Cuyahoga Heights board reviews February forecast, flags county tax error and low tax advance

Cuyahoga Heights Board of Education members met Feb. 10 in a special session to review the district's February financial forecast and to discuss disrupted property-tax distributions from Cuyahoga County that may affect the district's near-term cash flow.

The treasurer presented the forecast, which uses the state's new four-year submission format and projects a small operating deficit in fiscal 2026. "We did have a deficit last year, negative 3,100,000.0," the treasurer said, attributing that shortfall primarily to a strategic $4,000,000 transfer from the general fund to a permanent-improvement account made to preserve cash in response to a proposed state cash-carryover cap. The treasurer told the board the forecast is conservative and repeatedly stressed that it is a planning tool, saying it is updated twice yearly and used to certify certain multi-year obligations with the state.

Why it matters: the forecast feeds budget decisions, levy planning and the district's ability to sign multi-year contracts. The board and staff discussed the state thresholds that trigger Department of Education review and the way line 6.01 (operating balance/unreserved fund balance) is used to identify districts at financial risk.

A major focus of the presentation was county tax distributions. The treasurer said the district's February property-tax advance is far lower than historic amounts (about $735,000 compared with a typical February range of $2 million to $3 million). He said he had contacted other Cuyahoga County treasurers and that several districts saw similar, reduced advances.

The board also reviewed a county acknowledgment of a clerical error the district says overstated valuations by roughly $90 million and resulted in approximately $2 million of omitted collections owed to the district. The treasurer and legal counsel told the board county corrections may have produced an additional problem: an unintended increase in effective tax rates that could cause over-collection rather than a simple omitted-tax adjustment. Legal counsel documented the county's proposed correction path and warned that, absent a fix before tax bills issue, the county might need to further correct second-half tax bills to address over-collections. "We pointed it out to them," the treasurer said, noting that legal counsel had followed up in writing.

The board described coordinated outreach: staff said they sent a letter to the county fiscal office and that mayors and fiscal officers from neighboring villages had been briefed. A staff member summarized a county email for the board and quoted that message's phrasing: "Please be advised that Matthew Muccio found a clerical error," which the board used as a prompt to describe the county's acknowledgement and apology. Board members said the county committed to issue a public statement to affected taxpayers and that district legal counsel had contacted county officials and the state tax office about both omitted taxes and the risk of over-collection.

Board members asked detailed questions about enrollment counts and funding (for example, how career-center students are counted as fractional FTEs and how College Credit Plus enrollments can affect state counts), special-education costs and the district's tuition program (projected at roughly $813,000). The treasurer highlighted the district's loss from the phase-out of tangible personal property tax replacement (about $213,320 annually and a cumulative loss of roughly $19.3 million to date).

Procedure and next steps: the board agreed to pull agenda items 5 and 6 (related to the next phase of the roofing project) because the CentiMark contract had not been finalized and attorneys were still negotiating language. The treasurer said the forecast will be brought back for a formal vote at the board's Feb. 17 meeting. The board then voted 4-0 to adjourn into an executive session under ORC 121.22(g)(1) to consider appointment, employment or compensation of employees.

Votes at a glance: - Approve modified agenda (remove items 5 and 6 related to roofing): passed 4-0 (aye: Missus Decca; Miss Pajeska; Mister Rossi; Mister Cichak). - Enter executive session under ORC 121.22(g)(1) for personnel matters: passed 4-0 (same roll call).

What remains unresolved: the county's technical correction and whether it will issue refunds or further adjusted bills to correct any over-collections; the district continues to work with county staff and legal counsel to ensure tax bills and collections reflect the proper adjustments.

The board ended the public portion of the meeting at about 7:03 p.m. and moved into executive session; the treasurer said staff will return with the forecast for a formal vote at the Feb. 17 meeting.