Superintendent Tudor on Nov. 18 presented five options for addressing long‑running facility needs in Wooster City Schools after a May 2025 bond failed, laying out cost estimates, funding choices and a key November 2026 deadline to preserve state co‑funding.

Tudor told the board the district’s May ballot proposal had called for a new 6–8 middle school at a projected cost of $67,000,000 but that the levy failed and “our facility needs didn’t go away.” He outlined five alternatives: major repairs to Cornerstone Elementary ($34,000,000); targeted permanent improvements (~$10,000,000); a new K–5 elementary (~$85,000,000); a 3–5 intermediate (~$47,000,000); and modular double‑wide classrooms as a temporary solution ($7–8,000,000). He said some new‑construction options could qualify for roughly 31% state contribution through the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission (OFCC), but the OFCC master‑plan must be amended by November 2026 to retain eligibility.

Why it matters: the district is operating at a structural deficit and faces competing goals — preserving neighborhood schools and historic buildings such as Cornerstone versus the long‑term educational and operational efficiencies of new construction. Funding choices (bond, earned income tax, using $23,000,000 in district funds, or taking a COPS loan) will affect the operating budget and the timing of future levy asks.

Tudor offered cost and timeline context: the Cornerstone repairs would likely take two to three summers if students remain in the building and would not be eligible for OFCC funds; a new K–5 would be the most expensive up front but is more efficient per grade and could require a larger levy; and modular classrooms can be implemented faster but are not a 30‑ to 40‑year solution. On financing, he explained that certificates of participation (COPS) are effectively long‑term loans repaid from operating funds: “a $10,000,000 loan is about $650,000 a year; an $80,000,000 loan is over $5,000,000 per year,” which he said could equal roughly 8% of a $60,000,000 operating budget in a high‑borrow scenario.

Board reaction split along values and finance lines. A board member identified in the record as Joy (board member) said she had voted for the 6–8 plan previously but still believes “Cornerstone can be a beautiful building,” while questioning whether it provides the best learning environment; she urged the board to balance voters who backed and opposed the May levy. Another board member, Jody (board member), emphasized teacher concerns about transition time and the educational limits of renovating very old buildings and urged consideration of the prior middle‑school plan’s educational merits.

Public comment echoed caution about timing. Local resident Ted Hill told the board it would be inappropriate to rush a spring ballot and urged considering November instead: “Take the time. Do right by the voters. Go to them in November.”

Next steps: Tudor said he will return at the December meeting with more granular financial analysis — bond and COPS cost scenarios, homeowner impacts, and updated forecast implications — focused on the three options the board most wants explored (3–5 intermediate, K–5, and the 6–8 approach). He also noted that changing the OFCC master plan is possible but can typically be done only once during the OFCC time window.

What the board decided at this meeting: no final vote on construction approach; the board asked administration for detailed financial modeling and timetable options for December, and signaled little appetite for modulars as a long‑term solution.

Authorities referenced in discussion included the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission (OFCC) master‑plan process and standard municipal financing tools (bonds, earned income tax, certificates of participation). The district also identified $23,000,000 on hand that could be used in whole or part to reduce borrowing or levy requirements.

The superintendent’s presentation and board discussion focused on difficult tradeoffs: immediate repairs versus long‑term educational environment, use of existing cash versus voter approval, and the risk of losing OFCC co‑funding if the timeline is missed. Tudor will return in December with the more detailed fiscal scenarios the board requested.