Marysville school leaders present three facilities options as enrollment and repair needs grow

MARYSVILLE, Ohio — Marysville Exempted Village School District Superintendent Diane Allen and consultants from HPM on Tuesday night presented three long‑term facilities options aimed at addressing rising enrollment and an estimated $44 million of near‑term building needs.

District and consultant representatives said the facilities planning work was started in 2024 to prepare for bond‑debt that falls off in 2029 and to give the next board and superintendent a 10–15 year plan. "This has always been the plan. It's in our strategic plan," Superintendent Diane Allen said, introducing the meeting and the community task force involved in the study.

Consultant Tracy (HPM) walked attendees through demographic trends, enrollment projections, building‑by‑building capacity, educational adequacy and three configuration options the task force vetted. "A facilities plan has to address all of that together," Tracy said, summarizing the tradeoffs among repairing, renovating and replacing buildings.

Why it matters: the consultants told the community that Marysville’s birth rate and kindergarten survival ratios are rising — a trend that makes short‑term projections (five years) relatively reliable but makes 10‑year projections less certain. The district’s elementary capacity is roughly 2,600 seats while current elementary enrollment sits about 2,271; projected enrollment of about 2,350 would push utilization near 90% under current classroom size assumptions. Consultants warned that small changes in class‑size standards or program allocations could push utilization to 100% quickly.

What was proposed: the consultants detailed three main options.

- Option 1 (keep existing grade configuration): Maintain k‑4, 5‑6, 7‑8 configuration with targeted maintenance and modest adjustments (a "do‑nothing + preserve" scenario). That scenario keeps existing buildings in place, does not substantially remake Raymond School and estimates district capital capacity to be about $150 million if the district renews its bond without raising the tax rate.

- Option 2 (selective replacement and a new elementary): Replace Edgewood with a ~600‑seat facility, add one new elementary school, renovate or replace Raymond (estimated at about $20 million for Raymond work), and add small operational facilities such as a local bus station. The illustrative total for this option was roughly $141 million.

- Option 3 (grade‑reconfiguration and larger middle‑school work): Convert to a K‑5, 6‑8, 9‑12 model, replace Edgewood, invest in Raymond as a K‑5, and build a new ~1,000‑seat middle school on the current middle‑school site (allowing two middle schools on one campus). Estimated cost for Option 3 was presented just under $130 million and was framed as the largest structural change with the most long‑term capacity.

Costs and timing: Tracy said the district faces "approximately needs over the next 5 years, about $44,000,000 of actual need in the District," describing that number as systems that are broken or reaching end of life. Consultants cautioned that deferred maintenance compounds: without steady investment the 5‑year need could escalate to roughly $120 million over 10 years. They also said a typical approach is to plan now so a district can ask voters and align construction schedules before bond debt retirement in 2029.

Funding and risk: the consultants discussed paying design or early construction costs from district reserves to shorten schedules and reduce escalation, as other districts have done, but that approach carries risk if voters ultimately reject a bond. They also referenced the Ohio School Facilities Commission (OFCC) backlog and said districts are often left to front‑load work and seek reimbursement later. "It is a risk," Tracy said of using general fund reserves before a successful ballot measure, while noting capital rules are less volatile than operating funding.

Community process: the consultants and the task force encouraged table discussions, asked attendees to take a follow‑up survey, and said the draft plan would be completed in about two to three months pending board scheduling. "We're about 3 months from finishing this plan," Tracy said. The presentation highlighted a Community Task Force that has helped shape the options and said the district had received more than 400 online survey responses so far, with an internal framework anticipating as many as 1,000+ responses to guide option development.

What was not decided: no formal board motion or vote occurred at the meeting. The presentation was informational and intended to solicit community feedback on tradeoffs between replacement, renovation and reconfiguration. Consultants reiterated that the final recommendations would include maps, cost refinements and potential boundary changes if new schools are added.

Next steps and how residents can follow up: consultants and staff urged attendees to complete the online survey, consider the tradeoffs at their tables, and contact the district with additional questions. District staff and task‑force members said they would post the State of the Schools report and the options packets online and that the plan would be finalized and presented to the board in the coming months.

Sources: presentation and discussion at a Marysville Exempted Village School District facilities community meeting; comments by Superintendent Diane Allen and HPM consultants and task‑force members.