Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bexley board hears proposal for combined $115 million income- and property-tax measure to fund Phase One
Summary
At the April 8, 2026 meeting, the Bexley Board of Education reviewed a proposed combined ballot measure that would raise roughly $115 million—about $85.75 million from a 0.5% income tax and $29.25 million from property-tax bonds—to finance Phase One of the district's facilities plan; a resolution of necessity is expected in May.
Bexley Board of Education members on April 8, 2026 heard detailed financial modeling for a proposed combined ballot measure that would fund Phase One of the district's facilities plan with approximately $115 million in expected proceeds.
Kyle Smith, presenting the district's funding sources and uses, said the plan pairs a half-percent income tax with a property-tax bond issue. "The income tax is projected to bring in 85.75 million," he said, and the property-tax portion would sell $29.25 million in bonds. On the property-tax side, Smith said, "that 2.05 ... mills ... means $72 per $100,000 of home market or home appraised value as listed for the Franklin County Auditor." He also described the income-tax impact as "$500 per $100,000 of income."
Smith told the board the 2.05-mill property-tax rate is essentially the same rate as an expiring 2000 bond issue that sunsets in 2027, and the district plans to work with the Franklin County Auditor to avoid a double collection year: "Those bond payments are essentially'going to expire in 2027," he said, and the district would seek timing adjustments so taxpayers do not face overlapping charges.
Board members discussed how to characterize the income-tax portion on the ballot. Smith outlined two options: label the income tax as "current expense," which would flow through the general fund and give the district more flexibility on long-term uses, or label it as "permanent improvement," which would route revenues to a restricted capital fund. He recommended the current-expense option to preserve flexibility in future budgeting.
Smith also outlined the timeline: the district plans to present a resolution of necessity in May to request certifications from the Ohio Department of Taxation and the Franklin County Auditor; once certifications are returned, the board would vote to proceed and submit official ballot language to elections officials ahead of the county deadline.
The board did not take a final vote on the measure. Smith said the combined structure is a single ballot item with two elements (income tax and property-tax bonds) and that further documentation and ballot language examples will be brought to the board in May and June for formal action.
Why this matters: If approved by voters, the package would provide the district with immediate capital and operating revenue to advance Phase One projects while preserving flexibility about how income-tax receipts are used. The board and administration emphasized timing and voter communication as next steps.
What's next: Smith said he will present a resolution of necessity in May and expects to request certification from the county and state before a June board vote to proceed.
