South Euclid‑Lyndhurst projects 2028 deficit; board previews master facility plan and November levy
Loading...
Summary
District officials told the board a revised state forecast shows a projected deficit in 2028, and presented a four‑phase master facility plan tied to a November ballot levy (Issue 52). Superintendent and staff outlined building needs, reliance on local taxes and potential state fiscal oversight if the gap is not closed.
South Euclid‑Lyndhurst Board of Education leaders told the board on Sept. 16 that a new state reporting schedule and revised forecast show the district projecting a budget shortfall in 2028 and that trustees should consider a November levy to fund building repairs and maintain programs.
The superintendent and business‑operations staff framed the levy as one tool to address an aging building inventory and to avoid deeper state fiscal oversight. “We’re showing red in 2028,” the district’s business‑operations presenter said, noting the state moved the forecast submission to Oct. 15 and changed the required projection window from five years to four. Superintendent Dr. Capel told the board the district has developed a public master facility plan so the community can see priorities before officials ask for voter support.
The forecast change and the district’s condition matter because South Euclid‑Lyndhurst receives a larger share of funding from local taxes than the state average, leaving the district more dependent on property tax revenue and local levies to pay for maintenance, programming and staff. That increases the stakes for a successful ballot measure and limits the district’s ability to tap state funds for major reconstruction.
District officials said the state’s budgeting timeline has shifted earlier in the fiscal cycle and that, under the most recent guidance, the district will submit a four‑year forecast by Oct. 15. The business‑operations presenter said the district will present the forecast at the next board meeting and seek formal approval on Oct. 14. He described one practical consequence of the change: the district expects to resubmit an updated forecast if a levy passes, but the second required submission now falls in February rather than May.
The board reviewed a multi‑phase master facility plan created after building audits and an engineering review. Dr. Capel said the plan groups projects into four phases and that Phase 1 work is already underway using leftover dollars; Phase 2–4 would be sequenced over the next 1–5 years depending on financing and voter support. The superintendent said outside engineers graded buildings with letter scores and that Brush High School and Memorial received the lowest grades, each assessed at roughly a D‑ minus. She said priorities include high‑priority roofing repairs at several elementary schools, interior work at Brush (including the performing arts center), and repurposing Southland for preschool needs driven by post‑COVID enrollment growth.
Officials also summarized funding context and state reporting results discussed earlier in the meeting: a legislative‑commissioned study cited at the meeting concluded Ohio underfunds economically disadvantaged students by about $3,300 per pupil and recommended replacing the current disadvantaged‑pupil impact aid formula with a single funding weight applied to statewide per‑pupil funding to improve transparency and stability. The superintendent noted the district is “significantly locally funded,” with local sources comprising the majority of operating revenue compared with state and federal shares.
Public comment during the meeting included a community speaker campaigning for the levy. Stephanie Ryan, speaking as chair of the Citizens for Continued Excellence in SEL Schools Levy Committee, urged passage of Issue 52 and emphasized the district’s reliance on local taxes for building repairs and operations. “Our buildings are aging,” she told the board, and because the state categorizes the district as relatively wealthy, the district is unlikely to qualify for major state building funds.
Board members asked questions about timelines and next steps; staff said they plan to present the formal forecast and seek board approval at the Oct. 14 meeting and to publish levy information and the full master facility plan online for the public. Several trustees emphasized they prefer to identify reductions if required rather than defer cuts to state fiscal oversight.
If voters approve the levy, staff said financing options could allow the district to accelerate or combine phases; if the levy fails, officials said they will return with prioritized reductions and tighter budgeting to meet state requirements.
The meeting did not produce a district vote on the levy itself; the board instead approved routine consent and personnel items during the same session.
