The Final Plan Recommendation Flyer (Posted 1-7-2020)
Perry Bond FAQs
If the bond levy passes in 2020, the residents of Perry will be committing their share, or 38%, of the entire school facility project. When the district’s project is next to be co-funded, the state will contribute an additional 62%, or $80 million, of the total project cost.
The initial phase (phase 1) of the overall program would entail building four new elementary school buildings (grades pre-K-5) and targeted renovations to the Perry High school (grades 9-12). Phase 2 would utilize the state’s matching funds to build a new middle school (grades 6-8) and complete the renovations to Perry High School.
For owners of a $100,000 taxable value home, the cost will be $15.50 per month/$186 per year.
In the event the bond fails, the Perry Board understands the opportunity that is before the community and will evaluate the voter feedback. The vote will best determine how to move forward. Ultimately, the facility needs are not going away but the OFCC program and matching dollars may.
A bond levy or bond issue is a property tax levy used to provide a school district with local revenue for construction purposes. The county auditor determines the rate of a bond levy needed each year to service the principal and interest owed on the amount of bonded debt approved by voters when they approved the bond levy. Bond levies remain in place until the debt (principal and interest) is fully paid, typically 20 or more years.
It is becoming more and more costly to upkeep our current buildings. In addition, we have the state offering to supplement the bond with $80 million at this time. This state program (OFCC) will not be around forever. In 2007, the District tried to pass a facility issue to renovate four elementary buildings, build one new elementary, and renovate Edison and PHS for $49,000,000 or 4.8-mil. That is probably the reality of what the future would hold again or something similar if a bond issue does not pass.
The district has set the four sites for the new elementary buildings to Watson, Whipple, Lohr and Southway. Southway property was purchased by the Perry Local School Board in 2007 for the potential constructions of a new elementary.
This would be work that is completed once the configuration is set. It will take approximately three years to work through logistics while new buildings are being constructed.
Those sites being considered for school placement would be relatively close to existing properties so we do not anticipate great changes in ride time.
When it comes to specific features of new buildings, if the bond levy is passed, the architects generally engage all staff and stakeholders in addressing building specific concerns during the design phase.
That will be something we continue to focus on through initiatives such as Panorama and LinkCrew. Buildings will not create relationships – people will continue to do this work every day on behalf of our students. Part of phase 1 at the high school is to expand the Wellness Center to provide social and mental health supports through additional counseling space.
The District has built demolition of Watson, Whipple, Lohr and Genoa into the budget. The District will continue to explore the future use of Pfeiffer and TC Knapp to potentially offer expanded pre-school programming as well as other community programming including, but not limited to, adult education and community services.
The district is exploring utilizing one of the existing elementary buildings to become a pre-K building. This will allow for more students to be enrolled and combat what we are seeing as a trend—less and less kids with educational setting experience prior to kindergarten.
No. The Perry Local Community will build phase 1 (elementary buildings). When the district’s number comes up for state dollars, we will get an $80 million credit which will fund a new middle school and complete renovation of the high school. This funding (state matching dollars) timeline is somewhere between 2-5 years after passing the bond.
That will depend upon when Perry is granted the state dollars. It is hopeful this will occur during the completion of phase 1 or shortly after. If the bond levy passes, state dollars will be locked in.
This is something that will be explored by digging into the building schedules based upon the reduction from 5 to 4 elementary buildings. The district should become more efficient with counselors, support staff, etc., not having to be split across several buildings. Any potential efficiencies in staff would come through attrition over time.
There are multiple reasons the Committee did not select this option. Many of the facilities are geared to serve the high school population such as the main gym, auditorium, natatorium, career tech, etc. Demolishing these aspects would not be fiscally responsible. It would also be very difficult to build "around" these features. Also, the cost to build a new high school without the above mentioned facilities would be costly. The cost of renovating PHS in addition to building 4 new elementary and 1 new middle school is dramatically less in cost than if you were to construct a new high school.
Improvements to Perry High School would include renovations to the natatorium (indoor pool) and locker room, band/choir area and an expanded wellness center to accommodate social services, mental health supports as well as a small medical clinic for the community.
We will look at creating common learning areas as well collaborative spaces for staff. Those are two of the items staff mentioned in the staff survey. Green space is always tough but there is a LEED dynamic to any new building, we just have to determine what level we want to achieve. In regards to restrooms, the district will address this in new buildings with the idea that all students must be comfortable and feel safe attending the educational environment. This is a perfect example of why there will need to be conversations when the architects begin the design phase.
Yes, life span is being considered. We all recognize that buildings in the past were constructed differently and, in many ways, they were sturdier. Many of those buildings had material such as terrazzo (tile) and all brick that cannot be replicated today. However, there are ways to extend building life in addition to making the buildings more maintenance efficient.
The Ohio Facilities Construction Commission (OFCC) is a taxpayer funded commission responsible for guiding capital projects for state agencies, state-supported universities and community colleges and Ohio’s comprehensive public K-12 school construction and renovation program. The OFCC sets uniform rules, procedures and standardized comments for state construction.
No. The homestead exemption would still apply to the new bond levy.
No. These credits will continue on existing levies approved prior to August, 2013. All replacement levies, new levies and the additional portion of a new renewal with increase will not qualify for these discounts.
As a part of the OFCC process, the state does an enrollment study. The recent study completed (September 2019) revealed a decrease of 59 students throughout the entire district by the year 2028/29.
Because Perry Local is a public entity, the project must go through the bidding process. The project would then be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder meaning, lowest bidder who is capable of performing the work.
The design and construction will take approximately 3 years. The anticipated opening of the new elementary buildings would be fall of 2023.
As part of this process, the state does an in depth study of enrollment (past and present). We are anticipated to decrease by 59 students over the next 10 years. The key will be designing buildings on property that may allow the District to expand.
The district recently presented the five-year forecast, which indicates that there will be a deficit of $2.7 million in the fourth year (2023). The district will continue to evaluate its operations in an effort to address the deficit. The Building Advisory Committee had discussed placing an issue on the ballot for both facilities and operating. It was decided to address facilities first by taking advantage of the opportunity to collaborate with the OFCC, but to communicate to our community the need for future operating funds.
There will be discussions as to how it can continue to serve our community. There are also educational benefits to having three grades in a building versus two (i.e. less student transitions, etc.). In addition, one of the desires from the community (when surveyed) was the desire for operational efficiency. Obviously going from eight buildings to say five, accomplishes this request.
The District explored many other sites to build with the hope of building one elementary near the Richville area and relinquishing the Southway Parcell for potential industrial expansion. The district was seeking 10-15 acres. The District vetted various properties on Richville Dr., Navarre Rd. and the Petros Park area. Unfortunately, for different reasons, none of these sites were feasible. In the end, the board felt obligated to construct at the Southway property. It already possessed the property and has a nearly 40 acre footprint that may be able to serve the community as a school setting in addition to recreation facilities for the community.
It is rushed. We had hoped to run a facility issue a couple of years ago. However, our number never came up at the state (in other words, eligibility for money). The presidential election moved the May election to March, shortening the total timeframe. We also know new operating money will be needed in the future and we hope to not have to compound these two needs at one time.
It doesn’t really. They use a design manual that has been perfected over the years and ensures districts across the state build up to current standards.
We will have control over what we want our buildings to look like as well as the features they will offer students.
The Committee did take this option into consideration. Because the overall plan decreases the number of school buildings and the state is contributing 62% of the project, the difference in cost was negligible. Renovating would have necessitated reconfiguration of some of the buildings, driving up cost.