Riverside treasurer urges board to adopt 5-year forecast as state shortens required window
August 07, 2025 | Riverside Local, School Districts, Ohio
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Riverside Local Schools’ treasurer recommended the board adopt a resolution instructing the district to continue preparing a five‑year financial forecast even though the state will require only a three‑year forecast.
The treasurer told the finance and personnel committee the three‑year horizon required by the Ohio Department of Education is too short for practical planning and borrowing needs, and that producing a five‑year forecast for local use while submitting a three‑year version to the state is the recommended approach.
The recommendation matters because new state law and rule changes shift deadlines and reporting requirements that the treasurer’s office said will concentrate heavy workloads into a narrow window next summer. The treasurer said the district must meet an earlier deadline this year (FY26 forecast due Oct. 15) and that by fiscal year 2027 the five‑year forecast will be due Aug. 31, leaving little time between final appropriations and forecast submissions.
Finance staff summarized several state policy changes that intersect with local budgeting: a new requirement that most districts produce a shorter version for state submission while retaining longer internal forecasts; limits on administrative costs (a 15% cap referenced by the speaker, with the district currently at about 7.4%); changes to how and when district tax and millage actions can be adjusted; and new reporting obligations tied to vacancies, substitutes and other personnel data that will increase clerical workload. The presentation also noted changes to the State Teachers Retirement System (STRS) governance, state board membership, and mandates such as districtwide student cell‑phone policies and an eventual required AI use policy (model expected December; policy required by July 1, 2026).
The treasurer said the office expects “to be mad crazy from June to August” under the new calendar and recommended the district prepare for at least one additional August board meeting to meet the compressed schedule. The treasurer also said the district will need to close books earlier and that strict deadlines for purchase orders and appropriations will make summer operations more difficult.
On next steps, the treasurer proposed (1) placing a resolution on the August finance agenda to retain a five‑year forecasting practice for district planning, and (2) forwarding any necessary policy language to the policy committee (staff noted the model language being circulated by NEOLA and by the K–12 fiscal software vendor). The presentation said staff will follow up with the policy committee and return suggested policy language for board consideration.
The treasurer also briefed the committee on the district’s cash position: as presented, the FY26 general‑fund balance stood at $20,555,602; the district reported a PI fund balance of about $319,405 with one payment of roughly $500,000 already received and an expected additional payment of about $1,350,000 in February or March (figures presented by staff). The treasurer said staff would compile a clearer picture of how PI funds, TANS/COPS encumbrances and other liabilities affect available operating dollars and bring that detail back to the board.
Staff also flagged that the legislature’s changes could reduce some revenue streams over time and that long‑term revenue growth options are limited without additional levies or enrollment increases. The treasurer said the district estimates more than $1 million in permanent expenditure reductions from current staffing changes but that payroll runs will be needed to finalize those numbers.
The committee discussion included procedural clarifications: staff said the proposed five‑year forecast would be adopted initially by resolution (one read) and that any accompanying policy would then be considered through the policy committee and follow the board’s policy process.
No formal board vote on the resolution took place during the committee meeting; staff requested permission to put the resolution on the August finance agenda and to submit draft policy language to the policy committee for a formal first reading.
The treasurer told the finance and personnel committee the three‑year horizon required by the Ohio Department of Education is too short for practical planning and borrowing needs, and that producing a five‑year forecast for local use while submitting a three‑year version to the state is the recommended approach.
The recommendation matters because new state law and rule changes shift deadlines and reporting requirements that the treasurer’s office said will concentrate heavy workloads into a narrow window next summer. The treasurer said the district must meet an earlier deadline this year (FY26 forecast due Oct. 15) and that by fiscal year 2027 the five‑year forecast will be due Aug. 31, leaving little time between final appropriations and forecast submissions.
Finance staff summarized several state policy changes that intersect with local budgeting: a new requirement that most districts produce a shorter version for state submission while retaining longer internal forecasts; limits on administrative costs (a 15% cap referenced by the speaker, with the district currently at about 7.4%); changes to how and when district tax and millage actions can be adjusted; and new reporting obligations tied to vacancies, substitutes and other personnel data that will increase clerical workload. The presentation also noted changes to the State Teachers Retirement System (STRS) governance, state board membership, and mandates such as districtwide student cell‑phone policies and an eventual required AI use policy (model expected December; policy required by July 1, 2026).
The treasurer said the office expects “to be mad crazy from June to August” under the new calendar and recommended the district prepare for at least one additional August board meeting to meet the compressed schedule. The treasurer also said the district will need to close books earlier and that strict deadlines for purchase orders and appropriations will make summer operations more difficult.
On next steps, the treasurer proposed (1) placing a resolution on the August finance agenda to retain a five‑year forecasting practice for district planning, and (2) forwarding any necessary policy language to the policy committee (staff noted the model language being circulated by NEOLA and by the K–12 fiscal software vendor). The presentation said staff will follow up with the policy committee and return suggested policy language for board consideration.
The treasurer also briefed the committee on the district’s cash position: as presented, the FY26 general‑fund balance stood at $20,555,602; the district reported a PI fund balance of about $319,405 with one payment of roughly $500,000 already received and an expected additional payment of about $1,350,000 in February or March (figures presented by staff). The treasurer said staff would compile a clearer picture of how PI funds, TANS/COPS encumbrances and other liabilities affect available operating dollars and bring that detail back to the board.
Staff also flagged that the legislature’s changes could reduce some revenue streams over time and that long‑term revenue growth options are limited without additional levies or enrollment increases. The treasurer said the district estimates more than $1 million in permanent expenditure reductions from current staffing changes but that payroll runs will be needed to finalize those numbers.
The committee discussion included procedural clarifications: staff said the proposed five‑year forecast would be adopted initially by resolution (one read) and that any accompanying policy would then be considered through the policy committee and follow the board’s policy process.
No formal board vote on the resolution took place during the committee meeting; staff requested permission to put the resolution on the August finance agenda and to submit draft policy language to the policy committee for a formal first reading.
Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!
Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.
✓
Get instant access to full meeting videos
✓
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
✓
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
✓
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
30-day money-back guarantee
