Parma City board pauses plan to seek 1.75% continuing school income tax after work session

Parma City School District leaders debated a proposed continuing 1.75% school district income tax Tuesday evening that administrators say would replace three renewal levies and provide property-tax relief, but the board voted to remove the resolution from the night’s agenda.

Superintendent Scott Hunt told the board the district remains in the same fiscal position it was in November and proposed a continuing earned-income tax—"So the request is to have a continuing school district income tax," he said—arguing it would avoid repeated ballot asks and levy fatigue. He said the district projects the 1.75% levy would generate about $47,800,000 and that three renewal levies totaling about $40,500,000 could be phased out in exchange, keeping the district’s ending fund balance positive through 2031.

The proposal, Hunt said, relies on three “levers”: adopting the earned-income tax, providing property-tax relief by not collecting specified renewal levies over a phased period, and pursuing internal cost savings, chiefly through staffing and program reviews. He warned that without new revenue the district’s five-year forecast could deteriorate and could trigger state fiscal oversight if reserves fall below the board’s 60-day days-of-cash policy.

Board members pressed for detail. Several asked why administration chose 1.75% rather than a higher or lower rate and whether the district could taper collections from renewal levies rather than withdraw them immediately. Hunt and district finance staff described comparable local approaches and said some districts had adjusted rates after examining their levy mixes. Hunt also outlined collection timing, saying the district would see only partial receipts early on and that a buffer year would be needed when phasing out property-tax renewals.

Concerns about process and transparency figured prominently. Board member Miss McTaggart said the community was not properly notified of the special work session—"the community members that have to go to the ballots to vote on this were not properly noticed," she said—and pressed for earlier, more collaborative work with the finance committee so trustees could ‘own’ the process and the political consequences of a ballot measure. Counsel and staff said notices were sent to local media on Jan. 9 and that website postings will be standard moving forward, but members still pushed for public forums and broader canvassing to rebuild trust.

Legal counsel advised that submitting the tax-necessity resolution to the board of taxation by Jan. 26 and materials to the board of elections by Feb. 4 are required to meet the ballot calendar. He also said a separate board resolution spelling out property-tax relief is not legally required to appear on the ballot but is a recommended, best-practice measure so voters understand the board’s intended exchange.

After extended discussion Miss McTaggart moved to remove the resolution from tonight’s agenda. On roll-call the motion passed (Yes: McTaggart, Reyes, Sebastian; No: Kerpich, Doctor Early), so the board did not take the next procedural vote to proceed to the ballot this evening. The board then adopted a separate resolution to adjourn and closed the special session.

The board agreed to continue discussion at upcoming meetings and suggested adding community forums and a finance-committee review before any final vote. Counsel and staff said if the board later decides to move forward it must complete two required resolutions—one to declare the necessity for additional taxes and a second to proceed to the ballot—ahead of the board-of-elections deadline.

What’s next: the board will revisit the matter at future meetings; administrators said they will provide periodic updates on staffing and budget reviews and work with trustees on outreach plans.