Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bexley Schools presents $126.7 million Phase 1 facilities plan and multi‑phase options
Summary
At a community engagement session, Bexley Schools and architects laid out a multi‑phase facilities plan emphasizing immediate repairs, a proposed Phase 1 in the $120–$130 million range and longer‑term rebuild options; the board will decide whether to pursue funding and timing.
Superintendent Jason Fine opened a community engagement session with architects from Perkins and Will to review a district facilities assessment and a set of phased options intended to guide Board deliberations on a facilities plan.
The presentation summarized a three‑phase process—assessments, options and decisions—and said the district is nearing the end of the options phase before a facilities plan is presented to the Board of Education in late spring. “Our goal is to have a facilities plan presented to our Board of Education in late spring,” Superintendent Jason Fine said.
Architects presented a consolidated Phase‑1 estimate of $126.7 million that includes standard markups, a 10% estimating contingency and about 20% soft costs. Steve Turks of Perkins and Will said the raw construction estimate in today’s dollars would be roughly $84 million, with the difference made up by escalation, contingency and soft costs. The architects emphasized that the $120–$130 million figure is an illustrative phase range, not a funding decision.
Design priorities presented to the community include addressing immediate physical‑adequacy needs (security, heating, plumbing), enlarging undersized classrooms, improving circulation and adding daylight to core classrooms. The team highlighted campus‑specific Phase‑1 proposals such as a new middle school to be used as swing space at the Cassingham Complex and one‑academic‑year additions at Maryland ($16.7M) and Montrose ($17.8M), with softball or other athletic work treated as optional line items.
Presenters stressed the long timeframes and cost escalation associated with full rebuilds: some schemes would span multiple years and extend into the 2030s, increasing escalation and total project cost. The architects said the district’s current debt capacity is about $183 million, well below multi‑campus rebuild scenarios that totaled “upwards of $300 million” in conceptual estimates.
The session closed with an invitation for public input via a QR code and a feedback form; presenters said the district will refine options, attach updated costs and move into a decision phase that requires Board action on funding and timing.
Next steps: the district will collect public feedback, update cost estimates and present a facilities plan to the Board of Education for a future funding decision.
