Tallmadge board votes to proceed with 5.6‑mill property levy after public debate over earned‑income alternative

The Tallmadge Board of Education voted 4–1 on Jan. 28 to proceed with a 5.6‑mill property‑tax levy to place before voters, after public comment and an extended board roundtable over whether to pursue a property levy or a 0.75% school‑district earned‑income tax.

The vote followed nearly an hour of public comment and technical questions. Mayor Carol Ceciliano Kilway, who identified herself as the current mayor of Tallmadge, urged the board to weigh citywide impacts, noting municipal income‑tax rates and warning that an additional earned‑income levy could raise combined rates for residents who also work in nearby Akron. “We have a huge decision to make here,” Kilway said, urging sensitivity to how changes would affect both the schools and city services. Resident speakers were mixed: some said a property levy would never pass in May, while others said property tax was the fairest option.

Why it matters: The district is seeking new revenue after state funding reductions that the chair described as a roughly $2 million reduction in district dollars, and board members said they want to avoid cuts that would touch classrooms. A property levy requires a two‑thirds board majority to move forward; the board’s 4–1 vote met that threshold. An alternative 0.75% earned‑income tax would require a simple majority but received no motion and therefore did not proceed.

During public comment, Dave Klein told the board he believed a property levy “will not pass in May” and raised concerns about renters and the ability of households to absorb new taxes. John Ray urged the board to consider an earned‑income tax on the basis of ability to pay, arguing it could provide more stable funding and reduce the chance of state fiscal oversight. Eric Leipold asked specific questions about how the earned‑income rate was set and whether demographic changes could make a flat rate insufficient; board members said the 0.75% proposal was calculated with state revenue targets and would remain at that level unless the board requested a change.

Board discussion mixed pragmatic outreach results with fiscal principles. Board member Chad Lowry cited recent surveys that showed 58% of community respondents favored a property levy and 66% of district staff preferred property tax; he said both response counts were modest but indicated local sentiment. Several board members said they were initially open to earned income but, after conversations, favored the property levy as the more appropriate next step. The chair argued earned income is “ability to pay” and provides continuity but acknowledged political and practical constraints.

The resolution the board approved was introduced as a motion to proceed with a 5.6‑mill property tax (referred to in the meeting as “resolution 3.1”); the treasurer announced the roll call as follows: Mister Lowry — Aye; Mister Davis — Aye; Missus Blouse — Aye; Missus Ross — Aye; Mister Pasarelli — Nay. The motion passed 4–1 and will allow the district to prepare ballot language and place the levy before voters according to local and state procedures. The separate resolution to proceed with a 0.75% school‑district earned‑income tax received no motion and died for lack of action at the meeting.

What’s next: With the board’s approval, district staff will move forward with the administrative steps needed to place the 5.6‑mill levy before voters. Board members and several public speakers urged residents to contact state representatives about broader school‑funding formulas; mayoral and board comments also referenced ongoing conversations at the county and state level about tax‑policy proposals. The board adjourned after the votes.

Quotes in context come from meeting remarks recorded on the public transcript. The board’s decisions at this session reflect only the procedural step to put a levy before voters and do not themselves change tax rates until voters act.