This November, Cincinnati Public Schools plans to ask voters to approve a new 0.75% earned income tax expected to generate approximately $74 million annually.
The question isn’t whether the district faces financial challenges. It does.
The question is whether voters should be asked to approve a new tax before the district has presented a comprehensive plan explaining how that money will transform Cincinnati Public Schools over the next five years.
During weeks of public meetings, the Board of Education devoted considerable attention to one question: Which tax is the best vehicle to raise the money? Board members debated an earned income tax versus two property tax alternatives before settling on the income tax.
Far less attention was devoted to a more fundamental question: What is the long-term strategy the tax will finance?
Treasurer Mike Gustin has been candid about the district’s fiscal realities. CPS faces a structural budget deficit exceeding $58 million. Miss the August deadline to place a levy on the November ballot, he warned, and the district won’t be able to collect new operating revenue until 2028. Without additional funding, the district says deeper reductions could follow this year’s elimination of more than 100 positions, including possible school consolidations, expanded transportation walk zones, reductions in athletics and extracurricular activities, and even the loss of districtwide magnet programs.
Those are serious warnings.
But a filing deadline explains the timing of a levy. It does not substitute for a strategic plan.
Who will carry the cost?
The board has made two significant policy decisions. The first is that CPS needs additional revenue. The second is who should pay for it.
Rather than asking property owners to shoulder the increase, the board chose an earned-income-only tax. That choice shifts much of the burden toward residents who are currently working while generally excluding pensions, Social Security benefits, investment income and many other forms of non-earned income.
It is also an uncommon choice for Ohio school districts.
According to the Ohio Department of Taxation, only 68 of Ohio’s 611 public school districts − about 11% − use the earned-income-only model that CPS is proposing. While 214 districts levy some form of school income tax, most tax a broader range of income. The earned-income-only approach has been used primarily by smaller districts and has seen comparatively little use among Ohio’s large urban school systems.
If the board believes this is the fairest way to finance public education, it should explain why. Choosing who pays deserves as much public discussion as deciding how much to collect.
The timing raises additional questions.
Mayor Aftab Pureval has publicly discussed the possibility of asking voters to approve an increase in Cincinnati’s municipal income tax to help fund public safety. Although no proposal has yet been finalized, city residents could soon find themselves considering two separate income tax increases from two different governments within a relatively short period. Each proposal may be defensible on its own, but taxpayers deserve to understand their combined impact.
Show voters the five-year plan
None of this means CPS does not need additional funding. It may.
Nor does it mean voters should reject the levy.
It means the board has asked the public to approve the financing before presenting the blueprint − and to accept who bears the cost before explaining why that choice is fair.
Before Cincinnati taxpayers commit another $74 million every year, they deserve more than a budget crisis and an election deadline. They deserve a clear, measurable, multi-year plan explaining what success looks like, how these dollars will improve student outcomes, and how the board will be held accountable for the results. They also deserve a straight answer for why working residents, and not property owners or those living on pensions and investment income, are being asked to carry the load.
A filing deadline may dictate the election calendar. It should not dictate whether the public sees the plan before being asked to pay for it.
Dennis Doyle lives in Anderson Township and is a member of the Enquirer Board of Contributors.
This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: CPS is asking for money before showing the plan | Opinion
Reporting by Dennis Doyle, Opinion contributor / Cincinnati Enquirer
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
By Dennis Doyle, Opinion contributor | USA TODAY Network
