Frequently Asked Questions
-
No. We will need at least two more very large facility levies under the Board’s longterm facilities proposal.
The Board has explained that restoring useable outdoor space at Cassingham Elementary would require demolishing the existing middle school - necessitating yet another levy for tens of millions of dollars (and a year or more of new demolition/construction).
Development of the Cassady Avenue property, which has already cost families $6M and counting, will require a new levy in the tens of millions of dollars.
-
Yes, and many parents who oppose this levy would have supported a levy to fund those expenses - which constitute only one-fifth of the proposed $115M price tag.
Notably, the district recently spent $6M on the Cassady Avenue property (and more since then attempting to remediate it) with no current plan to develop it. That is money that would have gone far in completing the necessary building upgrades.
-
There is no Phase 2 being proposed or funded in the upcoming levy.
Demolishing the middle school in the future, for example, would require Bexley to approve yet another levy for tens of millions of dollars at some point in future - and subject a new group of kids to a year or more of construction.
-
That is the same field as the elementary school playground. The Board’s messaging has consistently referred to the space as simply “the softball field” without acknowledging that it doubles as the only playfield at Cassingham.
The open space would be sufficiently diminished at Cassingham that the kids would need to use the turf football field during recess.
-
The short answer is no. The closest outdoor space would be the playground at Montrose, which is a 15-20+ minute walk across Main from Cassingham. That is not realistic for elementary school students who just want to run around with their friends after school.
Central Bexley is unique in that it does not have a city park.
The football field is used by many middle school and high school teams for practice and games. It is rarely, if ever, available after school. Similarly, it is in almost constant use on the weekends. In short, it is not available to kids and families.
-
No. All of Bexley’s elementary schools need room for outdoor play.
Expansion on the Cassingham campus may be the best option, but only in a way that retains or replaces the outdoor space for our students and families.
The earlier proposed designs shared with the community preserved or replaced the open outdoor space (examples: Cassingham Plan, Facilities Plan).
-
The removal of the outdoor space at Cassingham and the installation of turf at Montrose and Maryland are all part of the same proposed Facilities Plan.
The turf plan shows two things:
First, the District has not meaningfully involved or listened to feedback from parents, including those at Montrose who overwhelmingly do not want artificial turf.
Second, although misguided, the District believes outdoor fields at our other two elementary schools are important and worth millions of dollars in further investment - while at the same time taking away the outdoor field at Cassingham.
-
No. The design, while not final, will place the new building on the Cassingham playfield. There is no way for the field to be retained as an open area while simultaneously hosting a new school building.
The Board has estimated a 70% reduction, necessitating children to use the turf football field for recess.
Further, the Board has indicated that it will not be prepared to share a final design until after a levy is passed and it would be too late for the community to demand changes.
-
No. Throughout the public information program in 2024, there were numerous designs shared and all of them retained or replaced outdoor space at Cassingham.
Examples of these designs, which are still posted on the District website, are linked below:
