Columbus City Schools committee warns proposed state rules could force sale of underused properties

Columbus City Schools’ Equitable and Transparent Resource Management Committee on March 1 heard an extensive facilities briefing that framed the district’s aging building portfolio, recent demolitions and closures, and a legal risk posed by pending state legislation that could require the district to offer or sell underused properties.

District facilities staff told committee members the system operates roughly 112 facilities totaling about 8.5–9.3 million square feet, with an average campus age of about 45 years and many buildings approaching or beyond the typical 50-year lifespan. Staff said the district is balancing three objectives—life‑cycle renewals, portfolio optimization (consolidation), and new construction—but that current funding and staffing constraints leave the district vulnerable.

The immediate legal concern discussed at length was proposed changes in Ohio law (discussed in House Bill 96 / Senate Bill 311 during the briefing) that would make a facility “underutilized” if it falls below a threshold (often discussed as 60% of capacity) and could require the district to offer the property for disposition. Presenters warned the bills’ language—particularly provisions that measure utilization by different methods or require offering properties at an “educational value” rather than highest‑and‑best market value—could put many sites at risk.

To illustrate the valuation risk, staff used the Kingswood administrative/data center parcel as an example: a nearby 1‑acre development sold for roughly $2 million, while Kingswood’s auditor appraised value was shown at about $1.9 million because of its classification as an educational site. Staff said the difference between “educational value” and market value is ambiguous in practice and likely to be litigated if enforced.

Committee members and staff reviewed a list of inactive or vacant parcels (Pinerest, Monroe, Bumont/Bumont, Dashler, Mader/Maderi and others) and recent demolition authorizations for several schools (Dashler Elementary, Old Wedgewood Middle School, Franklin annex, Bowmont Elementary, Monroe Middle School, Lynmore Middle School and Berry Middle School). Staff noted most demolitions are nearly complete; Berry remained outstanding because of a prior lease arrangement.

Finance options to enable new construction or consolidation were presented by Treasurer Ryan Cook. He explained that monetizing a portion of the district’s permanent improvement (PI) levy—for example carving off roughly $10 million of the $60 million annual PI and financing it over 30 years—could under current assumptions generate on the order of $155 million in financed capacity, enough to fund a significant facility project, though staff said numbers must be rerun given changing interest rates. The treasurer and staff emphasized that PI funds are restricted to capital and may not be used for salaries or general‑operating expenses.

Board members pressed staff for clarity about which parts of the disposition process are current law and which are provisions still proposed in pending bills. Staff said under current Ohio Revised Code 3313.41 the district must follow a multi‑tiered disposition process (including offering properties first to charter or community schools in some steps) once a property loses educational use. The presenters recommended a legal briefing at the committee’s next meeting to map current statutory obligations and the practical timeline for sites already vacant.

Members raised options short of sale, including longer leases or public–private partnerships that could preserve educational use or produce ongoing revenue. Staff cautioned those arrangements are legally and commercially complicated because contracts must preserve the district’s right to reclaim space for educational use, which can deter private capital. Members asked staff to develop clearer, site‑by‑site backlogs and deferred‑maintenance estimates to show tradeoffs between maintaining many legacy buildings and investing in new construction.

The committee did not take formal votes on facilities policy beyond approving the June 11, 2025 minutes; the charter reconfirmation motion was tabled for later consideration. Staff said the district has begun or completed preparatory steps—authorizing demolitions, creating maps, and seeding a construction fund—and promised additional data (current utilization figures per building, legal analysis of proposed bill language, and updated finance runs on monetization scenarios) at subsequent meetings.

What’s next: district staff committed to return with a legal briefing on the current disposition process and proposed changes, an updated list of buildings that would fall below the 60% utilization threshold under different counting methods, and an itemized maintenance backlog by facility to inform tradeoff decisions between repair, consolidation and new construction.

Quotes in context: “If this legislation were to go through… it's considered underutilized and therefore this building would be at risk,” a district presenter said while explaining the 60% utilization threshold. Treasurer Ryan Cook said monetizing a portion of the PI levy could provide immediate financing capacity: “If we took $10 million… we could finance up to approximately $155 million,” though he cautioned the district needs to update the calculations for current interest rates.

The meeting closed with committee members asking for a legal Q&A and for staff to present clear, updated utilization and backlog data before the next session.