Board votes to remain in OFCC queue for classroom‑facility assistance after bond defeat; district staff outline next steps

The West Clermont board on May 19 approved a resolution authorizing continued participation in the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission (OFCC) classroom facilities assistance program while the district reassesses next steps following the May 6 bond‑issue defeat.

Board action and staff explanation: The district received official OFCC funding calculations in May and staff recommended staying “in line” with OFCC to preserve eligibility for future state assistance. The superintendent and staff told the board that remaining in the OFCC queue does not commit the district to a ballot measure or construction; rather, it preserves the district’s place should it want to seek state assistance later.

Why it matters: OFCC’s formula and enrollment calculations differ from the district’s internal projections; officials said OFCC excludes certain students (for example, some CTE students and preschool enrollments) when computing eligible enrollment and funding. Staff said OFCC’s methodology produces a smaller enrollment number for state funding calculations and that OFCC’s grant would cover a portion of an eligible project (staff said OFCC funding was roughly 20% of the total project estimate in the district’s letter from OFCC).

Budget and timing context: Staff reminded the board that the RFQ and master facility planning assumed a 16‑month timeline to secure funding from OFCC after a successful ballot. Because the May bond failed, staff said, the district can remain in the OFCC queue but must decide whether to pursue a ballot again and, if so, when. Staff warned the board that postponing or amending the plan will change cost estimates (construction inflation was described as likely to raise project costs by several percentage points each year).

Board discussion and options: Board members discussed multiple paths: (1) seek voters again in November or a future May with the same plan; (2) propose a modified, smaller plan (for example, pursue a single building or phased approach); (3) focus on an operational levy instead of a facilities bond; (4) forfeit the OFCC position and reenter the queue later; or (5) pursue a combination of operational and capital requests. Several board members said more community input is needed before a new ballot, and two board members said November was too soon to return to voters.

Staff direction and next steps: Staff requested direction to produce costed alternatives and to supply additional information the board asked for, including: cost options for a modified, phased plan; the effect of selling district assets as an offset; and modeled consequences of delaying the ballot to 2026 or later. Staff noted that some short‑term fixes — modular classrooms, temporary schedule adjustments, redistricting — can reduce immediate crowding but carry trade‑offs.

Ending: The board voted to keep the district in OFCC’s process. Staff emphasized that staying in line preserves the opportunity for state assistance while the district develops revised options and additional public engagement before a new ballot measure is placed.