Wyoming City Schools staff warn cash reserves could force spending cuts or a levy if revenue trends continue

Staff presenting Wyoming City Schools’ five‑year general fund forecast told the Board of Education the district has identified a $5,000,000 cash‑balance target and will need to consider spending reductions or new revenue if current trends persist.

The presentation, delivered by a district staff member responsible for finance, framed the forecast as a statutory document that reflects current law and noted a number of pending state budget proposals that could change revenue assumptions. “We identified $5,000,000 as our cash balance target,” the staff member said, adding that anything below that target would require either reducing expenditures, raising revenue or both.

Board members were told the forecast covers only the general fund and excludes bond retirement, student activity accounts and other non‑tax supported funds. The staff member said roughly 40% of the district’s revenue comes from property taxes (about 38% from real estate), about 32% from the district income tax and about 20% from state funding. The presenter told the board that property tax revenue is straightforward to project because valuations are public, while income tax collections are volatile and driven by taxpayer behavior and market conditions.

The presentation described the district’s long‑running position under Ohio’s funding changes: Wyoming City Schools has been on the state “guarantee,” receiving essentially the same level of state funding since fiscal year 2019. The staff member reported the guarantee has left district state revenue relatively flat — approximately $5.859 million in recent years — while state spending on voucher programs has increased markedly, a point the presenter raised when discussing the legislative context.

On expenditures, the staff member said salaries and benefits account for about 80% of the district’s general fund and are projected to remain the largest cost driver. The district’s salary outlays were described as “just over $18.5 million to $19 million” for the current year, with a five‑year historical average growth of about 2.5% used in the forecast. Purchase services (outsourced services including transportation and custodial contracts) were said to make up roughly 13.5% of the budget, with sub costs and other contracted services noted as pressure points.

The presentation included scenario timing: if all forecast assumptions held true, staff said the district could be looking for new revenue in the latter half of the five‑year window and noted that, administratively, a potential operating levy might be considered for a future year (the staff member explained that voted property taxes collected in a calendar year are reflected in the following fiscal year’s collections).

The staff member also summarized current legislative proposals that could affect the forecast, including a House proposal to replace the five‑year forecast with a three‑year forecasting metric and a House proposal that would use a percentage‑of‑expenditures cash‑balance metric (the presenter said one draft set a 30% threshold). The staff member said those proposals were only under discussion and that the district would continue advocacy related to the state budget and the Senate finance committee’s work.

Board members heard that the district partners with a 13‑district Hamilton County consortium to procure health insurance and that the consortium has helped moderate benefit cost growth. Staff noted instructional materials and technology purchases were on the agenda later in the meeting and that some capital support would be covered by a recently passed bond issue (bond retirement fund excluded from the forecast).

No formal board vote on a levy or budgetary action was recorded in the provided transcript segments. The forecast discussion concluded with staff offering to answer additional questions and to continue monitoring legislative developments and collection receipts.

The board’s discussion and the staff presentation focused on the financial outlook and on continuing advocacy with state legislators; no formal direction (for example, authorization to place a levy on the ballot) was recorded in the available transcript.