Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Levy And Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Perrysburg finance staff outlines levy options and four- to five-year cash projections
Summary
Finance staff presented scenarios showing a $14 million levy would stabilize district finances for several years, compared property and earned/traditional income tax options and warned that state funding changes could materially alter projections.
Perrysburg Exempted Village finance staff briefed the Board of Education on March 5 about levy options and multi-year cash projections, including a scenario that assumes a $14 million levy.
A finance presentation showed that a $14 million property-tax levy (about 9.92 mills under current valuation in the staff scenario) would generate a projected positive cash balance through the five-year window the staff modeled. Staff warned that shifting some revenue to an income tax would delay full collections and that an earned-income tax version would require a higher rate to produce equivalent revenue.
“Income tax, if that is a choice, the board must make, just know that the collection time is gonna be delayed,” said Finance staff (unnamed). Staff showed side-by-side scenarios and noted the timing difference: property-tax revenue is collected more fully in the fiscal year after passage, while income-tax receipts ramp up more slowly.
The presentation included modeled cash balances that, without a new levy, fall toward zero within four years in the shown scenario. Staff identified several complicating variables, including possible state-level changes to funding formulas — the presenter said those changes could alter the district’s projections by “hundreds of thousands” of dollars.
Board members discussed tradeoffs between property-tax and income-tax approaches, and staff said an earned-income tax that produced the same revenue as the district’s current traditional income tax would require a materially higher rate (examples shown in the presentation referenced three-quarter-percent rates in certain scenarios).
Why it matters: The levy decision will determine the district’s near-term ability to maintain restored programs and staff. Staff emphasized the board must weigh how quickly revenue arrives under different tax choices, how median household incomes and home values change the individual taxpayer burden, and how uncertain state funding changes remain.
Ending: Finance staff asked the board for direction on which levy scenarios to model next and said the district would provide further projection options ahead of the board’s April decision window.
