Mount Vernon facility advisory committee recommends K–5 model, three new elementaries and OFCC partnership

Mount Vernon City Schools' facility advisory committee recommended on April 16 that the district maintain a K–5 elementary structure, build three new elementary schools (keeping Twin Oak Elementary), and renovate the middle and high schools while pursuing a partnership with the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission to help pay for the work.

The recommendation came after roughly a year of advisory-committee work, facility tours, enrollment and financial analysis and an educational visioning process. The committee summarized aging building conditions, evolving teaching needs, limited space for intervention and accessibility problems as key drivers for “significant” facility changes.

Superintendent Bill Seeder said the committee’s vote was unanimous on one point: “100% of the group said we need to make significant changes.” The committee then voted, by advisory ballot, that the district should partner with the OFCC; Seeder reported that 82% of committee members supported that step.

The committee’s base master-plan estimate is about $153,000,000, of which the OFCC would fund an estimated 36% of eligible costs and the local share would be about 64%, the presentation said. The district also carries a $7,600,000 expedited local partnership (ELP) credit from the earlier Twin Oak project that the advisory group expects to apply against the local share.

David Connolly of Rock Mill Financial, who conducted a fiscal assessment for the district, told the meeting he is “required to represent the best interest of taxpayers” and said Mount Vernon’s fiscal profile makes the district a reasonable candidate to ask voters for a capital plan: population and household income have risen in recent years, the district has strong academic indicators relative to neighboring districts, and no outstanding voter-approved debt. Connolly also noted the community’s history of supporting school finance measures, citing an approximately 80% historical passage rate for past local tax requests.

Peyton Ryle, an OFCC project manager who has worked with Mount Vernon, outlined the agency’s planning rules and stated, “We at OFCC normally estimate new buildings to be around 50 years.” Ryle described OFCC policies the district would have to meet, including using the Ohio School Design Manual, applying the renovate-to-replace two-thirds threshold (if renovation costs exceed two-thirds of replacement the OFCC typically recommends replacement), a 350-student minimum guideline for new schools, and a site recommendation of about 10 acres plus roughly one additional acre per 100 students.

On school configuration the advisory committee considered several options — building three new 450-student elementary schools (keeping Twin Oak), splitting buildings into K–2 and 3–5 sites, or creating intermediate (4–5) and K–3 groupings — and ultimately favored smaller community elementary schools. Middle School Principal Darren Prince said the group’s recommendation reflected local priorities: while some research supports intermediate schools for easing middle‑school transitions, “each time that kids transition from one school to the next, there is a dip in their overall learning performance,” he said, and the committee prioritized community schools and continuity. Prince reported that 95% of the advisory group favored three smaller elementaries rather than a single large “school‑within‑a‑school.”

The committee and presenters also discussed enrollment and local development. The district reported a 6.8% enrollment decline over the prior decade but noted new housing projects (Schleyball Estates, Rockford Retreat, Liberty Crossing, Mulberry Street conversion and others) that could bring dozens of new students; the presentation included specific developer estimates (for example, Rockford Retreat was estimated to add roughly 90 students and Liberty Crossing roughly 96). The plan assumes about 450 students per new elementary building.

The advisory group identified several locally funded initiatives the district could add to a bond package that OFCC funds would not cover: a new auditorium for district performing arts, expanded square footage for preschool classrooms, and before‑ and after‑school care spaces. Seeder said the auditorium was a high local priority and would likely be proposed as an add‑on to any bond package.

Presenters gave a preliminary range for voter impact: an estimated 4 to 5.5 mills depending on scope and phasing. The presentation translated that to an illustrative monthly cost of about $11.67 per $100,000 of home value at the low end and about $16 per $100,000 at the high end; those were described as estimates only. The plan would likely include a maintenance levy of roughly a half‑mill as required by OFCC participation rules.

No formal school board vote to place a bond question on the ballot took place at the forum. The facility advisory committee said it will present its findings to the school board for the board to decide whether to place a bond issue before voters. Bill Seeder closed noting the board will review the advisory findings and that “we will continue to keep you informed.”

Ending

The board has not set a date for any ballot measure; the next steps are the school-board review of the advisory committee’s recommendations, further site‑selection work if the board elects to proceed, and continued community engagement and Q&A. The advisory committee recommended pursuing the OFCC partnership and a K–5 configuration with three new elementary schools as the preferred option pending board action and voter approval.