Wooster City Schools warns of $3.4M shortfall; board weighs levy, OFCC and Cornerstone options
Loading...
Summary
Treasurer presented a FY26 spring forecast showing a projected $3.4 million deficit and flat revenue ahead; the board debated renovating Cornerstone, pursuing OFCC co-funding, and whether to pursue a November levy or COPS financing, and discussed moving $23 million in capital funds back to the general fund.
The Wooster City Schools Board of Education on Tuesday heard a financial forecast projecting a roughly $3.4 million operating loss for fiscal 2026 and opened a lengthy discussion about whether to pursue a levy, use district cash, or seek a COPs financing deal to address aging facilities.
Treasurer Amy presented the spring forecast required by the Ohio Department of Education, saying the district now expects “a projected loss for the year of about $3,400,000.” She told trustees that about 68% of district revenue comes from local taxes, 26% from the state and roughly 6% from other sources, and cautioned that recent state changes will keep revenue “very flat” for the next three years.
The board framed that fiscal picture as the central reason to consider facility options, notably the long-debated Cornerstone building. Superintendent Gabe Tudor and other administrators outlined three broad paths: renovate Cornerstone, build new grade-band (for example K–5) facilities, or place temporary modular classrooms while a larger plan is developed. Administrators also described a prior $23 million transfer into capital projects and said the board could move that money back into the general fund with a board resolution if needed to shore up operating balances.
Board members emphasized trade-offs. One trustee warned that buying time in Cornerstone could cost “$10 million to $15 million” to keep the building usable in the medium term, while another argued a broader K–5 plan would be more efficient and would address aging conditions at other schools over the long run. Administration said modulars (trailers) could be used quickly but estimated a conservative cost of roughly $8–10 million for a full modular solution once sidewalks, utilities and site work are included.
The board also discussed the opportunity to partner with the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission (OFCC). Administration said OFCC co-funding is attractive—in some districts the state covers a large share—but awards vary with a district’s relative need; the district’s preliminary estimate of OFCC support in Wooster’s case was described as roughly 31% for a lowest-cost scope, with any enhancements (locally funded improvements) paid by the district. Trustees were told that if the district wanted to preserve an OFCC window it would need to have financing in place by November and that a funding lapse would require reapplying later, with no guarantee of the same level of support.
Trustees did not adopt a final plan at the meeting. Instead they directed administration to return with more detailed cost estimates and said they would consider a board resolution to restore the $23 million to the operating forecast as a short-term measure. Several trustees voiced support for pursuing a November levy question if the board settles on a long-term building plan; at least one trustee urged caution about COPS (certificate of participation) approaches because of the district’s ongoing operating pressures.
Next steps: administration will provide refined cost and scope estimates, and the board expects further discussion next month about a potential levy, the OFCC timeline, and short-term measures to address urgent building needs.
