PERRYSBURG – The school board has decided to ask the community to support another incremental levy to help pay for rising costs.

The Perrysburg Schools Board of Education held a special meeting Thursday to continue its discussion on the best option for a new levy to replace the incremental levy which expires at the end of this year.

During a two-hour discussion last week, the board considered five options, including three incremental levy configurations and renewing the current levy.

“This is the fourth meeting where the board has wrestled with this issue,” said Superintendent Tom Hosler.

“We’re here to make a decision” said board President Eric Benington.

A lack of a decision tonight is not acceptable and “it’ll be great if we can all be aligned on it,” he said.

Board member Susan Rowland Miller made a motion for the eight-year incremental levy.

“I’m aware of the importance of what is on the line,” she said.

The option, known as Option D, replaces an expiring levy with an eight-year incremental levy that has a growth of $2 million per year after its initial collection of $13.54 million.

This option would match growth, maintain a positive cash balance and keep the district from asking for more money through 2030-31.

Ballot language would state collections would start at 11.19 mills and end in 2031 at 19.83 mills, but the effective millage will drop as the community continues to grow.

Treasurer Randy Drewyor explained that as the valuation of the district increases as the community grows, the mills needed to collect the set dollar amount are reduced and individual resident’s share decreases.

In comparison, the incremental levy that expires at the end of this year was expected to grow by 6.3 mills over its five years but only grew by 1.95 mills. It will generate $13,54 million this year, or 17% of the district’s budget.

This option would cost a homeowner with a home assessed at $100,000 an additional $4.20 per month.

The community is weary of the board constantly asking for more money and has requested long-term planning, Rowland Miller said.

“It’s a little bit more than what we’ve been doing … but the $4.20 a month is a reasonable ask to adjust the revenue for the school district in a way that it tries to address inflationary needs,” she said.

The bottom line is the five-year budget shows we need more funds, and this option will not require another operation ballot until 2030, she said.

“You’re potential to get all eight years without a levy ask is pretty good,” Drewyor said.

“I have looked at all of these and at the end of the day, this is the only one that addresses all of our priorities,” Rowland Miller said.

Board member Sue Larimer said while Option A may be appealing to some, it is irresponsible for the sanctity of the district.

“We weren’t voted here to do Option A or A1. That’s not why I’m here. I’m here to do the best for our students,” said board member Lori Reffert.

As for the eight-year option, “I think I can budget $4.20 a month,” she said.

“We weren’t voted here to do Option A or A1. That’s not why I’m here. I’m here to do the best for our students,” she said.

“We need to make some budget cuts to prove to our constituents we’re serious about making our tax dollars work,” said board member Laura Meinke.

She said she preferred Option A with the understanding the district will be back asking for more money in a few years.

“We need to show that we can tighten our belts also,” she said. Making cuts “is part of being a board member.”

Her comments earned applause from the approximately 20 people in the audience.

The district’s budget next year is $79,776,760 and with 85% going to personnel, that area is where the most significant cuts can be made, Drewyor said.

“Why does it look like our cuts are always hurting students,” Larimer said. “If you cut the (program) staff, how is that not hurting students? You make cuts you’re going to hurt the kids in this district no matter what we do.”

Rowland-Miller pointed out there is a difference between cost savings and cuts.

She said she needs to see data points to learn what might not be working in the district and she will not support cutting student programming until she sees those numbers.

Benington said the city has made it clear with recent approval of 284 new residential units that it will continue to support housing development.

“We are a public school district, we can’t kick them out,” Reffert said. “People forget that. We cannot close our doors, period.”

Benington said he supported the longest term possible for a levy to give them time to study options and plan for future cuts.

“I want to keep the educational experience of our students excellent,” he said. “This board’s job is to give the community the best option.”

The board needed a super majority of four in favor to approve an option.

The board passed Option D 4-1 with Meinke voting no.

Tax Options

The five options included:

A. Renew the expiring 9.75-mill levy for four years, which will result in no new funds to match student growth and result in $3 million in cuts for the 2025-26 school year.

The cuts would enable the district to operate until the 2028-29 school year. Another $5 million in cuts would be needed in 2029-30 to begin the next school year with a balanced budget but with no cash reserves.

A.1. Renew the expiring 9.75-mill levy for a continuing term and request an additional levy or 1.27-1.75 mills in 2027. There would be no new funds to address student growth.

B. Replace the levy with a six-year incremental levy that will grow by $1.5 million per year. This is a replica of the 2019 incremental levy, which expires this year. This plan would maintain a positive cash balance through 2029-30.

The ballot language would have the millage starting at 10.85 and growing to 15.25 and cost the owner of a home assessed at $100,000 an additional $3.15 per month. The effective millage would be less as the community grows.

C. Replace the levy with a six-year incremental levy that will grow by $2 million per year. This would match student growth and keep the district operating in the black through 2030-31. It also may delay the need to return to voters.

The millage structure would start at 11.19 mills and grow to 16.95 mills in 2029 with the same expectations for growth. The cost of the owner of a home assessed at $100,000 is $4.20 per month.

D. Replace the levy with an eight-year incremental levy with a growth of $2 million per year. This option also would match growtt and maintain a positive cash balance through 2030-31.

It would start at 11.19 mills and end in 2031 at 19.83 mills, not figuring for growth. It would cost a homeowner with a home assessed at $100,000 an additional $4.20 per month.