The Mount Vernon City Schools board voted to approve a resolution of necessity to request state-calculated voter language tied to a 1% earned‑income tax, a step board members and district advisers said is needed to secure construction funding and move forward with a segmented facility master plan.

Andrea White, a resident and supporter of public schools who spoke during public participation, argued the levy is essential to replace lost state support: "For the Mount Vernon City Schools, this is very real. District officials have projected that we could lose roughly $4,000,000 in state funding under the current budget process," she said, urging approval of the resolution to protect programs and services.

David Conley, president of Rock Mill Financial, told the board the district must rely on state-provided income data (2023 figures were the most recently available) to model tax revenues and borrowing capacity. "If you use the 1% earned income tax, the amount that would be generated by the 1% would equal roughly what we had estimated the payment on the financing to be for the project that we described," Conley said, while cautioning that assumptions about income growth and interest rates affect the final borrowing capacity.

Board discussion focused on tradeoffs between asking for a 1% levy, which models suggested would cover the projected debt service but leave little additional margin, and a 1.25% levy that would provide more cushion. Several trustees said they preferred minimizing the tax burden where possible; others emphasized fiscal certainty for the district. Trustees also cited timing constraints tied to the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission (OFCC): the OFCC is set to consider the district's project in mid‑January, and the board said missing that window could delay or complicate state participation.

The motion on the resolution (identified in the meeting as resolution 33‑25) was made and seconded during the business section; a roll‑call vote recorded affirmative responses from the members called and the chair announced the motion carried. Meeting materials presented to the board included a district estimate that the requested dollar amount for the state to calculate as the 1% equivalent would be approximately $5,000,009.77; the board stated the figure corresponds to a 1% earned‑income tax when processed by the state.

The board and advisers named three financing risks: (1) interest‑rate changes between planning and borrowing (Conley modeled scenarios using a ~5.5% rate), (2) actual income growth between 2023 and the tax-collection year, and (3) potential legislative or state capital‑budget changes that could alter OFCC funding. Conley said the district's employment mix and population trends give some insulation against sharp income declines but noted no guarantees.

Next steps: board members said they will transmit the resolution to the state as the first procedural step and continue work on ballot language, voter education, and the district's levy committee. The OFCC process and state data releases were identified as time‑sensitive dependencies.