Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
School board approves funding for staff required by law and union contracts as part of FY27 process
Summary
The Cincinnati School Board voted April 20 to approve district funding specifically to cover school‑based positions required by state/federal rules and by collective bargaining agreements, clearing a major step in the FY27 budget process while leaving proposed central office and contract items for later consideration.
President Craig called the board to order on April 20 and the meeting focused early on the district’s FY27 budget shortfall and options for closing it. After presentations from Treasurer Gustin and Chief Financial staff showing a roughly $60 million gap between a zero‑based ask and the district revenue target, the board considered which items to fund immediately.
The board unanimously approved a motion to fund the school‑based staffing the administration characterized as contractually and legally required — positions tied to state and federal compliance (for example, staff required by students’ IEPs and other state mandates) and the school staffing needed to meet collective bargaining agreement terms. The motion was moved by Mr. Lindy and passed on a roll‑call vote (seven yes votes).
Why it matters: administration materials presented a three‑bucket budget view—central office, centrally funded school positions, and school budgets—and said that approving those school‑based staffing obligations preserves classroom services that the district regards as required by law or contract. The board and administration agreed that many other central‑office items and service contracts remain under review; the administration will return with proposals to address the roughly $155 million still under consideration and options that blend decentralization, a return to pre‑COVID levels of staffing, and greater partner use.
What the vote covered: the approval focused on personnel costs associated with state/federal compliance and CBA staffing at schools; it did not accept the administration’s broader list of centrally managed contracts and non‑personnel recommendations, which remain subject to later review.
Next steps: the administration said it will return at subsequent meetings with a set of prioritized options to address the remaining gap and to show how different pathways would affect academic programming and operational risk. Board members repeatedly asked for clearer links between proposed budget choices and expected student outcomes before voting on additional items.
The board also discussed timing for any future revenue measure and emphasized communicating how any proposed levy dollars would translate into measurable outcomes for students. The FY27 budget schedule calls for further board deliberations and votes in May and June.
