Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cassidy Acquisition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bexley Schools evaluates 28‑acre Cassidy Avenue site; due‑diligence deadline set for Dec. 2
Summary
District leaders said they entered a purchase agreement for a 28.3‑acre Cassidy Avenue property and are running ALTA, soils and air quality studies during a due‑diligence window; architects outlined site constraints (stream‑protection corridor, easement, slope) and development cost ranges for athletic fields and infrastructure.
Superintendent Jason Fine and Perkins and Will described a potential acquisition of a roughly 28.3‑acre site on Cassidy Avenue and presented site studies, layout options and development cost ranges for a variety of athletic and field configurations.
Jason Fine said the district learned of the Cassidy property in late May, entered a purchase agreement in September and has a 75‑day due‑diligence period that runs to a Dec. 2 decision deadline. “We have until December 2 to make that decision,” he said, and the district is completing ALTA surveys, soil borings and air‑quality tests to determine whether the site is suitable.
Perkins and Will said the site map shows roughly 28.3 acres with approximately 19–20 net developable acres after accounting for right‑of‑way and stream‑protection corridors along Alum Creek. The consultants flagged a private road easement (10th Avenue) that may or may not be movable and noted steep topography on the western portion that would require fill and retaining walls to create playable fields.
Cost modeling presented ranged by chess‑piece scenarios. Architects estimated eastern‑leg development costs at about $20–$23M and similar ranges for the western leg; moving the road and adding a bike path was estimated at about $4.5–$5.5M, and turf or stadium amenities were additional optional line items. The team showed an option where the road stays in place (limiting track placement) and a second where the road moves north (allowing a track and field to fit more comfortably).
Presenters emphasized environmental constraints on the site: the City of Columbus’s stream‑protection corridor along Alum Creek would preclude building in the red‑shaded area on the western edge and limit layout choices. Architects also noted the site contains an existing building with steep drops from the road down to the creek and that portions of the parcel may need significant earthwork to be usable for level athletic fields.
District leaders said acquiring Cassidy would not be final until due diligence completes; they invited community feedback and said any eventual funding or development plan would require further Board review and public discussion.
