MANSFIELD — The vote on a proposed district reconfiguration plan for Mansfield City Schools failed Tuesday night.
Board Vice President Gary Feagin made a motion to approve phase one of a building restructuring plan, but no one seconded the motion.
The vote came after 90 minutes of discussion, during which other board members voiced concerns about the scaled-back proposal.
The proposed “phase one” plan included moving the pre-K program from Springmill STEM to Sherman Elementary and moving third grade at Sherman, Woodland and Prospect to Malabar Intermediate.
It was a scaled-down version of the original building restructuring plan proposed by Jefferson on Jan. 25.
The original plan included all elements of phase one, as well as closing the Brinkerhoff building and relocating the Spanish Immersion program to Woodland and Mansfield Middle School.
When the original building restructuring plan was presented on Jan. 25, Supt. Stan Jefferson said the costs of maintaining Brinkerhoff no longer outweighed the benefits due to the building’s age and need for costly updates.
However, Jefferson said he could no longer recommend closing Brinkerhoff by next school year, partly due to logistical challenges. He said the change came after receiving feedback from staff and families in the district.
“I’m not saying it can’t be done, but it would have been extremely tight to get that done because you couldn’t start your work until school was out,” he said.
“(A phased approach) gives us more time to look at which buildings need to come off line and have further discussion both administratively and with the MSEA (Mansfield School Employees Association) concerning staffing.”
Board members indicated Tuesday they favored the original plan, which was developed by administrators over the course of five months and took into account outside assessments of the district’s enrollment and facilities.
Renda Cline and other board members expressed concern about splitting the plan into phases.
“You are our superintendent and we have every faith in you and (treasurer Tacy Courtright) to bring us the best proposal the first time,” Cline said.
Board member Chris Elswick agreed.
“We need to close a building next year,” Elswick said. “Our buildings are not even close to being full.”
“The school that is in the worst shape right now is Brinkerhoff.”
Elswick pointed out that the board has been discussing taking a building offline for years. He also argued that operating multiple buildings below capacity could hurt the district’s chances to get funding from the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission (OFCC), which would allow MCS to construct a new school building in the future.
Feagin told fellow board members he had similar concerns after last week’s meeting. However, after meeting with Jefferson, Courtright and staff at Spanish Immersion and the high school, he was prepared to back the phase one plan.
“I feel that I’ve done my due diligence to be prepared to vote on this issue tonight,” Feagin said. “I was convinced by everything that I’ve done that the alternative plan is a good plan, that we could continue what we need to do.”
Feagin pointed out that closing Brinkerhoff would save the district approximately $65,000 – about the cost to employ one or two people in the district.
(Courtright confirmed the district would save about $65,000 per year if Brinkerhoff closed, saying it costs about $35,000 to run building maintenance and another $30,000 to run air conditioning unit in the building.)
Meanwhile, closing Woodland Elementary could make more elementary aged students eligible to transfer out of the district and attend a private school through the state’s EdChoice Scholarship Program.
“If we lose 10 students, that’s our savings,” Feagin said.
Students at Prospect Elementary are eligible for EdChoice Scholarships, which pay for students from designated public schools to attend participating private schools.
Woodland Elementary students are not currently eligible, but Jefferson said they could become eligible if Woodland merges with Prospect.
Jefferson also stated that taking a building offline won’t save the district a significant amount of money unless there is a reduction in the number of personnel. He added that he hoped most of that reduction could occur through attrition.
Board member Linda Golden said she felt uncomfortable voting to put off a building closure without a firm timeline or phase two in place.
“We have a bad habit of kicking the can down the road,” Golden said. “I just feel like we don’t have anything solid for us to look at to say, well this is absolutely going to happen in phase two.”
Jefferson said he would bring a phase two plan to the board by January 2023. He added that phase two would include taking a building offline and hiring an architect to help explore the possibility of a new, 21st century facility for Mansfield’s youngest students.
He added the OFCC already contacted the district and administrators will be meeting with OFCC representatives in early March.
“The plan is in 2022, get this renewal levy passed, in 2023 put a bond levy on for a new facility,” he said. “If that was to pass, we should be able to hopefully walk into that building in 2025.”
