Cincinnati schools present budget plan that balances through cuts, furloughs and a one‑time revenue proposal

Cincinnati Public Schools officials on May 18 presented a FY27 budget package designed to balance a structural shortfall driven by flat local revenues and a stalled state funding formula. Treasurer Michael Guston and budget lead Jeremy Galahue laid out the administration’s recommendation: keep legally required school staffing in place, fund a prioritized set of additions, and identify approximately $58 million of items not recommended for funding in the coming year.

Guston said the district is operating with constrained revenue — property‑tax growth has flattened and state aid has not kept pace — and that the district ends fiscal years with about 33 days of operating cash. As part of the balancing plan the administration proposed pursuing a one-time sale of district-owned wireless spectrum that could yield roughly $2.3 million for FY27 if negotiated and approved.

The budget book divides proposals into three columns: (1) legally required and board‑approved school staffing (about $472.5 million), (2) recommended funding items representing about $157 million (the administration’s approach to protect core instruction and compliance), and (3) not‑recommended items totaling roughly $58 million. The not‑recommended column includes targeted reductions, and a subset of additional new items the administration grouped as the most recently proposed reductions (approximately $20.2M) including:

- a revised persistent vacancy contingency (~$5M), - elimination of International Baccalaureate (IB) programs districtwide, - reorganization of the treasurer’s office, - five unpaid furlough days for district administrative and union‑represented leadership (pending bargaining), - consideration of charging fees for summer school, - pausing administrator vacation buyback, and - converting device distribution in some high schools to a cart‑based model (projected modest savings).

Administrators emphasized they had considered other, larger structural options (school mergers, transportation policy changes, elimination of extracurriculars, pay-to-play athletics, increased walk distances) but did not recommend them because they conflicted with the district’s stated priorities: keep students in school, preserve core instruction and protect student supports where possible.

Board members from multiple perspectives pressed the administration on specific line items. Several trustees said they were reluctant to accept cuts to school counselors and social workers without seeing explicit trade-offs. Others suggested alternative savings, including cutting external contracts, reconsidering district-funded vendor subscriptions (example: $900K line for math curriculum/assessments), and revisiting transportation and athletic travel costs.

Administration said some reductions reflect partial-year changes, contract duplication corrections and shifting funding sources; they also flagged that some savings depend on further negotiation with unions and vendors.

The board did not vote to adopt the recommended package that night; members asked for a follow-up meeting with more granular, line‑by‑line trade-off analysis. The administration said it would provide clearer comparisons showing what combinations of alternatives would preserve student-facing roles.

What’s next: The board requested a quantification of alternative savings (e.g., what closing a school or consolidating transportation would save) and asked the administration to return with more detailed scenarios before final votes on the FY27 budget or a decision about placing a levy on the ballot.