Board begins operational-planning exercise and approves resolution to proceed on a levy

The Board of Education discussed an operational-planning process on July 21 designed to prepare the district in case a November 4 levy is rejected, and later that evening approved a resolution to proceed with placing a levy question before voters.

Superintendent Mr. Hassler told the board the planning work is preparatory and intended to identify "what outcomes or student experiences must be protected" if revenue is lost. He said, "if the levy is rejected in November, we lose an entire calendar year's worth of the ability to collect funds," and urged the board to define values and guardrails administrators should use when developing reduction plans. The superintendent said the process would involve staff, building leaders and a small group of parents and teachers who can provide feedback on proposed options; he emphasized the board should set broad priorities rather than deciding individual line-item cuts.

Board discussion focused on three broad priorities that members repeatedly raised: protecting student safety (physical and social-emotional), preserving classroom instruction and core academics (with attention to class size, particularly in early grades), and maintaining student access and engagement (transportation and pathways to career/college). Several members noted the domino effect of cuts and asked that reduction proposals be assessed against those lenses. Ms. Larimer, Ms. Menke and Mr. Anderson each emphasized the importance of class size and student supports such as counselors and psychologists; multiple members said extracurriculars and electives would be lower-priority targets if cuts were required.

Treasurer Mr. Drewer gave financial context: the district ended the fiscal year with about 125 days cash on hand but noted encumbrances of roughly $780,000; he reported real-estate tax revenue was down about 8% after a prior levy rejection and cautioned that special-education and building-maintenance costs are pressure points. Drewer also reviewed investment-practice constraints, noting the Ohio Revised Code limits options and that a large portion of the district’s liquid holdings are in STAR Ohio.

After discussion the board unanimously approved a resolution to proceed (roll-call votes recorded as yes from Ms. Menke, Ms. Larimer, Mr. Bennington, Mr. Anderson, Ms. Minkie and Ms. Roland Miller). The meeting transcript lists an estimated taxpayer cost figure in the accompanying materials (approximately $2.74 per $100,000 of assessed value and about 7.83 mills in the draft resolution). Board members said the levy deliberations have been ongoing for months, and the resolution moves the process forward to obtain final costs and place a measure on the ballot if the board so decides.

Ending: The board approved the resolution to proceed. Administration will continue the operational-planning process, produce public updates, and use the board’s stated guardrails when evaluating potential reductions if levy revenue is not secured.