Tallmadge board adopts resolution to seek 5.6‑mill property levy, outlines $2 million contingency plan if voters decline

The Tallmadge Board of Education on Jan. 21 adopted a resolution declaring it necessary to levy an additional 5.6 mills to fund current district expenses and asked the Summit County fiscal officer to certify the estimated collections, the first step required by state law.

The board's legal and finance advisers explained the two‑step process for a levy: the board first adopts a resolution of necessity, the county auditor certifies estimated collections, and — if the board chooses to proceed — the board later adopts a "resolution to proceed" and files with the county board of elections. Counsel told trustees the district must meet February filing deadlines to put the question on the May ballot.

Superintendent (identified by meeting officials) told the board the district must identify about $2,000,000 in savings to enter the 2026–27 school year if the levy does not pass in May. "That's the number we need to find savings, as we enter the 26–27 school year," the superintendent said, describing measures under study to meet that target.

Proposals listed by the administration include adopting the state minimum for busing (estimated to generate a large portion of the savings), eliminating 6–7 teaching positions depending on retirements, reductions in support staff, reduced community use of buildings in the evenings, and raising pay‑to‑play fees for athletics. The superintendent said retirements will shape final personnel decisions and that the district will seek to prioritize unfilled retirements before making layoffs.

Treasurer/finance staff briefed trustees on the district's required five‑year forecast, noting the state has a fiscal monitoring process — fiscal watch, fiscal caution and fiscal emergency — that could restrict district authority if the district's financial picture does not improve. The treasurer said the district must show a positive balance by fiscal 2028 to avoid further state intervention.

Public commenters urged clearer, itemized messaging for voters. One parent and local accountant asked for explicit dollar amounts tied to each proposed reduction so voters could understand how cuts translate to budget savings. A resident who monitors social media asked administrators to clarify several circulating claims about school operations and levy impacts.

Board members discussed the alternative of an earned‑income tax and agreed not to adopt a second, binding resolution for an earned‑income levy at the meeting; they said they will hold a work session with all five trustees present before deciding whether to move forward with an income tax question.

The board voted by roll call to approve the resolution of necessity for the 5.6‑mill property tax. Four board members were called and recorded "Aye" during the roll call; the motion carried.

Next steps: if the board decides to proceed, county certification of collections will be required and the board would need to adopt the second resolution to place the question before voters. The administration said it will finalize cut simulations and present a detailed five‑year forecast at the next work session.