Olentangy Schools projects multimillion‑dollar operating deficits; treasurer says levy likely in 2027–28
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
SubscribeSummary
At its Jan. 22 meeting the Olentangy Schools treasurer outlined a five‑year forecast that shows a projected $16.8 million shortfall this year and declining days‑cash; the board was told an operating levy will likely be needed in 2027 or 2028 unless revenues or spending change.
At the Jan. 22 Olentangy Schools Board of Education meeting, Treasurer Mister Jenkins presented a five‑year financial forecast and legislative update that, he said, shows the district facing growing operating deficits and diminishing reserve days.
"We are forecasted this year to have a deficit of about $16,800,000," Jenkins said, and noted the district ended fiscal 2024–25 with roughly 137 days of cash on hand. Jenkins told the board that without structural changes the forecast shows carryover cash exhausted by the 2028–29 school year and that the district will likely need an operating levy in calendar year 2027 or 2028.
The presentation linked those projections to several factors: rapid enrollment growth that requires new staff and facilities, wage and benefit pressures, and changes in recently passed state legislation. Jenkins summarized four property‑tax bills in the forecast—identified in the presentation as House Bills 129, 186, 335 and 309—and explained they affect districts differently depending on whether a district sits at the state’s so‑called 20‑mill floor. Jenkins said Olentangy is above that floor, which reduces the specific tax credit provisions his constituents elsewhere may see, but the bills still change how inside (unvoted) mills and other calculations will behave after reappraisals.
Jenkins walked the board through revenue and expenditure drivers: he projected roughly $5.5 million in new real‑estate revenue annually from new construction and about $756,000 per year from public utilities, while noting personnel costs (salaries and benefits) are the largest and fastest‑growing expense category. He said, on average, the forecast uses wage‑index assumptions of about 2.5% for negotiated increases and smaller automatic indices for step growth.
Board President Mister Lester and Superintendent Todd Meyer both emphasized the district’s growth as a cause and a priority to manage. Meyer said the board and staff plan to refine the forecast and the community‑engagement strategy through August, when the next formal forecast will be submitted. "When we go back on the ballot, not if," Jenkins said, underscoring that the district is preparing for an operating levy campaign likely in 2027 or 2028.
The report noted a number of one‑time items that temper the near‑term gap—reimbursements to the general fund from bond proceeds for preconstruction costs such as bus purchases and land acquisition could plug $12 million to $13 million of the immediate shortfall—but Jenkins warned those are not sustainable annual fixes and that without recurring revenue changes or major expenditure reductions deficits will widen.
Next steps: the district will continue to refine assumptions, discuss options for reducing costs or identifying revenue sources, and plan communications with legislators and the public. Jenkins said the next financial forecast will be submitted in August and the district will develop a strategy for potential ballot timing in 2027 or 2028.
Sources: Treasurer Mister Jenkins’ presentation and board discussion at the Jan. 22 meeting.
