Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Forecast Levy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Riverside committee flags levy need as five‑year forecast, COPS/TANs plan draw concern
Summary
Finance and personnel committee members reviewed a compressed five‑year forecast required by state law, were warned the district will drop below its 90‑day cash‑reserve policy within a few years, and debated a proposed COPS/TANs permanent‑improvement debt authorization that some members said was premature without full cost data.
Riverside Local’s Finance & Personnel Committee on Thursday reviewed a compressed five‑year forecast required under recent state law changes and discussed a pending resolution to authorize short‑term debt (COPS/TANs) for permanent improvement projects, including an eight‑classroom addition and gym work at Buckeye Elementary.
The committee’s finance presenter framed the forecast as an early‑warning tool and said changes to state reporting under House Bill 96 and Ohio Revised Code requirements are shrinking the lookback and forecast windows. The presenter said the forecast will be filed with the state by Oct. 15 and noted the district’s board policy calls for a 90‑day cash reserve; under current projections the district could fall below that target by fiscal 2027–2028.
Committee members pressed for more detail before any borrowing. The board president has placed a COPS/TANs resolution on the upcoming board agenda that would cap annual debt service at about $825,000; the administration said market rates will determine how much principal that cap supports and estimated potential principal in the $12 million–$14 million range but said final numbers require going to market. Several board members said presenting a resolution before the district has a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) or full cost estimates for the Buckeye work was premature.
“The board hasn’t had that conversation at a meeting,” said a board member, adding that taking a debt authorization to the agenda without GMPs and without exploring other financing options put the board “out ahead of the data.” Another board member asked whether the administration had asked the county auditor how much a mill would raise to compare public‑vote options against the borrowing plan.
Why it matters: the five‑year forecast and the permanent improvement plan determine whether the district needs to seek new operating or capital levies and how it times construction projects. Committee discussion pointed to three immediate fiscal constraints: (1) uncertainty from House Bill 96 about state school funding inputs, (2) a board reserve policy that the forecast projects the district will breach within a few years, and (3) an unresolved plan for funding the Buckeye addition and associated renovations.
Key details - Regulatory context: presenters cited recent legislative changes and an ORC reporting rule that shorten historical/forecast windows the district must submit. The forecast must be submitted by Oct. 15. (Transcript evidence.) - Cash reserves: the district’s policy target is 90 days; committee math and the forecast show the district dropping below that level in fiscal year 2027 or 2028, depending on assumptions. A board member’s quick calculation suggested the shortfall could appear by fiscal 2027. - Revenue signals: casino revenue showed modest growth (about 1.5% noted by staff); inflation and interest‑rate trends were discussed as uncertain variables that could affect forecasted revenue and investment income. - Permanent improvement (PI) and COPS/TANs: administration described a debt plan with an estimated annual debt repayment cap of $825,000. That cap, staff said, could support roughly $12M–$14M in borrowing depending on market rates. The resolution on the agenda uses “not to exceed” language because exact principal will depend on interest rates in the market offering. - Board concerns: members said the administration placed a COPS/TANs resolution on the agenda without prior board authorization to gather bids or clear cost estimates; members asked for more comparative data on alternatives, including the dollar yield of one mill and options such as an earned‑income tax or a public permanent‑improvement levy.
Background and next steps Committee members asked the administration to provide more detailed scenarios to the full board before any final action: (a) a revised five‑year forecast with alternative revenue assumptions (including softer interest rates), (b) an estimate of how much one mill would generate from the county auditor, (c) pro forma comparisons of borrowing versus voter‑approved levies (including estimated public cost), and (d) the planned use of existing PI funds. The five‑year forecast and final appropriations will appear on the next board agenda for formal approval; the COPS/TANs resolution is slated to be presented for board consideration as well.
Ending The committee left the session without approving borrowing or levies. Members directed the administration to gather the comparative financing data and to return with materials the full board can study before any authorization or public request for new revenue.
