Residents question cuts, communication

LORAIN — Months after voters approved a new operating levy expected to generate more than $10 million annually, Lorain City Schools continues to face deficit spending, staffing reductions and longer-term financial pressure, while residents are raising questions about what has been restored and how those decisions are being communicated.

The district’s latest five-year forecast projects about $101.7 million in revenue and $106.2 million in spending for fiscal 2027, leaving about $4.5 million in deficit spending. The general fund is projected to finish the year with about $4.1 million available.

The new 11-mill levy is making a significant difference. Fiscal 2027 includes about $5.2 million from a half-year of levy collections, while a full year is expected to generate about $10.6 million beginning in fiscal 2028.

The levy was approved for current expenses on a continuing basis.

But Monday’s Board of Education meeting showed that passage of the levy has not ended either the district’s financial challenges or questions from residents about what the additional revenue means for programs that had faced reductions.

Retired teacher and community member Julie Garcia opened public comment by questioning several financial line items and again asking whether student field trips would be reinstated following passage of the levy.

Garcia said questions she had raised about field trips and district finances had gone unanswered.

A district official said some of the information Garcia sought was not obtainable through the public-records request she had made and offered to meet with her to work through the questions.

“We’re not avoiding anything,” the official said.

Garcia also questioned tuition receivables, special education funding, student wellness money and a $10,000 Nordson Foundation grant.

The communication issue escalated when former board member Barbie Washington addressed the board.

Washington challenges district letter

Washington, whose four-year board term ended Dec. 31, 2025, told current members she has repeatedly attempted to get answers from the district.

“I have written probably a thousand emails or so since January,” Washington said, questioning whom she should contact and whether she needed to meet directly with board members to receive answers.

Washington then spent much of her public-comment time reading from and responding to what she described as an Aug. 12 letter sent to her concerning her criticism of the district and current board members.

The letter acknowledged Washington’s right “as a citizen, as a volunteer, and as a former member of the board” to criticize board decisions and policies, according to Washington’s reading. It then alleged that her criticism had become personal and warned against false or defamatory statements.

Washington repeatedly challenged those accusations and asked the board to identify statements it considered false.

“I would like to know where the false or defamatory statements have been made,” she said.

Washington said her criticism was intended to ask questions and understand why decisions were being made, not to act with malice.

The letter, as Washington read it, accused her of making disparaging comments about individual board members and directing personal criticism toward board Vice President Diamaris Rosario.

Washington acknowledged she had probably made disparaging comments but disputed the broader characterization of her conduct.

The dispute became more serious over Washington’s contact with Rosario’s employer.

Washington acknowledged contacting the employer but said she had an upcoming appeal and, knowing Rosario worked for the organization, did not want Rosario involved in her case. Washington said she believed animosity existed between them and wanted to ensure Rosario had no role in the decision.

According to Washington’s reading, the letter alleged that contacting Rosario’s employer crossed a line and could interfere with Rosario’s employment relationship. It also accused Washington of violating Rosario’s civil, employment and privacy rights.

Those were allegations contained in the letter as Washington read it during the meeting, not findings made by a court.

Washington denied attempting to harm Rosario’s employment or intimidate her as an elected official.

“I come up here to ask questions and I have to keep coming because you guys don’t answer,” Washington told the board.

Washington also questioned how much the district spent to have the letter prepared and said she had submitted a public records request seeking the cost.

“This matter will go no further if you cease and desist from the personal attacks,” Washington read from the letter before again asking the board to identify those attacks.

She also criticized the district’s communication about board meetings, saying residents should be able to sign up for direct email notifications.

Special education funding questioned

Questions over district finances also turned to programs serving special education students.

Lorain High School intervention specialist Carol Correthers questioned whether funding reductions would affect programs in which students practice community and life skills.

Correthers described activities in which students go grocery shopping, develop menus and return to school to prepare meals as part of Friendship Fridays.

She said those experiences help students develop skills they can use as they transition into greater independence and employment.

Correthers said she became concerned after seeing financial line items showing zeroes and questioned whether those programs would continue.

She also said special education brings significant money into the district but can still be “short changed” when resources are distributed.

“So, I hope that you’re not cutting our funding or our funds for our special ed anyway because that would just be deplorable,” Correthers said.

A follow-up question tied the issue directly to the levy.

The speaker asked why money would be taken from a special education program if it had previously been budgeted, particularly after the community approved roughly $10 million in additional annual revenue.

District officials initially explained that some zeroes being discussed reflected year-to-date figures at the beginning of the school year and did not necessarily represent cuts. School had been in session for only three days, officials said, meaning many accounts had not yet recorded expenditures.

The discussion then became more specific after Washington said she had been told the Friendship Fridays budget had been cut in half.

Administrators said that was not the case.

Officials said the budget still needed to be established and that spending on food had to be tied to curriculum. Another teacher involved with the program was working to rewrite curriculum materials before the funds were established.

“It just hasn’t started yet, but it’s not cut by any means,” an administrator said.

The exchange highlighted the larger communication issue raised throughout the meeting. A program that staff and residents feared had been reduced was described by administrators as not cut at all, but still awaiting completion of curriculum and budgeting requirements.

Levy softens reductions

The five-year forecast shows the levy prevented deeper reductions but did not return the district to its previous spending levels.

Overall spending is projected to decline by about $9 million, from roughly $115.2 million in fiscal 2026 to $106.2 million in fiscal 2027.

The largest reduction is in purchased services, which are projected to decrease by about $6.3 million. The district attributed much of that decrease to reductions in contracted services, bringing more transportation work in-house and serving more students with specialized needs inside the district rather than through outside placements.

Salary spending is projected to decrease from about $67.2 million to $64.3 million.

The district said that reflects staffing reductions and the movement of 16 classroom teachers from the general fund to Title I funding.

At the same time, levy revenue allowed the district to retain or restore about $2.7 million in salary costs for certain positions and programs, including preschool staff, elementary counselors, kindergarten paraprofessionals, an assistant principal, middle school dance teachers and supplemental positions.

The district’s earlier levy messaging indicated passage would preserve services and allow some student supports and programming to return, rather than eliminating every previously planned reduction.

The forecast shows the district nearly reaching balance in fiscal 2028, when projected revenue and spending differ by only about $34,000.

The gap begins growing again after that, with projected deficit spending of about $1.2 million in fiscal 2029, $2.8 million in fiscal 2030 and $4.9 million in fiscal 2031.

The available general fund balance is projected to fall to about $40,000 by the end of fiscal 2030 before becoming approximately $4.8 million negative in fiscal 2031.

District officials stressed that the forecast is a projection and can change as state funding, property taxes, staffing costs and other conditions change.

The district ended its financial presentation by saying it remains committed to “transparency, collaboration and responsible financial management” and would continue keeping the community informed and involving stakeholders in future decisions.

Cuts buy schools more financial time