Sylvania Schools warns state budget proposal could cut district aid by about $2.2 million

A finance staff member for Sylvania Schools told the Board of Education on March 10 that a governor’s budget proposal tied to the Ohio Fair School Funding Plan could reduce the district’s state funding by about $2.2 million over the next two years, even as Lucas County property valuations increased roughly 28.8%.

That funding overview, presented as the district heads into budget season, walked the board through how the Fair School Funding Plan calculates a “base cost” using fiscal year 2022 inputs and then layers additional allocations for special education, English learners and poverty-related needs. The presenter said the plan ties state aid to local property values and median income; because the formula’s base-cost inputs are still the 2022 figures, rising local costs and valuations are not fully captured in state funding calculations.

The presentation placed the mechanics in numbers: the district’s current state share of the formula was described as about 22% this fiscal year and could fall toward roughly 11.7% under the governor’s proposal, producing an estimated $2.2 million reduction in the two‑year projection provided to the board. The presenter also noted the district’s enrollment is down about 100 students, which affects funding because the formula allocates dollars per pupil.

Why it matters: the Fair School Funding Plan is intended to produce a more transparent, needs‑based allocation for K–12 education, but the district’s staff said the plan’s use of a 2022 cost base combined with rising local property values—subject to Ohio’s House Bill 920 rollback mechanism—means the district could see a substantially smaller state share and will have to depend more on local revenue to maintain current services.

Details from the presentation included: - Base‑cost inputs: the district was told the Fair School Funding Plan is still using FY2022 data for the base‑cost calculation, which drives how much the state allocates per student. - State share trajectory: staff said the district’s state share stood near 22% in the prior year and the governor’s proposal projects it could decline to roughly 11.7% within the two‑year outlook used in the presentation. - Projected district impact: the presenter gave an estimated net reduction of about $2,200,000 over the two‑year projection tied to the governor’s initial budget simulation. - Local valuation and tax mechanics: Lucas County valuations rose about 28.8%; because of House Bill 920’s rollback process the district’s effective voted millage dropped from an earlier effective rate near 43 mills to about 33.9 mills, producing only a modest revenue increase (presenter cited roughly a 1.8% revenue bump in FY25 and about 2.7% in the following year as the full-year effect is realized).

“I think we should continue to advocate to fully fund the Fair School Funding Plan,” the finance staff member told the board, saying the district would reach out to local legislators and statewide education groups. The presenter described recent outreach to a contact named Josh Williams and said staff planned to coordinate communications with district leadership, including “Amy” and “Dr. Motley,” and to make the presentation available online for the community.

Board members asked clarifying questions about whether updating the formula’s base‑cost inputs to a more recent year would change the district’s projected loss; staff said updating to FY24 or FY25 inputs would require substantially more state funding systemwide and that the department had not released a simulation using later base‑cost inputs. The presenter cautioned that while the governor’s proposal shows a possible $2.2 million decline, the budget will be amended through the House and Senate during the regular legislative process.

The presenter outlined proposed next steps but there was no formal board action on policy or levies during the discussion. Staff recommended outreach to parents and taxpayers with a short summary of the presentation and an invitation to participate in a small advocacy group to contact state lawmakers.

Board members and staff signaled interest in community outreach. The presenter said a short email and a link to the presentation would be posted on the district website and a Google form would be created for residents who want to be involved in advocacy efforts.

Ending: The board did not take a vote on funding policy at the March 10 meeting; staff said they would prepare communication materials and follow up with the board on outreach plans as the state budget process advances.