Perrysburg board weighs November operating levy to avert fiscal cliff; staff recommends smaller $11 million option

Perrysburg Exempted Village School District trustees on May 19 discussed options for placing a new operating levy on the Nov. 4 ballot after the board’s November 2024 levy proposal failed and the district lost 9.7 mills of annual revenue.

Administrators and district finance staff presented an updated five‑year forecast showing the district now expects to end fiscal 2025 with a deficit of about $400,000 instead of the $3.2 million projected last year, but that deficits would grow in later years without new revenue. The administration identified a range of options for voters, from an $8 million (about 5.75 mills) levy to an $14 million (roughly 9.98 mills) levy, and also discussed a 0.5 percent municipal‑style income tax as an alternative.

The nut graf: the board must weigh how large an ask to place before voters and when, balancing near‑term stability against future flexibility. District leaders said a smaller levy now would reduce the immediate tax burden but leave less cushion against state policy changes and growing costs, while waiting a year would require a larger ask.

Treasurer/finance presentations showed the district was 83 percent through the fiscal year and tracking better than earlier forecasts because of staff vacancies, retirements and savings from operational changes such as LED lighting and propane buses. “Last year at this time I thought that fiscal year ’25 we would deficit spend $3.2 million, and we’re going to, and we should deficit spend less than $400,000,” a district finance presenter said during the review.

Administrators walked the board through modeled scenarios: a $14 million levy (the November 2024 baseline) would leave roughly 84 true cash days at the end of the five‑year projection; an $11 million levy (7.8 mills) would leave about 44 true cash days; an $8 million levy would require the district to return to voters or make mid‑term cuts by 2028; and a half‑percent income tax would take longer to reach full collection, producing about $7.7 million on average early on and near $10.5 million when fully phased in.

Superintendent Hosler (superintendent) emphasized transparency to residents: “An operational levy on November 4 would be a new levy. It would be a tax increase. So I just want to be very clear on what we’re talking about here.” The district provided a homeowner impact example: the 7.8‑mill levy equals about $273 annually per $100,000 of assessed value, or about $22.75 per month; factoring in the scheduled payoff of a 1.7‑mill high‑school bond in 2026 the net effect would be roughly $213.50 per $100,000.

Board members and finance committee members discussed risk tolerance for lower cash reserves and the communication challenge to voters. One trustee said the smaller ask has appeal because it reduces the immediate tax increase and may have higher chances of passage: “My favorite levy is the one that passes,” a trustee said during committee remarks.

District officials also warned that a pending state policy widely discussed at the meeting—Senate Bill 66—could materially change the district’s long‑term revenue base if enacted, and that the final state budget (expected by June 30) may require further adjustments. The treasurer noted the forecast does not yet incorporate the final state budget and that the district would likely revise the forecast after legislative action.

Next steps set by administrators: the staff plans community engagement sessions on June 5 (10 a.m. and 6 p.m., the Commodore) and recommended the board decide on a preliminary levy amount in early July to meet county board of elections scheduling and legal timelines. The filing deadline for the November ballot was noted as Aug. 6.