Cincinnati schools weigh cash-reserve plan and levy timing as budget gaps widen

Cincinnati Public Schools Treasurer Georgia Wagner told the board on Feb. 10 that the district’s general‑fund cash balance is getting “dangerously low” and presented modeling that would build the reserve up to a 60‑day level over several years.

Wagner said the district’s projected general‑fund beginning balance for the next fiscal year is approximately $624.7 million in revenue, with about $484 million already committed to next year’s staffing and known items. That leaves roughly $128 million (or $140 million if the board declines to set money aside for a reserve). She said the district expects to end the current fiscal year with about $41.4 million in cash on hand.

Because property tax collections arrive in concentrated installments, Wagner said the district runs “valleys” in cash flow in December and in June/July and that a healthy reserve is necessary to prevent short‑term borrowing and to absorb unforeseen costs. She described a 60‑day cash target as roughly $104 million and suggested a five‑year phase‑in that would require setting aside about $12.5 million per year.

The board discussed options and tradeoffs. Several members supported the idea of building a larger reserve but said the district must balance that with continuing investments — including preschool expansion, the growth plan and capital needs. Board member Craig urged the administration to plan levy timing and messaging carefully and suggested meeting with Cincinnati Preschool Promise (CPP) to coordinate strategy on the preschool funding component of the upcoming levy.

Wagner presented the district’s near‑term budget pressures: unplanned costs in fiscal 2025 that could total about $2.2 million (including crossing guard increases and transportation pressures) and recurring staffing cost increases tied to contractual steps and benefits. She said a 1% districtwide cost‑of‑living increase would cost roughly $4 million to the general fund and that some ESSER reimbursements have created volatility in previous years.

Board members requested more data. They asked for: an updated breakdown of costs per school (with self‑contained special‑education units separated out); clearer, school‑level projections tied to revised enrollment modeling under Phase 2 of the growth plan; an analysis of transportation costs tied to reassignments and routing changes; and comparative benchmarks used to select the 60‑day target. Members also asked that the treasurer and superintendent present levy scenarios and timing options to the board early so the district can plan public engagement and, if needed, a campaign.

Wagner said she will bring alternatives and suggested timelines back to the board for follow‑up. The board did not set a levy timeline on Feb. 10; statutory deadlines reviewed by staff show the district must adopt a resolution of need at least 100 days before an election and file ballot language with the county election board 90 days before the election.

The board and administration agreed to continue the budget conversation at follow‑up finance and committee meetings and to circulate a short board survey Wagner’s office had prepared to guide prioritization.