Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cuyahoga Heights board warns state proposals could strip $2M, votes to oppose cash‑carryover plan
Summary
The school board voted 4-0 to oppose proposed cash‑carryover provisions in HB 96 and discussed transferring about $4 million from the general fund into capital accounts to meet a possible 50% ending-balance cap, while warning that HB 335 and HB 355 could remove inside millage and raise levy thresholds.
The Cuyahoga Heights Local Board of Education voted 4-0 to adopt a resolution opposing the cash‑carryover balance provisions in House Bill 96 and spent much of its meeting hashing out how to protect capital projects and operations if multiple state proposals take effect.
Treasurer Mister Muchio told the board HB 335 "removes the authority for school districts and other local governments to levy unvoted, which is inside millage," and estimated that Cuyahoga Heights Schools could lose about $2,000,000 in revenue if inside millage is eliminated. He also described HB 355 as a proposal that "would increase the approval threshold for a voted tax from 50% to 60%," which would make future levies harder to pass.
Those possible changes, combined with other state actions cited by district staff, prompted the board and superintendent to discuss moving roughly $4,000,000 from the general fund into permanent improvement or other capital accounts. The treasurer presented a five‑year forecast showing an ending‑balance ratio of about 97.6% under current assumptions and said transferring funds into the permanent improvement (PI) fund or a 070 capital fund would lower the district’s general‑fund balance beneath the proposed cap.
"That $4,000,000 can really go to fill those needs" such as roof work, HVAC and parking lots, the treasurer said, while noting that money moved into PI would be effectively dedicated to capital and could be difficult to restore to the general fund later.
Superintendent (speaking during the budget discussion) described the combination of proposals as a multi‑part threat to local services: "It's almost like ... elimination of the inside millage ... Not 50 plus 1. It would be 60% now as a threshold," and emphasized the need for clear communications with the community and coordination with legal counsel.
The board discussed timing: any transfers the district authorizes would need to fall within the fiscal year, leaving a June 30 deadline for action if the board wants the movement reflected in fiscal‑year‑end numbers. Board members noted the uncertainty about final state percentages until omnibus budget details are finalized and flagged the possibility of a special meeting to act before the deadline.
At the meeting the board passed a resolution opposing the cash‑carryover balance provisions in HB 96 by voice vote, 4-0. Board members also discussed preparing a follow‑up, more quantitative resolution or statement that would detail the local fiscal impact at a future meeting.
Next steps: the board will continue monitoring developments in the state budget and related bills, may schedule a special meeting if necessary to authorize transfers before June 30, and expects to revisit the district forecast at the next regular meeting.
