Bexley City presents facilities assessment, cost outlook and community engagement plan

Superintendent Jason Fine reiterated that the district’s facilities review is community-driven and that “no decisions have been made,” as staff and outside architects laid out the condition of aging buildings and preliminary cost estimates.

The presentation summarized a districtwide facilities assessment and an updated version of the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission (OFCC) 2017 report. Presenters said the district’s buildings are, on average, about 84 years old, leaving many mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems, roofs and other components in need of repair or replacement. “We’re gonna talk a little bit today about our current reality,” the presenter said, framing the meeting as an information-sharing session rather than a decision point.

Architects described work completed in the assessment phase: Matterport “digital twin” scans of school interiors, site and circulation analyses, restroom and accessibility inventories, and evaluations of HVAC, roofing, windows and drainage. The design team said the scans enable remote measurements and public-facing virtual tours that the district will post online.

Harley Williams, the district’s director of facilities and operations, invited residents to join building teams and to use QR codes and the district website to provide ongoing feedback. He also offered a direct contact for follow-up: the district provided the email address harley.williams@bexley.us.

A district finance presenter explained likely funding approaches and gave a sample bond illustration: a $100 million project financed over 36 years at a 5% interest rate would, under current property valuations used by the presenters, translate to roughly 6 mills of additional tax levy in the example. The presenter said the district’s last bond debt is scheduled to drop off in 2027 and noted the district’s AA+ rating, but emphasized that actual funding choices would be developed with the finance/facilities advisory committee and through community input.

Presenters broke estimated needs into time buckets. For the middle and high school complex the baseline 2023 figure shown was about $39.6 million for immediate work; the 0–5 year bucket was presented as roughly $10 million and the 6–10 year bucket as approximately $18.2 million. Across scenarios presented, full repair and replacement options for the middle/high complex were described as approaching $63 million when phased and escalated costs are included.

The educational assessment team noted that historic building layouts constrain contemporary instructional models: many classrooms are undersized relative to current Ohio design benchmarks, daylighting is limited in interior spaces, and there are few intentionally designed collaborative areas. Architects and principals will remain available at campus boards set up in the room to answer specific questions and to guide a gallery-walk feedback exercise.

Next steps outlined to attendees included: continued posting of materials on the district website (recordings and notes), building tours in April (including April 15 for specific campuses), additional community engagement sessions (six in total), and building-team meetings beginning the week of April 1. Organizers emphasized that the process will move from assessment to an options phase and, later, decision-making that will be informed by community input.

The presentation and materials from the session will be posted on the district’s website within about 24 hours, organizers said. The district encouraged residents who could not attend to review the online materials and to submit feedback via the posted survey and QR forms.