Stow‑Munroe Falls board hears $222M–$251M options, $28M "warm, safe and dry" repair plan

The Stow‑Munroe Falls City School District Board of Education on May 5 heard a facilities presentation that laid out two main rebuild options, phased alternatives and a multi‑tier repair plan, with estimated price tags ranging from about $222 million to $251 million and a $28 million “warm, safe and dry” immediate repairs package.

The presentation by district administrators and consultants said the price difference depends on whether the district builds new elementary and middle schools simultaneously or phases the middle school later, and on the scope of renovations versus replacement. Board members were told the district would need to return to voters for funding under either path.

District administrators said the facilities committee reviewed cost, enrollment projections and Ohio Facilities Construction Commission (OFCC) rules and recommended further community engagement and financial exploration. The presentation compared: a plan to build two new elementary schools and one new middle school, an alternative to build three new elementary schools and one middle school, and a sequence that phases the middle school construction five years later.

Consultant Cheryl Fisher presented the two principal options and the district’s sub‑options. Fisher said the simultaneous two‑elementary / one‑middle option was shown at about $222,000,000, and phasing the middle school raised that option to roughly $240,000,000. The three‑elementary / one‑middle option was shown at about $234,000,000 when built simultaneously and about $251,000,000 when the middle school is phased and its cost inflated by an assumed 5 percent per year over five years. Fisher said the OFCC’s base plan recommendation supported the three‑elementary option based on student population counts.

Director of operations Mark Tring summarized a three‑tier needs assessment for keeping existing buildings. He said a priority‑1 “warm, safe and dry” plan — focused on roofs, foundation repairs, windows, basic security and mechanical replacement — would total about $28,000,000 for K–8 buildings. Priority‑2 work (technology, doors, parking lots) added another ~$27,000,000. Priority‑3, larger renewal projects (major HVAC, electrical and plumbing overhauls) drove the total to roughly $239,000,000 if done as a complete cycle. Tring noted those totals do not include central office, the bus garage, stadium or vehicle replacement cycles.

Tring said local capacity for regular improvement cycles (the district’s PI fund) is roughly $2.9 million and cannot cover large capital needs. He also said projects that deviate from the Ohio School Design Manual would not be co‑funded by the OFCC.

Board members asked whether the $240 million figure represented only maintenance or included expansions; administration responded that the $240 million figure for repair work does not expand classrooms or add new square footage. The district said either approach — new construction or extended repairs — will require a voter funding ask, and that updated plans would have to be resubmitted to the OFCC for review and approval if the district’s plan changes.

Administrators said the facilities committee began fresh work after last November’s ballot discussion, invited roughly 90 community members to participate, completed facility walkthroughs and will meet again for a collaborative planning session to refine recommendations and cost estimates. The board was told the next committee meeting will be in May at Kimpton and that those results will inform any future levy or bond proposals.

The board did not take formal action on construction or sale of properties during the meeting; administrators described next steps including additional committee workshops, updated cost estimates to the OFCC and continued financial analysis.

Details to note: administrators said by law a district that sells a state‑funded school property must offer it to a charter school before public auction, and that local‑funded elements (so‑called LFIs) such as special auditoriums can be scaled back to reduce bond ask size. The district also emphasized that enrollment projections have declined relative to the 2019 projections used for the previous plan and that using updated 2024 projections could reduce some capacity needs.