Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
OFCC presents middle-school master-plan estimate; district told state share could be about $4 million
Summary
An Ohio Facilities Construction Commission planner told the Bexley board the preferred middle‑school option would cost about $34.5 million in construction allowance, with a co‑funded total just over $35 million and an estimated state share around $4 million under the OFCC calculation.
Peyton Real, planning manager at the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission, told the Bexley Board of Education on July 8 that OFCC’s master‑plan process starts with a 10‑year enrollment projection and a facility condition assessment, and distinguishes a ‘‘base’’ plan (what the state is likely to fund) from a ‘‘preferred’’ plan (what the district would like to build).
Using OFCC’s recommended square‑foot allowance and a projected high of about 580 middle‑school students, Real said a new middle school would be roughly 83,000 square feet. At OFCC’s per‑square‑foot allowance for middle schools, Real gave a construction estimate ‘‘a little over $34,500,000’’ and a co‑funded total ‘‘a little over $35,000,000.’’ She said the state portion illustrated in OFCC’s example for the district would be about 16 percent, roughly $4.0 million, when the district comes up in CFAP (the state funding queue).
Real explained key differences between CFAP (state-fronted funding when the project comes to the top of the list) and ELPP (the district fronts costs in order to begin work and may be reimbursed later if/when CFAP funds are available). She outlined next steps should the board pass the ELPP resolution on the agenda: OFCC would put the matter to its commission in August, the Ohio Controlling Board would then be asked to approve the agreement, and the district would have 12 months to secure the local share and pursue a ballot measure if it desires.
Board members asked about comparability with the district’s previously approved (larger) master plan and which items the state will not co‑fund (for example athletic fields). OFCC staff clarified that some site items and extra square footage are typically excluded from state co‑funding and that districts commonly build additional features through local bonds or ballot initiatives.
Why it matters: The OFCC numbers provide a planning estimate the district can use while preparing ballot language and budget assumptions. The distinction between ELPP and CFAP affects how and when the district would need to secure local funds and whether it would be reimbursed later.
