead of election
Summary
District staff reviewed a five-year renewal of the Perrysburg Exempted Village School District's permanent-improvement levy, saying it would continue to generate about $1.7 million annually and pay for building maintenance; board discussed outreach and next steps if voters reject the measure.
The Perrysburg Exempted Village School District Board of Education discussed a proposed five-year renewal of its permanent-improvement (PI) levy on April 2, saying the renewal would maintain roughly $1.7 million a year for building maintenance and repair.
District staff described the levy as a renewal, not a new tax, and said the amount currently collected would remain the same if the renewal passes. "This is a renewal, so it's not a new tax," said Mister Hosler, a district staff member leading the presentation. He said the levy was first approved in 1980 and has been renewed or replaced every five years since.
Board members and staff underscored why the funds matter to the district. Hosler said the levy pays for long-lived items the state classifies as permanent, such as roofs, windows, exterior doors and building rekeying, and that the district's active school buildings average about 45 years old. "If this $1,700,000 goes away, we're now having to pull it out of the general fund," Hosler said, noting that would reduce money available for teachers, bus drivers and other staff.
The presentation included several figures and clarifications. Staff said the levy currently collects on roughly 1.17 mills but the ballot language lists a maximum of 1.9 mills to ensure the district can continue to collect the targeted dollar amount if property values fall. Hosler said the levy generates roughly $1.7 million and that homestead and rollback discounts currently apply. Staff also noted examples of likely projects: roof and window replacement, door rekeying for security, parking-lot repairs and an emergency contingency fund. He said a single project such as exterior door replacement can absorb a large portion of the levy''s annual revenue.
Board members discussed outreach. The district plans a mailer and public information events at school buildings so residents can see maintenance needs and ask questions. Board members debated whether to write a coordinated board letter of support or allow individual members to speak about the levy in their personal capacities; one board member noted that, as board members, they cannot use their official role to ask people to vote a certain way but may speak as private citizens.
Staff described options if voters reject the renewal: (1) replace the levy on a subsequent ballot (which could forfeit homestead/rollback discounts if structured differently), (2) move the same ask to a later election, or (3) absorb a roughly $1.7 million shortfall from the general fund, which would force program or personnel cuts. Hosler said the board would consider the margin of defeat in deciding next steps.
No formal vote or motion on the levy itself was taken during the meeting. Board members scheduled additional outreach and agreed to provide materials, including a QR code and public sessions, to explain how levy dollars would be used.
The discussion concluded as the board moved on to a redistricting update later in the agenda.
