Design firms present $141M–$146M vision to Bexley board, with $107M tied to Cassingham campus options

Perkins & Will and Moody Nolan unveiled a multi-year facilities plan on May 14 that the firms said grew out of extensive community engagement and technical assessments.

Steve Burks of Perkins & Will described a three-bucket approach—address immediate physical adequacy needs, renovate, or rebuild—and walked the board through program models, assessment results and cost ranges. “The cost identified in 2024 were just upwards of a $100,000,000 in terms of needs,” Burks said. He said a common phase 1 for the Cassingham Complex—building a standalone middle school on the softball field plus targeted renovations in the existing complex—lands “just pushed just shy of a $107,000,000” bottom line when escalated to 2027 dollars.

Designers said the work was organized so phase 1 stands alone as a viable end state while preserving alternative future paths (options A, B and C) for the high school and remaining campus needs. They showed plans for right-sizing classrooms, adding daylighted collaboration spaces, improving restrooms and secure entries, and shifting some shared functions into the new middle school footprint to retain flexibility for future phases.

Amy Ackman of Perkins & Will outlined proposed additions at the elementary campuses: Maryland’s phase-1 addition and targeted renovations, and Montrose’s performance/cafeteria and classroom reconfigurations. She said those projects would be staged to minimize disruption—additions during the school year with renovations done over summer months.

Burks also presented due-diligence test fits for an off-campus Cassidy Avenue site the district has explored. He noted it was not a dependency for phase 1 work and called the Cassidy scenarios “test fits,” useful for future discussion about play-field and stadium locations.

Board members pressed the design team on cost escalation, unknowns such as tariffs, and what an acceptable phase 1 end state would look like if subsequent phases were deferred. Multiple trustees emphasized the community-driven nature of the choices and the need to return to the board for decisions about financing and timing. Dr. Fine clarified the board was being asked to approve the vision and report, not to approve funding at this meeting.

Next steps: designers will post the full report for public review, and the board’s finance and facilities teams will model funding scenarios and potential timing for any levy or bond proposals. The board did not take a funding action on May 14.