Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Perrysburg board urges renewal of expiring permanent improvement levy; treasurer warns of trade-offs if voters reject it
Summary
A permanent improvement levy renewal that will appear on the May 6 ballot is not a new tax, Superintendent Hassler told the Perrysburg Exempted Village Board of Education at its April 21 meeting, and it funds long‑lived building and equipment projects such as roofs, doors and buses.
Get email alerts on the School Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
A permanent improvement levy renewal that will appear on the May 6 ballot is not a new tax, Superintendent Hassler told the Perrysburg Exempted Village Board of Education at its April 21 meeting, and it funds long‑lived building and equipment projects such as roofs, doors and buses.
The levy is the district’s primary dedicated revenue source for capital work; it generates about $1,700,000 a year under the plan the district presented and is set to expire Dec. 31. “Permanent improvement levy renewal, not a new tax,” Hassler said as he described the May 6 ballot measure and a public outreach schedule the district is running over the next two weeks.
Why it matters: Board and finance staff said the PI levy pays for projects with lives of five years or more — roofing, parking lots, classroom and building security upgrades, musical instruments and large equipment — and cannot be spent on day‑to‑day operations or personnel. Treasurer Drewer and operations director James Mapus told the board that if voters reject the measure the district would still need to replace failing systems and would likely take those costs from the unrestricted general fund, which pays teachers, programs and utilities.
Treasurer Drewer said the levy’s annual revenue is incorporated into the district’s multi‑year planning and cash‑balance forecasts. “If the PI is rejected, those projects that we want and need to take care of, we will have to pull money out of the general fund to do it,” Drewer said, adding that the district carries a multi‑year capital plan tied to the levy. He later projected the district would finish the fiscal year with roughly $22 million in cash on hand while warning that the district is still forecasting multi‑year deficit spending that will require future levies or expense reductions.
Board members and staff gave concrete examples of the kinds of projects the PI funds. Hassler said a portion of the Perrysburg Junior High roof is projected to cost nearly $600,000 in the third year of the plan. Operations director Mapus said the PI fund pays for security upgrades such as replacing classroom door hardware so doors lock from the inside, a change the district has pursued to improve lockdown response.
Board members described local outreach plans and the specific election timing. The board has scheduled public information sessions April 28 and May 2 and posted a recorded presentation on its YouTube channel. “This will be the last board meeting we have an opportunity to discuss this. This is important. It's 15 days away,” Hassler said.
The board discussed options if voters reject the PI renewal: (1) do not run it again and absorb recurring capital costs from the general fund; (2) run the PI renewal again in November; or (3) adjust a separate operational levy in November to cover the lost PI revenue (an option the board described as complicating the operational request). Board members acknowledged each option carries trade‑offs and political risk.
Context: District staff said the PI levy was first passed decades ago and was last renewed five years prior. The trustees urged voters to review the district’s published, building‑by‑building five‑year project list and noted that PI dollars are restricted by state rules to capital uses, not personnel or curriculum. Hassler also noted the district’s buildings average about 46 years of age and pointed to the recurring need for roof, HVAC and other capital repairs.
What was not decided: The board had no formal policy vote at the meeting to change levy timing; members said they would continue outreach and consider options if the May renewal fails.
Ending note: District officials emphasized that the May 6 vote is a renewal, not a tax increase, and encouraged residents to review the district’s online materials and attend the remaining outreach events.

