Olentangy board approves resolution to explore $235 million bond, moves $50 million to reserve funds amid proposed state carryover cap

The Olentangy Local School District Board of Education on Monday approved a resolution of necessity to explore placing an estimated $235,000,000 bond issue on the November ballot and separately approved transferring $50,000,000 out of the district general fund into restricted reserve funds.

The resolution authorizes the district to request auditor certification and state consents required before a district may proceed with a bond issue that would exceed the 10-mill limitation. Treasurer Ryan Jenkins told the board the proposed bond proceeds would be used “principally for a high school and an elementary school, and other district facilities.” The board also approved a set of transfers that district officials said are intended to comply with a carryover-cap provision under the pending state budget bill.

Why it matters: District leaders said rapid enrollment growth has produced pressing capacity needs and that the board is trying to avoid adding millage for residents while preserving funds needed for ongoing operations. At the same time they said a recently negotiated provision in the state budget — if signed into law — would limit how much cash a district can keep in its general fund and could force steep reductions unless funds are reallocated.

Board action and next steps The board voted to approve the resolution of necessity — an initial legal step that asks the county auditor to certify estimated values the district would use when placing a bond question on the ballot. Treasurer Ryan Jenkins described the resolution as an exploratory step. “We are recommending, as an administrative team, that we explore, with this passage of this resolution, what a bond issue would look like,” Jenkins said during his presentation.

If the board elects to proceed after receiving auditor certification, Jenkins said a second resolution — the resolution to proceed — would have to be approved no later than the statutory deadline for ballot placement and the district would seek consent from the Ohio Department of Taxation and the Ohio Department of Education as required by law.

No new millage approach District leaders and the board said the strategy for the bond would be a “no additional millage” approach, meaning the district expects to issue debt without increasing the tax rate that property owners pay for debt service. Jenkins explained to the board that the certificate process requires an estimated millage rate but does not obligate the district to collect additional mills, and noted the district has used this approach for most bond issues in recent decades.

State budget change and transfers Board members and administrators also discussed a provision in the legislature’s budget bill (conference report for House Bill 96) that would cap general-fund cash carryover at 40% of the most recent year’s operating expenditures; the provision was included in the version sent to the governor. Jenkins said the district’s current general-fund carryover is roughly 50% of one year’s operating expenses and recommended reallocating the excess to funds that are allowed under Ohio law to hold restricted reserves.

The board approved a plan to move $50,000,000 from the general fund into four funds: $20,000,000 to a self-insurance claims stabilization fund, $20,000,000 to the capital projects fund, $5,000,000 to a workers’ compensation stabilization fund, and $5,000,000 to a termination/severance benefits fund. Jenkins described the transfers as a way to preserve money for anticipated costs that otherwise would remain in the general fund but could be swept under the proposed state cap.

Board discussion and vote Board members discussed growth pressures and the district’s fiscal planning before voting. The roll-call votes recorded in the transcript show Dr. Dabrico, Dr. Wallach, Mr. O’Brien, Ms. Schreiber and Board President Brandon Lester voting yes on the resolution to declare necessity; consent agendas including the transfers were later approved by the same affirmative vote pattern.

What the votes do not decide The resolution approved Monday does not itself place a bond on the ballot or set final dollar amounts or timelines for construction. The action authorizes the district to seek auditor certification and state approvals needed to determine whether to proceed. If Jenkins and the administration recommend moving forward after certification, the board would still have to pass a resolution to proceed and, if placed on the ballot, the voters would decide the bond question.

Context: growth, taxes and state policy District leaders repeatedly said they want to keep costs low for local taxpayers while addressing capacity created by rapid enrollment increases. Jenkins and Board President Brandon Lester noted that because property values in the district have appreciated, the district has previously issued bonds without increasing taxpayers’ millage; they said that approach is being considered again. Administrators also cautioned that the proposed state cap on general-fund carryover would reduce local flexibility and could require asking voters for additional operating levies in the future if the district returned funds to the community now and later needed to restore them.

Implementation and timeline If the board decides to pursue a bond following auditor certification, additional board votes and administrative steps would be required before a question could appear on the November ballot. The administration said it will return with more details after receiving the auditor’s certification of estimated rates and the Department of Taxation’s guidance.