Doctor Fine recommends placing $115 million Phase 1 facilities plan on Nov. 2026 ballot

Doctor Fine recommended that the board place Phase 1 of the district's facilities plan on the November 2026 ballot, saying the proposal combines a new middle school, essential building repairs, turf work at two elementary schools and stadium upgrades into an estimated $115,000,000 package.

The superintendent presented four main components he described as intentionally focused for Phase 1: a new middle school (the largest single item), roughly five years of essential repairs and system upgrades, turf installations at Montrose and Maryland to protect field access, and bleacher improvements at Carlton Smith Stadium. "I recommend that the board take action on these recommendations at our next scheduled meeting, which is March 11," Doctor Fine said.

Why it matters: administration officials said deferred maintenance is not free and that aging buildings and inefficient systems will grow more costly and disruptive over time. Doctor Fine said a new middle school would relieve overcrowding at the Cassingham campus, separate younger and older students at lunch and create modern, flexible instructional spaces; he said the build would allow repurposing vacated space for elementary classrooms. "Doing nothing is not free," he said.

Cost, scope and changes: the presentation listed the centerpiece middle-school cost at about $82,000,000; later Kyle, the district treasurer, told the board a slide'figure should be revised to $85,000,000 and that final numbers remain subject to change. The administration presented a $24,000,000 estimate for essential system upgrades, $5,000,000 for turf at Maryland and Montrose and $4,000,000 for stadium bleachers, which together were shown as a $115,000,000 estimate on the slide. Kyle cautioned that the figures will be finalized after additional revenue assumptions and county and state analysis.

Turf and green space: the proposal's turf component prompted questions and public comment. Resident Anne Marie Kessler told the board she and other petitioners want the district to commit to natural play spaces at all three elementaries and to avoid adding artificial turf at Montrose; she said roughly 500'600 petition signers represent about 5% of Bexley's voting-age population and warned they may organize against a levy if the district does not include more natural-play protections. "I would ask that I'd just, like, love to see a plan that includes careful planning for natural play spaces at Cassingham ... and commits to avoiding the addition of artificial turf at Montrose in Maryland," Kessler said.

Administration rationale: Doctor Fine said turf additions are intended to protect access during inclement weather and to preserve play opportunities that otherwise are lost when fields are muddy. "Turf solves an essential problem for our schools, which is access," he said, adding that turf would expand usable practice and PE time and help avoid cancellations.

Funding options and taxpayer impact: the district is considering a hybrid financing model that could include two mills of property tax and a half-percent local income tax. The presentation estimated the property-tax impact at about $70 per year for every $100,000 of home market value and an income-tax impact of about $500 per year for every $100,000 of household earnings, and noted a current bond of 2.05 mills expires in 2027, which could offset some property-tax burden. Doctor Fine cautioned that no final funding decisions had been made and that state and county officials must verify revenue assumptions.

Timeline and next steps: administration officials said if voters approve the measure in November 2026 the district would engage architects and a construction manager in the summer of 2027 (without paying for preliminary design work before voter approval), conduct a year-long, community-driven design process, aim to break ground in 2028 and open a new middle school by 2030. Kyle outlined subsequent filing deadlines and recommended the board finalize revenue assumptions and required resolutions after a March 11 vote.

Board response and public engagement: board members praised staff work and urged continued public engagement; some members asked for more detail on green-space tradeoffs and on construction and maintenance plans. The administration said conceptual renderings shown were preliminary and that a full design process would follow voter approval and include community focus groups. The board did not take a final vote on placing the question on the ballot at this meeting; Doctor Fine recommended formal action at the March 11 meeting.

What's next: the board will consider formal motions on March 11; administration pledged a robust community design process if voters approve the package.