At a Oct. 8 work session of the Marlington Local School District Board of Education, financial consultant Ryan Gazzoni told the board the district is projected to bring in about $28 million in revenue in fiscal 2026 and to post an operating surplus of about $348,000, with an ending cash balance of approximately $6,578,000.

The forecast presentation emphasized that those projections assume current state law, including the funding guarantee often called the 20-mill floor. Gazzoni said the forecast reflects a one-time pipeline settlement that boosted 2025 receipts and that the district's future revenues are otherwise essentially flat under current law.

Why it matters: board members and staff said a proposed state bill, referred to in the meeting as House Bill 186, would limit or roll back some funding guarantees and could require districts to repay prior-year increases as a tax credit to property owners. Board members and staff estimated the bill could reduce Marlington's revenue by roughly $500,000 to $600,000 per year if it becomes law, a gap that would accelerate the district's movement into operating deficits in later years.

Most important details

- Revenue and reserves: Gazzoni said the district's 2026 revenue is projected at about $28 million with a small $348,000 operating surplus and an ending cash balance near $6.58 million.
- One-time and utility receipts: The forecast includes a pipeline settlement that produced a one-time boost (about $4.8 million in 2025 and an expected $2.9 million in 2026). Gazzoni cautioned that public-utility-related revenue can decline over time because public-utility value increases are limited to new construction and may be assessed at lower percentages under new law.
- State guarantees: The presenter explained that the district is a "guaranteed" district under the school funding formula, meaning current law guarantees the district the higher funding level it received in 2020 rather than the lower calculated amount it would otherwise receive. Gazzoni used district numbers to show that, without the guarantee, the state share this year would have been about $6.2 million instead of roughly $9.1 million, a difference the presenter described as about $2,892,000.
- Pending legislation: Board members and staff said House Bill 186 (as discussed in the meeting) would reduce previously granted increases, cap future increases based on inflation, and require retroactive credits on tax bills; the board estimated a $500,000'$600,000 annual revenue hit under the bill's expected mechanics.
- Transfers and capital: The district is budgeting significant transfers out of the general fund for building projects. The forecast shows transfers of roughly $1.8 million this year, declining modestly to $1.7 million in subsequent years. The board discussed a bond/loan payment of about $707,770 a year (two payments combined) with remaining payments through about 2027 and other outstanding project-related debt of roughly $800,000'$900,000 (estimate discussed at the meeting).

Board questions and next steps

Board members pressed staff on how public-utility taxation interacts with voted millage and asked staff to request effective-millage figures from Stark County officials to estimate how much additional revenue public utilities would pay if the district increased its effective millage to the 20-mill floor. The board was told staff will follow up with John Oates at Stark County and with the county auditor to quantify the effect.

Gazzoni and staff stressed the forecast assumes current law; the board must formally approve the forecast at its next meeting because the state's new filing deadlines require approval by Oct. 15. Staff also told the board that if a bill such as House Bill 186 becomes law the district will need to consider further spending or levy decisions in public sessions.

Ending

Board members said they view the district as fiscally conservative but that potential state changes make public outreach and future budget choices more likely. The board scheduled the forecast for formal approval at the next meeting and directed staff to obtain the county's effective-millage estimates and to report back.