Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cincinnati schools’ treasurer warns flat revenue and ‘hard choices’ after state tax reforms
Summary
Treasurer Kevin Ashley told the Cincinnati Public Schools board the district’s February forecast shows property-tax and funding-law changes will keep local revenue almost flat through 2030, forcing the district to cut spending or seek new local dollars; board members discussed levy timing and potential program impacts.
The Cincinnati Public Schools treasurer warned trustees on Feb. 23 that state property-tax changes and a reworked school-funding formula will leave the district’s core revenues flat for the next several years, forcing “difficult choices” on operations and capital plans.
Kevin Ashley, the district’s forecasting lead, and Treasurer Gustin presented an accelerated three-year general-fund forecast required in February. Ashley said the recent legislation that replaced the old 20-mill floor and limited unvoted revenue growth — along with a triennial reassessment schedule — will blunt property-tax increases the district had previously expected.
“The effect,” Ashley said in his slide presentation, “is from 2026 on our property-tax revenues stay incredibly flat.” He highlighted uncertainties including pending county tax settlements, assessment challenges, and potential county-level homestead decisions that would reduce district receipts.
The board pressed officials on options and timing. Members heard a worst-case scenario slide showing the district could face a multiyear cash shortfall by 2029 if spending increases continue and no remedial actions are taken. Treasurer Gustin said the district’s current balanced forecasts reflect an explicit board commitment to keep expenditures within projected revenues.
Board members asked whether the district could pursue new local revenue and when that could be put to voters. Treasurer staff said the board missed the filing deadline for a May ballot but could consider a levy in November 2026 (first-week-August board action would be required to qualify). If voters approved a new levy in November, collections would not begin until the following tax year and full effects would be subject to state certification rules.
Trustees also asked about state-level risks, including legislative efforts that could reduce guarantees in the school-funding formula or hold back state payments. Ashley and Gustin said the district is monitoring legislation closely and is preparing scenarios that the board can use to set priorities.
The board did not take immediate budget votes that night but directed staff to bring further reports and clarified that the district will continue work on multi-year financial planning, including options to reduce costs and a public engagement timetable should the board opt to seek voter approval for new operating money.
What’s next: Finance staff said they will provide more detailed budget options at upcoming work sessions and outline the calendar and legal steps required to place a levy on a future ballot.
