Hamilton County committee warned of $7 million local shortfall and possible staff reductions as TISA shifts funding

Hamilton County Superintendent Dr. Robertson told the county finance committee Wednesday that the district faces a local revenue shortfall of about $7,000,000 versus the budget approved earlier this year, and that staff are preparing revenue projections and staffing scenarios for the board.

The warning came as Robertson explained changes in K–12 state funding — referred to in the meeting as TISA — that have shifted a larger share of school budgets to state sources and reduced the district—s local share. "We've been very intentional over the last 3 years to say our goal is to push as many resources directly into schools to support kids and support teachers as well as we can," Robertson said, describing the administration's effort to prioritize school-based spending.

Why it matters: The shortfall and state funding changes intersect with rising costs for health care, insurance and other contracts, and with enrollment trends that affect per‑pupil calculations. Robertson told the committee the district's operating budget for fiscal 2026 is in the neighborhood of $300,000,000 and that, after updated projections, local revenues (operating local revenue and the state TISA piece) could be roughly $7 million below what was included in the approved budget.

Most important facts first: Robertson outlined potential staffing adjustments tied to that shortfall. The administration—s staffing model scenarios show about an 88.5 full‑time equivalent (FTE) reduction in school‑based staffing (about 2 percent of school‑based staff) and approximately 20 positions in central operations (about a 5 percent reduction in central staff) under one model the district is studying. "We are committed to cutting 20 more positions from central operations," Robertson said, adding that many school‑based adjustments would come through attrition and retirement.

Supporting details: Robertson and staff highlighted several drivers of the budget gap: - Sales tax collections were down in November and December versus the prior year; sales tax receipts lag by two months, so the administration is watching new months of data for trend confirmation. - Property tax depends on appraisal growth and reappraisal timing; the district is coordinating with the county on those projections. - Health care costs and property insurance increases are significant budget pressures; the district said its in‑house clinic and pharmacy usage (about 64 percent pharmacy utilization) has mitigated some increases but not all. - Enrollment has declined from a COVID bump; the district reported roughly 42,102 students currently enrolled (charter schools excluded) and said staffing projections are narrowing toward that count.

The funding context and legal limits: Committee discussion repeatedly referenced the shift from the old BEP funding approach to TISA; Robertson said TISA now funds a larger share of districts' budgets and the district's local contribution is a smaller share than under BEP. The committee also discussed the board—s "maintenance of effort" obligations and how staffing and program choices interact with that requirement.

Debate and tradeoffs: Board members pressed on whether cuts could be made without harming classroom instruction. Joan Black sought clarity for the public on state pupil‑teacher ratio caps and emphasized that "we are doing a good job of having smaller class sizes than we're required to have," arguing local dollars are buying smaller classes. Several board members, including Jody Schaefer and Felice, said principals should have discretion to use school strategic funds where they judge needs greatest; Robertson and other administration speakers said the staffing model was created to balance coherence across the district with local flexibility and that strategic funds already push about $40,000,000 to schools.

Athletics and stipends: Schaefer asked for numbers to model a flat stipend for coaches rather than percentage‑based supplements; committee members described the time demands on coaches and discussed ways to make stipend structures more predictable. "I'm gonna go ahead and ask that we get the numbers on what it would be to do those flat bands, for athletics," Schaefer said.

Grants and allocations: A board member raised concerns about how a recent $951,000 federal BJA Stop School Violence grant was allocated, saying large portions went to director salaries and asking that the board review grant spending details. Robertson responded that many grants fund staffing consistent with regular budget practices and that the district will continue to provide line‑item detail in the budget book.

Next steps and staff directions: Robertson told the committee she expects to present an 85–90 percent complete budget model to the full board in April and updated revenue projections at a Thursday meeting. She also said staff will provide clearer role descriptions for the three school‑based positions (counselor, social worker and student support/seat coach) and will improve principal messaging about transitions in assignments or program staffing. There were no formal votes recorded at the meeting.

Ending: The finance committee framed the choices as tradeoffs between preserving school‑based services and balancing a constrained budget amid uncertain revenues. Robertson and staff said they will return with updated projections, a more detailed budget book and specific staffing recommendations ahead of the board—s budget votes in May.