Perrysburg school board debates May 2025 operating levy; asks staff to draft $13.5 million options

Perrysburg Exempted Village Board of Education members at a special meeting discussed whether to put an operating levy on the May 2025 ballot and what amount to seek, debating $13.5 million and $14 million proposals, a smaller $9–9.5 million continuing ask, and the risks of asking voters multiple times in one year.

Board member Ms. Menke urged the board to place both a permanent-improvement (PI) levy and an operating levy on the May ballot, saying, “I do believe that we need to put an operating levy on for May and not wait until November.” She argued that presenting both levies in May — along with a clear list of planned PI projects and their estimated costs — would signal the board’s fiscal intent and allow time for community dialogue.

The discussion centered on several connected issues: the district’s multi-year forecast; roughly $6 million in cuts already adopted for the coming year; an administration proposal to use about $7.5 million from savings to cover operations through June 30; and uncertainty over state funding after recent legislative statements about the Fair School Funding Plan. A staff presenter described a $14 million levy as the “best case” in the forecast to hold the district’s cash position through 2029, and said a $13.5 million ask would be slightly lower but still a major revenue return to replace expiring millage.

Board members repeatedly stressed community engagement and the difficulty of winning levies soon after several recent defeats. One board member said the district was “between a rock and a hard place,” noting the trade-offs between asking soon to reduce short-term financial anxiety and waiting to build a broader public outreach and a longer-term plan.

Board members asked staff for concrete, comparable scenarios. By the end of the meeting the board did not formally place a levy on any ballot; instead they asked district staff to prepare draft legal language and analysis. The superintendent and district finance staff were asked to return with a draft resolution of necessity for a $13.5 million operating levy (prepared in both four-year and five-year terms) and to run comparative forecasts for alternatives including $14 million and about $9–9.5 million options. As staff described the timeline, the next procedural step for an on-ballot levy would be a resolution of necessity at the next regular meeting and then a fast turnaround with the county auditor and board of elections; staff noted statutory schedules make the May timetable tight.

Officials and board members raised timing and turnout concerns for a May (primary) election, noting historically much lower turnout in primaries than in November general elections and warning that a May loss could complicate any November strategy. Staff also described the millage-to-cost math: the difference between a $13.5 million and $14 million ask would be a small change in mills — about $11.90 per year on a $100,000 home, as presented by administration — but board members said even those amounts matter to some voters.

Several members emphasized that certain cuts already adopted — and additional potential reductions — would affect staff workload and student programs, and that the board needed to be explicit with the public about what cuts have been made and what further cuts might be required if revenue requests fail. Staff said they are preparing contingency plans showing the range of reductions that would be necessary if no levy passes in 2025.

The meeting opened with a routine roll call and adoption of the proposed agenda by voice vote. No formal vote to place a levy on a ballot occurred; the board adjourned after directing staff to prepare the legal drafts and analyses for discussion at the next board meeting.

Looking ahead, the board will consider the staff’s drafted resolutions and comparative forecasts at the next regular meeting; if the board votes to seek a May levy, required documents would then go to the county auditor and board of elections under the statutory timetable staff outlined.