Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kettering board outlines $222 million May bond and warns state funding window is limited
Summary
Kettering City School District officials presented a $222 million bond proposal for May 5 that district leaders say could leverage an estimated $159 million in state OFCC funds if the district partners now; officials said the cost to a homeowner is roughly $17.47 per $100,000 for the first segment.
Kettering City School District officials presented details of a $222,000,000 bond proposal the district plans to put before voters on May 5, saying the measure would fund "segment 1" of a broader facilities project and that state partnership could provide a substantial share of the costs.
At the meeting, the presenter (speaker 10) said, "So on the May 5 ballot, Kettering City School District is going to put on a bond issue. That bond issue would be set to raise $222,000,000 for segment 1 of the future facilities project." The on-screen estimate shown to the board indicated an approximate cost of $17.47 per month per $100,000 of home value for that first segment.
The presenter and other board members discussed a state partnership through the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission (OFCC). The presenter said the OFCC could contribute an estimated $159,000,000 — described as 43% of the overall cost — "if we partner with the state." He cautioned that the funds are allocated through the state's budgeting and OFCC processes and that, if the district does not move forward now, those dollars could be directed to other districts.
Board members asked follow-up questions about timing and eligibility. One board member summarized: if the district "is not willing to move forward with a facilities project with us, then we will take that money, move somewhere else." Officials emphasized that the district faces significant facility needs and that leaving the status quo was not presented as a viable option.
Why it matters: The difference between moving forward with OFCC participation and financing a project solely at the local level was presented as substantial; the presenter said a no-state-partnership option could require a roughly $350,000,000 renovation to address facility needs. The board did not vote on the bond at this meeting; the presentation and the timing discussion were presented as groundwork ahead of the May 5 ballot.
What’s next: The board will continue outreach and planning ahead of the May 5 bond vote. Further public materials and formal resolutions related to placing the measure on the ballot are expected to appear in subsequent board packets.
