Dayton Public Schools board approves resolutions to seek levy certificates, 5-1 vote

The Dayton Public Schools Board of Education voted 5-1 to approve two resolutions of necessity that start the process to place levies on the ballot, the board said. The resolutions request county-auditor certificates for (A) a 5-mill operating levy and (B) a combined 5-mill operating levy plus a 2-mill permanent-improvement levy; the board will decide which measure to place on the ballot at a follow-up meeting.

Board member Weiner moved to approve both resolutions and the board adopted the motions with five members voting in favor and one opposed (Miss Garrison). The approvals authorize staff to request tax-valuation certificates from the Montgomery County auditor; those certificates will show estimated collections and are required before the board can file a final levy resolution with the Board of Elections.

Why it matters: presenters told the board the district has not asked voters for an operating levy since 2008 and that recent state funding uncertainty, the end of federal ESSER supports and inflationary pressures leave the district facing projected deficits in its five-year forecast. Presenters said the levies are intended to stabilize operating revenues, support academic transformation goals and fund capital needs so facilities do not create surprise costs after a levy passes.

What officials said: a district finance presenter reviewed district finances and said the board must consider right-sizing operations by attrition and pursuing a levy to address revenue volatility. The presenter said the 5-mill levy projection discussed in the meeting equated to roughly $10 million in annual revenue and noted that exact amounts will be certified by the county auditor. The presenter also said levies do not change with enrollment, and that state funding is the element most directly affected by enrollment changes.

Board members pressed staff on several practical matters: how projections are built, whether estimates assume flat enrollment (staff said they use a flat-enrollment forecast), and the timing of collections. Staff said collections for a levy passed in May or November would begin in January 2027. A presenter gave a homeowner example: the 5-mill levy would cost about $175 per year on a $100,000 home, as presented to the board.

Timing and next steps: staff and outside counsel explained two procedural steps. First, the board passes resolutions of necessity (this meeting). The district then requests county-auditor certificates showing tax valuation and estimated revenue. At a subsequent board meeting the board would pass a resolution to proceed and, if it chooses, file the selected levy with the Board of Elections before the statutory deadline (the presenters noted a practical filing deadline of Feb. 4 to appear on the May ballot). Outside counsel Emmett Kelly said the two resolutions are separate and that the board can request certificates for both options now and later choose which to place before the Board of Elections.

What was contested: several board members voiced concern about the compressed timeline to finalize levy language and undertake community outreach before a May election. Members debated whether May (lower turnout) or November (higher turnout) would be better for passage and urged more public engagement and a clear, transparent forecast for voters. One board member, Miss Garrison, voted against advancing the resolutions because of those timing and outreach concerns.

The board adjourned after the vote. The district will return with auditor certificates and a proposed resolution to place a specific levy question on an upcoming ballot.