Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cuyahoga Falls board weighs property levy against new earned-income tax as finance staff urges more community input
Summary
Board finance staff presented five fiscal scenarios — a 5.5-mill property levy and earned-income tax options at 0.75% and 1% — and discussed tradeoffs including cash flow timing, equity and ballot chances; no levy was placed on the ballot and the board set June 10 as the decision date.
Cuyahoga Falls City School District finance officials presented multiple revenue scenarios May 27 as the board considered how to close a multi-year budget gap.
Treasurer Miss Toy Stoy told the board the district closed April with just under $4 million in the general fund and that food-service operations were about $160,000 in the red for the month, with an expected net shortfall closer to $50,000 once reimbursements arrive. Administration outlined five ballot scenarios, including a 5.5-mill property levy and earned-income tax proposals at 0.75% and 1.0%, and variations that would let an expiring emergency levy lapse.
The board’s discussion focused on tradeoffs. Board President Anthony Gomez and members noted that a property levy delivers immediate, predictable collections while an earned-income tax can grow with wages but generally takes longer to ramp up and can be harder to pass as new money. "I would like to present something sustainable to our voters," one member said, urging clear communication about which existing levies would be nonrenewed if a new tax were approved.
Board members pressed for more granular numbers. They asked administration for an athletics ad-sales report to verify whether sponsorship revenue is offsetting stadium or scoreboard costs, and for a capital plan that would show replacement schedules and rental revenue modeling for turf and courts. Administration said the scoreboard purchases were funded from building project (LFI) funds and agreed to provide ad-sales and rental revenue accounting and a facilities-replacement plan.
The board asked several questions about the mechanics and equity of an earned-income tax. One member warned it can be regressive in practice because families who do not withhold the tax during the year may face a lump sum at annual filing. Another argued that earned-income levies have historically passed more often in rural districts where property-tax levies are impractical.
Board members did not make a final choice. They agreed to solicit targeted community input between now and the next regular meeting and set June 10, 2026, as the date to decide whether to authorize resolutions to place a measure on the ballot. Administration noted statutory deadlines for filing levy language with the auditor and the board of elections and cautioned that waiting reduces time for community outreach and levy committee preparation.
What’s next: Administration will provide the requested ad-sales and stadium rental accounting, a preschool cost summary, updated meal-price revenue impacts, and clarifying forecasts for each levy scenario ahead of the June 10 meeting. The board directed staff to prepare ballot-resolution language options and to present timing consequences for renewals or nonrenewals of existing levies.
