Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Willoughby-Eastlake board advances plan for 0.75% earned income tax, schedules community outreach
Summary
The Willoughby-Eastlake City Schools board voted 5-0 to approve moving forward with a proposal described in the meeting as a 0.75% earned income tax, estimated to generate about $14 million annually; the board detailed plans for community information sessions and how revenue would be allocated between operations and capital improvements.
The Willoughby-Eastlake City Schools Board of Education voted 5-0 on June 8 to approve moving forward with a proposed earned income tax measure described in the meeting materials and discussion as a ‘‘75% earned income tax’’; board members and staff clarified in discussion that the figure corresponds to a 0.75% tax rate (for example, the board’s presentation said someone earning $50,000 would pay an estimated $375 per year). The board approved the item as presented and directed staff to pursue community engagement.
Dr. Ward, speaking to the board, said the proposal is intended to generate roughly $14 million a year and that the district would allocate about $9.5 million to district operations and about $4.5 million to an improvement fund to support the capital plan. "We would do our best to give people the facts about the current state of things and the history of how we got here," Dr. Ward said, urging outreach and listening sessions across the district.
Board members described a calendar of community meetings to explain options, solicit public input and discuss possible facility changes if revenue is not secured. The district listed informational sessions in August (noting tentative dates published for the 19th and 26th) followed by multiple sessions in September and October and targeted outreach to communities that the board said could be disproportionately affected by closures or consolidation.
Several board members stressed the importance of framing the conversation as collaborative. "We're being proactive instead of reactive and also involving the community," one member said. Another warned that if the district does not engage residents ahead of a ballot measure, decisions about school facilities would be rushed.
What the board approved was a motion to move the proposal forward and begin the public outreach process; the board did not adopt an ordinance or place a final levy measure on the ballot at the June 8 meeting. The board recorded the roll-call vote as five in favor, zero opposed.
Next steps as described in the meeting: publish a schedule of community information sessions, continue the district's analysis of long-term enrollment and facility needs, and prepare materials that explain who would pay the tax and how proceeds would be allocated.
Questions and clarifications from the board during the discussion covered why the district is considering an earned income tax (noting limits of property-tax reliance and a structural deficit in the five-year forecast), timing options if the board chooses to ask voters, and potential targeted conversations with affected neighborhoods and school communities.
