Perrysburg board debates Nov. 4 levy options; no final vote, possible June resolution

Perrysburg Exempted Village School District board members on June 4 discussed several ballot options for raising local revenue on Nov. 4, 2025, but took no final vote.

The discussion followed the Nov. 5, 2024 rejection of a replacement levy; presenters said the district lost about $13,500,000 in local tax revenue when roughly 9.7 mills expired. District staff and the board reviewed multi-year forecasts showing that a smaller ask now would require either deeper cuts later or another ballot ask within the five-year window. "If we wanted to maintain the same level of service that we have today," a presenter summarized during the work session, "delaying a levy... would cost the community more."

Why it matters: staff modeling shows trade-offs between timing and amount. Using the district's May forecast as a base, a $14 million levy previously modeled would produce the most cushion (about 84 true cash days at the end of the forecast period). An $11 million operational levy (about 7.8 mills) would reduce the district's cash cushion and was described by staff as near the minimum to avoid immediate shortfalls; a $9.9 million option would require more personnel and program reductions sooner. Staff repeatedly described 60 true cash days as the district policy target and warned that some options fall below it in later years.

Board members stressed timing, community impact and the need to narrow to an option. "I think we absolutely need something on the ballot in November," said Mister Anderson, board member. Other board members said they want more time to digest the presentation and hear community feedback before committing to a dollar amount.

Board direction and next steps: district staff told the board the planned timeline would place a resolution of necessity on the June 16 regular meeting to begin the process for a November ballot; the board was told a resolution to proceed could follow at the July regular meeting. The board chair said he would check in with members before the June regular meeting to confirm readiness to adopt the necessary resolutions.

What was not decided: the board did not adopt a levy measure, set an exact millage or finalize the term during the June 4 work session. Staff emphasized the options remain under consideration and that additional community engagement and legal certification (for income-tax alternatives) would be required before any final proposal is placed on the ballot.

Background and budget context: presenters laid out prior cost reductions (more than $6 million in identified cuts), a live personnel spreadsheet showing position eliminations and bumping effects, and model runs that include potential one-time general-fund uses and program reductions. Staff said some forecast scenarios assume purchase of portable classrooms in later years, which would increase capital costs if needed and affect levy sizing.

Ending: Board members scheduled public engagement (a forum the following day) and asked staff to incorporate community feedback into the recommended levy option. No formal levy action was taken on June 4; the board indicated it intends to return to the question at its regular June meeting to consider whether to adopt the statutory resolutions needed to place a measure on the November ballot.