Bexley City Schools outlines facilities options, preliminary costs and next steps

Jason Fine, superintendent of Bexley City Schools, opened a community engagement session by urging residents to keep “the main thing the main thing”: the district’s classrooms and instructional work. The district presented conceptual facility options for Maryland, Montrose and the Cassingham Complex, high‑level cost ranges and a timeline for further community input.

Kyle Smith, the district treasurer, framed the fiscal parameters that will shape any future bond or tax proposal. “For Bexley, in today’s dollars, that would be a $180,000,000,” Smith said, adding that the estimate corresponds to “an estimated 11 mills.” He summarized engineering and planning estimates that put repairs across all five buildings at about $101,000,000 in today’s dollars and full replacement in a range of $235,000,000 to $304,000,000; when phased and escalated for lifecycle timing the repair figure was presented as roughly $146,000,000 spread over 0–15 years. Smith also said enrollment projections are flat: “the takeaway on this year’s updated enrollment projection is enrollment’s flat for Bexley.”

Architectural staff and consultants presented color‑coded options: yellow for repairs, green for renovations, and blue for new construction. Steve, a planning team presenter, described three assessment streams that informed the options — physical adequacy (systems and repairs), educational adequacy (classroom size, daylighting, adjacency) and financial assessment — and emphasized these materials are planning‑level, not final designs.

Amy Ekman walked through campus‑level options. At Maryland, presented options remove a narrow west wing and add classroom and circulation space so classrooms wrap around the gym, move special‑education spaces to the main level and relocate administrative offices to a secure vestibule. “Some of the special ed spaces are in the lower level, which is not inclusive and equitable for many of those children,” Ekman said; she said all Maryland options would address that. At Montrose, Ekman showed options to correct a triangular classroom layout, add a performance space and right‑size the cafeteria, with one option relocating stairs to improve circulation and accessibility. For the Cassingham Complex, the team presented a spectrum from targeted additions and restored courtyards (least invasive) to larger demolition and rebuild scenarios (most invasive) and a new‑build option that would simplify phasing but likely displace on‑site softball and tennis.

Building teams and community feedback narrowed the list of configuration concepts: the core team advanced Options 1 and 2, combined Options 4 and 5 into a revised concept, and left Option 6 to be further explored. Ekman said building‑team members liked many common improvements (larger classrooms, more collaboration space and daylighting) and requested that planners test alternatives that keep the stadium and tennis courts on site when possible. The teams also flagged tradeoffs: more intensive options cost more and complicate construction phasing, possibly requiring temporary portables or off‑site accommodations.

Dr. Harley Williams, director of operations and facilities, closed the presentation portion by reminding attendees the process began under the district strategic plan and that the session was being recorded and will be posted online. Staff asked attendees to complete an on‑site survey and invited them to a gallery walk of the plan boards; building teams will further test feasibility and report back in July and August.

Next steps: community feedback collected at the boards and online will inform building‑team meetings 4 and 5 (July/August) and the district’s core team recommendations to the board of education; no bond or tax measure was proposed at this session and no formal vote was taken.