Treasurer Brent, the district’s treasurer/CFO, told the Little Miami School Board on Oct. 6 that the district is operating with a current-year deficit of about $911,000 and faces growing shortfalls in coming years unless revenue sources change. "We are operating current year at a deficit, of about less than a million, about 911,000," he said. He presented the board with an October update to the district forecast and explained how levies, state funding guarantees and enrollment interact with the budget. The forecast submitted to the state is summarized in a 23-page document the treasurer provided to the board.

The treasurer emphasized the district’s heavy reliance on a renewal levy passed in 2011, which he said provides roughly $10.6 million of operating revenue. "It's the same levy we've had for 14 years now. No new taxes, no additional funds," he said, adding that the levy represents about 16% of operating revenue. He also described the state credit that reduces homeowner share for the current levy cycle and said that, if the levy were treated as a new levy in the future, taxpayers would pay the full amount rather than the roughly 87.5% they pay now. "If it's put on the future as a new levy, it'll be a 100% of the dollar," he said.

Why it matters: the treasurer told the board that state funding rules make Little Miami a "guarantee district," meaning the district receives a guaranteed dollar amount based on fiscal-year-2020 levels rather than a formula tied to current enrollment. He said that mismatch leaves the district more dependent on local property tax revenue as enrollment grows. "We are a locally supported district ... roughly 62% of our revenue comes from local taxes," he said, and later added, "we're considered a wealthy district on paper," an explanation of why state aid is comparatively low.

Board members and other attendees asked for clarifications on timing and amounts. The treasurer said that a property-tax increase tied to reassessments is already being received in partial collections and that the district should see the full roughly $7 million increase in the near term; he said he would provide split-year collection figures on request. He also warned of state-level proposals that could reduce local property-tax revenue: "House Bill 186 ... would probably affect the district ... between 7 and $8,000,000 it would lower property tax revenue," he said, while noting projections vary.

The presentation included standard forecast detail—revenues, expenditures, and fund-balance projections—and several charts the treasurer used to compare with-levy and without-levy scenarios. He said salaries and benefits account for about 81% of expenditures and that enrollment drives many recurring costs: "As we get more and more kids every year, it just adds to it because we're getting more staff ... staffing is our main expense obviously." He told the board the district has averaged about 155 new students per year in the last decade, and that growth increases demands for buses, staff and purchased services (special education services were cited as a significant cost).

Discussion, direction and next steps: board members asked the treasurer to circulate the full forecast document and to provide figures on the portion of property-tax collections already received this year. The treasurer said the forecast will change as the Ohio legislature acts on property-tax reform and funding bills and that he will bring updated forecasts back to the board. There was no formal board vote on policy changes or on the forecast itself during the meeting; the board approved the meeting agenda and other routine motions earlier in the session.

Background and context: the treasurer said the current state funding formula and guarantee cause some districts to be "winners" and others "losers" depending on property values and median income. He said Little Miami is operating under a guarantee amount set in fiscal year 2020 and would lose more than $3 million a year in state aid if that guarantee were removed under the current formula. He also noted that the timing of state forecast filings changed under House Bill 96 and that the biennial budgeting cycle and other legislative actions add uncertainty to multi-year projections.

The treasurer closed by telling the board he would provide the detailed 23-page forecast and follow up with requested collection figures and any changes arising from pending state legislation.