Help Worthington Schools Protect Local Control

Right now, there’s a proposal at the state level to limit how much cash balance school districts like Worthington can keep on hand. While it may sound simple, it’s a serious threat to the long-term stability of our schools — and it overrides the will of local voters.

When Worthington voters approve a levy, they are making a local decision to invest in their schools and their community. The State of Ohio does not have the authority to undo that decision. Changing that would create instability and uncertainty for our students, teachers, and families.

It’s also important to know that there are already systems in place to protect taxpayers. If local residents want to repeal a levy, there’s a legal process they can follow. Additionally, every year, the County Budget Commission reviews all school district tax rates — and they consult with local school officials to make sure everything is appropriate. We already have strong local accountability. A one-size-fits-all state mandate is unnecessary and doesn’t make sense.

Over the long term, a cap on school cash balances would actually encourage bad financial practices. It would push districts to spend money just to stay under the limit — not because it’s the right thing to do. No successful business operates this way. That’s probably why the state’s own Subcommittee on Property Tax Reform, which studied these issues carefully, did not recommend a cash balance cap.

A smarter, more responsible way to help taxpayers would be to look at ways to manage future inflationary increases. But that conversation needs to be honest about why property taxes have gone up — including reductions in business taxes, cuts to income taxes, the growing use of tax abatements and TIFs, and practices that let large commercial properties understate their true value — shifting more of the tax burden onto homeowners and smaller business owners.

Our schools need stable funding to serve our students well. Let’s advocate for local control, smart financial planning, and a focus on real, long-term solutions.

You may have noticed that school districts, including Worthington, often hold larger cash balances compared to cities, townships, or even the State of Ohio. There’s a good reason for that — and it has to do with how schools are funded.

In Worthington and many suburban districts like ours, most of our revenue comes from local property taxes. However, once voters approve a levy, the amount of money it raises doesn’t automatically grow much over time — even when property values increase. If we need more revenue to keep up with inflation and rising costs, we must go back to our community for approval. That’s a good thing — it ensures local control and accountability for how tax dollars are spent.

By contrast, cities, townships, and the state mostly rely on income taxes and sales taxes, which naturally grow over time as the economy and wages grow. Schools don’t have that luxury. Our future revenue is largely flat unless voters approve an increase.

That means when we ask for a levy, we have to plan ahead — not just for today’s costs, but for the next several years of inflation and growth. That’s why you often see school districts with higher cash balances: it’s responsible financial planning and managing a levy cycle, not stockpiling.

At the end of last year, Worthington had a cash balance of $133.8 million and spent about $180.6 million. Our cash balance was about 74% of our yearly expenses — higher than a proposed 30% limit some are discussing. When voters passed our incremental operating levy in 2022, we planned for it to last four years, with the cash balance slowly declining over time. Thanks to strong financial management, efficient use of COVID relief funds, and better-than-expected state funding, we hope to stretch that levy to six years instead of four.

We aren't hoarding money like Scrooge McDuck — we’re carefully managing it, making your tax dollars last longer, and keeping our commitments to students and families.

The upcoming May Five-Year Forecast will show our latest projections.

Here’s what it means:

• Without new levies, our cash balance will gradually decrease because our revenue is flat but expenses grow with inflation. During the 2028-29 school year, we’ll be spending $20-$22 million more than we’re bringing in. We wouldn’t run out of money until 2031, but we would plan to ask voters for a levy around 2028 — well before that happens.
• With incremental levies in 2028 and 2032, we can likely maintain stable programs and services, similar to how we’ve operated for the past 20 years with community support.
• If a 30% cash balance cap were in place, it would force us to act much sooner. We couldn’t responsibly wait until 2028 for the next levy. We would likely need to ask for new funding as early as 2026 to avoid damaging cuts.  Stability for our students would be in jeopardy.

In short: Worthington has been a good steward of your tax dollars, carefully managing resources and planning ahead. New restrictions on cash balances would disrupt that responsible planning and force us into quicker levy cycles.

Thank you for your continued support of Worthington Schools!

Right now, there’s a proposal at the state level to limit how much cash balance school districts like Worthington can keep on hand. While it may sound simple, it’s a serious threat to the long-term stability of our schools — and it overrides the will of local voters.

When Worthington voters approve a levy, they are making a local decision to invest in their schools and their community. The State of Ohio does not have the authority to undo that decision. Changing that would create instability and uncertainty for our students, teachers, and families.

It’s also important to know that there are already systems in place to protect taxpayers. If local residents want to repeal a levy, there’s a legal process they can follow. Additionally, every year, the County Budget Commission reviews all school district tax rates — and they consult with local school officials to make sure everything is appropriate. We already have strong local accountability. A one-size-fits-all state mandate is unnecessary and doesn’t make sense.

Over the long term, a cap on school cash balances would actually encourage bad financial practices. It would push districts to spend money just to stay under the limit — not because it’s the right thing to do. No successful business operates this way. That’s probably why the state’s own Subcommittee on Property Tax Reform, which studied these issues carefully, did not recommend a cash balance cap.

A smarter, more responsible way to help taxpayers would be to look at ways to manage future inflationary increases. But that conversation needs to be honest about why property taxes have gone up — including reductions in business taxes, cuts to income taxes, the growing use of tax abatements and TIFs, and practices that let large commercial properties understate their true value — shifting more of the tax burden onto homeowners and smaller business owners.
Our schools need stable funding to serve our students well.

Let’s advocate for local control, smart financial planning, and a focus on real, long-term solutions.

READ THE RESOLUTION PASSED
ON APRIL 29, 2025

READ THE RESOLUTION PASSED
ON MARCH 10, 2025