Akron Board of Education members voiced concern Monday night about the district's future budget.
First, because a proposed budget forecast shows the district eating into its reserves steadily. And second, because they were unsure what the district would lose if it made $10 million in proposed cuts.
The board did not vote on whether to approve the five-year forecast, a measure districts are required to submit two times a year to the state showing expenses and revenue in broad strokes. It's due to the state by Nov. 30.
Members went into a private executive session to discuss specifics, but did not take a vote when they emerged from the session.
The Cleveland Metropolitan School District’s board approved a budget forecast last week showing the district running out of money even more quickly than Akron schools, with just $15 million in cash on hand at the end of the 2026-2027 school year, and almost $100 million in the red by the following year.
Akron's forecast puts that district in better shape, but still projects spending heavily out of reserves, with about $16 million on hand by the end of the 2028-2029 school year, down from about $86 million in reserves at the end of this school year.
Voters in both districts passed levies this month.
Board Member Barbara Sykes, chair of the board's finance committee, raised concerns about how much the district is spending out of its financial reserves.
"We want the reserves to be there for emergencies," she said. "When I talk about having a comfort level, that's the reserves."
But it is common for Ohio school districts to budget this way, said Stephen Thompson, chief financial officer for Akron Public Schools. He pointed to House Bill 920, which largely holds districts levy revenues flat, despite inflation even as property values rise.
"Deficit spending, I've never been anywhere or seen any school district that doesn't do it and do it regularly, unfortunately. So how it works in Ohio, we call it the boom and bust cycle," he said. "So we pass a levy for oftentimes for more money than you need. I think everyone would agree that expenses are going to rise. How quickly they rise is something to debate. But they're going to rise. But because of House Bill 920, we know that our revenue is flat."
Also of concern to other board members, like Gregory Harrison, was that the $10 million in cuts — set to happen over the next five years — wasn't specific about the targets. Broadly, the cuts would include $4.83 million from the Division of Schools and Accountability and $1.8 million from the Division of Academics. He questioned how he could make an informed decision on voting for the forecast.
"How is it that we're going to say that we're going to make $10.2 million in cuts? You expect us to vote on this? We don't know who's being cut. We don't know what's being cut. We're hiring people. And making cuts," he said.
Thompson said the district administration envisions making most of the cuts through attrition. Any major layoffs or other specific staff reductions would come to the board for a vote. He added that the forecast only shows a projection of expenses and revenues. Superintendent Michael Robinson said the district would need to notify union staff before bringing potential layoffs to the board.
Harrison's concerns reflected a broader point of contention between the board and the administration around transparency and spending. Board members have questioned the superintendent during several meetings this year for bringing new staff positions to the board without specifics such as salaries.
The board during Monday's meeting voted down two new contracts for positions. Board members Harrison, Sykes and Rene Molenaur voted "no" after not receiving enough information about where the money for the new positions would come from and why they were needed.
"I do not want to be the day-to-day administrator. I know what that feels like," Sykes said. "I don't want to do that. But as responsible board members, we do need to have some concept in our mind what we're doing."
