New Philadelphia forum reviews failed school bond, residents press for clearer site, traffic and tax answers

District officials and local residents met at a community forum to review the school district’s master facilities plan and the defeat of Issue 8 on the Nov. 5 ballot, discuss public concerns and identify next steps for any future ballot effort.

The forum centered on the plan adopted through nearly a year of community meetings in 2023 that would build a new pre-K through sixth-grade school, construct a combined middle and high school, move the district administration to the Quaker Dome and demolish the older buildings. District staff described the financing framework that used an expedited local partnership plan (ELPP) and the state’s Classroom Facilities Assistance program: the district would fund the first building up front and the state would reimburse 56% of approved costs for that building and help co-fund the middle/high school when funds became available.

The master-plan process and why it matters

District staff said the average age of the buildings used to educate students in the district is about 80 years, and that many facilities are not up to current safety, first-responder, heating, cooling or ventilation standards. “The average age of our school buildings that we're educating students in right now is 80 years old,” the presenter said, adding that the design and maintenance challenges produce frequent major repair bills.

The presenter noted the cost estimates the community reviewed were compiled in 2023 and have increased since then. Officials and table groups repeatedly returned to four concerns residents raised after the November vote: tax increases tied to the bond language, a desire for neighborhood schools rather than consolidation, anticipated traffic at the proposed South School site, and uncertainty about where a new middle school and high school would be located.

What was on the ballot and the tax impact

The presenter explained the planned property-tax increase tied to the proposal: a 5.9-mill bond issue with a 1-mill permanent-improvement levy; the presenter said that translated to about $20.17 per $100,000 of property valuation under the ballot materials discussed at the forum. Officials emphasized those millage numbers were what the district planned to ask voters to approve and said the district would provide clearer cost breakdowns to residents.

Public concerns voiced at the forum

Residents at several tables said the absence of a specific site for the proposed middle and high school was a major reason they voted no. One resident told the group, “I don't want to vote for a plan when I don't know where you're going to put that high school and middle school.”

Concerns over traffic at the South School site were frequent. The presenter said the district has not yet completed a traffic study but planned to do so and that the city of New Philadelphia had pledged to work with the district to manage traffic flow. The presenter added that better-designed entrances and pick-up/drop-off plans and increased busing could reduce car traffic: “More kids are riding buses, that will be fewer car traffic. That will be less car traffic to and from the school building each day.”

Several residents pushed back on aspects of consolidation and busing. One long-time resident who identified themselves as an elderly taxpayer said a significant number of no votes were driven by opposition to what they called “excessive busing” and urged that the district reduce busing in future proposals. That resident said, “The excessive busing has to go,” and warned that keeping current busing plans would hamper passage.

Suggestions and possible compromises from table discussions

Table groups proposed several practical steps: produce consistent, easy-to-read tax-cost materials (one resident noted conflicting figures on different documents), conduct a traffic study in time to include its results before a future May ballot, and mount a more targeted communications and outreach campaign, including mailings, QR codes and precinct-level targeting.

Some groups proposed a three-building compromise that would keep a K–6 building at the South site but preserve or redevelop the Central property so the middle and high schools remain closer together; others urged the district to keep looking for purchase opportunities in town while acknowledging many privately owned parcels are not for sale. Several participants warned that use of eminent domain would provoke organized opposition.

Rules and constraints discussed

The presenter clarified rules tied to state funding: OFCC (the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission) requires buildings it co-funds to hold at least 350 students; for schools this size OFCC recommends roughly 25 acres for an elementary and 50 acres for a combined middle/high school, although the presenter noted those are recommendations and alternatives (multi-story buildings, off-site athletic fields) may reduce acreage needs. The presenter also reiterated that the cost figures reviewed by the community were 2023 estimates and have since increased.

Next steps the district identified

Table recommendations prioritized clearer, consistent public materials showing the tax impact, completing a traffic study before the next ballot, targeted outreach to precincts that leaned no, and considering a revised site plan that responds to neighborhood and busing concerns. District staff closed by thanking attendees and saying the board would review feedback from the evening and discuss next steps; the presenter said residents’ comments would inform the district’s planning and outreach.

Ending

District staff and the board said they would continue conversations and report back to the community; residents urged earlier and clearer communication, an expedited traffic study and focused outreach to likely no-leaning precincts before any future ballot effort.