Consultants recommend new middle school, Edgewood replacement and $150M capital roadmap for Marysville schools

Consultants from HPM presented a facilities master plan to the Marysville Exempted Village School District that recommends a multi‑phase capital program centered on a new middle school, an on‑site Edgewood replacement and programmatic shifts to a PK–5, 6–8, 9–12 grade configuration.

HPM project lead Tracy Richter told the board the district is one of the few she’s worked with in recent years that still shows rising birth and enrollment data, and that the plan aims to add capacity for 10–20 years while preserving educational adequacy. “This plan is really trying to address a 10, 15, and 20 year effort towards enrollment,” Richter said.

The recommendation list presented by HPM includes: building a new middle school co‑located with the current middle school to provide flexible configurations (a 6–8 or a grade‑center model), replacing Edgewood Elementary on its current site with a 600‑station building, demolition/renovation and new construction work at Raymond Elementary (with selected preservation of salvageable portions), creation of a bus depot at the Raymond site, deferred‑maintenance funding for Mill Valley, Navin and Northwood, and a Creekview facility adapted as a pre‑K center. HPM also identified elementary playground and high school theater/field‑house improvements as later priorities.

Richter said HPM’s facilities condition work produced a five‑year prioritized condition need and an overall facility condition index; the consultants told the board the district’s five‑year condition need is about $44,000,000 and stressed that maintaining that metric over time is a primary goal. HPM estimated the recommended capital program at about $150,000,000 and said that, on paper, that investment could be achieved without increasing the current tax rate because of scheduled debt retirements that free capacity in the tax rate. HPM noted those assumptions are timing‑sensitive and must be updated as the district’s financial picture evolves.

The plan calls for a phased timeline that treats the new middle school as the program’s trigger: building the middle school frees capacity elsewhere and enables the shift to the recommended grade configuration and subsequent elementary projects. Richter emphasized flexibility in design—siting the middle school to allow later additions and to accommodate different program models—and noted the firm used predictive asset‑management software to time systems replacements.

Board members asked about triggers for capacity actions, the timing of conversions to PK–5 and how recently announced preschool changes (Harold Lewis transfer) affect the plan. Richter said the capital timeline reflected the district’s funding capacity and that enrollment pressures are already present; she recommended boundary reviews and reiterated the plan should be revisited annually. “The need is sooner. No question,” she said when asked if capacity pressure requires earlier action than the capital timeline implies.

No formal vote or binding commitment to the HPM recommendations was taken at the presentation. The board received the report and asked for follow up materials including the detailed cost sheets and continued enrollment monitoring. HPM left line‑by‑line cost estimates and a project list with the district; board and staff said they will continue to refine costs and schedule with the district’s financial team.

Why this matters: the plan addresses immediate building condition work and a multi‑year capacity response tied to enrollment growth. The choices—new middle school, an Edgewood replacement, a reconfigured grade structure and a possible on‑site Raymond bus depot—would shape the district’s tax and construction timeline and boundary planning for years to come.

The district will continue to update the facility condition database and re‑run projections as debt retirement and any community decisions become firm. The board directed staff to incorporate the plan’s data into the district’s capital forecasting and to return with more granular cost phasing and next steps.

Sources: presentation by Tracy Richter and Matt Sachs (HPM), and follow‑up comments from district staff.