Marlington superintendent details roofing, lighting projects and two student-wellness allocations; warns of enrollment rule in pending state bill

Superintendent Brian Swisher updated the Marlington Local School District Board of Education on facilities work, grant allocations and enrollment monitoring and flagged a pending state budget provision that could affect older school buildings if it becomes law.

Swisher said the district’s high-school roofing project began this month and that crews completed an initial segment; the contractor hopes to continue work pending weather. He also said the district’s lighting-upgrade project is about 75% complete and that paving of the Vasco project is expected to start in mid-June. Swisher told the board he will provide a photo summary and a finance breakdown, including any change orders, in August.

On federal and state funding streams used for student services, Swisher reported precise allocations: “Our allocation this year for disadvantaged pupil aid was $149,840.59, and our allocation for Student Wellness and Success Fund was $253,787.37,” and said those funds are recorded within the district’s general fund under current state reporting rules and are used to fund counselors, school resource officers, family-support specialists and nurses.

Swisher also said he will begin providing monthly “butts-in-seats” enrollment figures on the board agenda. For June, the district’s in-seat count was 1,803; the superintendent said the district’s total average daily membership (ADM) would be about 2,063 if all out-of-district placements were included.

Swisher raised a legislative concern: the House and Senate versions of the state budget remained at odds, and one proposal in those early drafts would allow the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission (OFCC) or similar enforcement to declare buildings underused when capacity falls below 60 percent. He described a discussion at a recent educational forum where superintendents cited examples — Swisher said Alliance High School was built for about 3,500 students and now enrolls under 1,000 — to illustrate how the 60% threshold could apply to long-standing school buildings. He said the enforcement mechanism and details remained uncertain while the budget moved through conference committee and urged the board not to draw conclusions until legislation is finalized.

The superintendent told the board that the district accepted 42 students through open enrollment this year and summarized those placements by school and grade; he said the district has limited open-enrollment intake in some grades because adding students can require new staff and classroom resources without accompanying increases in state funding.

Board members asked for clarifications about building-capacity calculations and enforcement steps; Swisher said final answers depend on whether the budget language is enacted and on subsequent OFCC or state procedures.

The discussion made clear the board wants regular enrollment updates and that staff will continue to report facilities progress and any budgetary consequences tied to state action.