GRPS board approves three‑site Montessori concept and advances Alexander, Stocking reuse recommendations

The Grand Rapids Public Schools Board of Education on May 11 approved a concept-level revision to the Facilities Master Plan to create a three-site Montessori pathway and accepted staff recommendations to continue contract negotiations for reuse of the former Alexander and Stocking school sites.

The board’s adoption covers the concept — not final designs — for a PK–6 campus at Riverside, a PK–6 campus at Ridgemoor Park and a Montessori middle/high program in the Fountain Building. Staff told trustees the Riverside campus could open in 2028, the Fountain Building renovations would be completed in a later phase and the Ridgemoor work would be done across two summers. District presenters estimated renovations for the three sites at about $35,000,000, roughly $3,000,000 above the $32,000,000 allocation in the reimagined bond; staff said savings from other completed projects and interest earnings are expected to close the gap.

"This is not a vote on the specific plans for each site; it is on the three‑site concept," the district presenter said, asking trustees to approve the change to the facilities plan before additional design work begins. Trustees asked for continued community engagement and said board review would include more detailed site plans and cost comparisons before construction contracts are executed.

Staff also presented results from a district request-for-proposals process to find community-minded reuse partners for Alexander and Stocking. According to the district, Alexander drew four proposals; staff recommended LifeQuest Urban Outreach (a $1,000,000 purchase offer and a community-centered nonprofit campus) because the group presented a quick close timeline, local operating experience and willingness to accept a K–12 deed restriction. For Stocking, staff recommended the West Grand Neighborhood Association, which proposed an $850,000 purchase to create a community hub and pledged a community benefits model and a capital campaign.

District staff and the consultant JLL described pros and cons of each finalist. Staff warned trustees about financing contingencies for some proposals and noted that one finalist (Commonwealth Development Corporation) would rely on state grants and a longer timeline to close. Trustees pressed staff on capital‑stack details, whether lease arrangements preserved district land ownership and how restrictive covenants would protect GRPS programs and enrollment.

Several community speakers representing LifeQuest and West Grand said their proposals include programming that would complement GRPS rather than compete with it and described local fundraising and partnership plans. A LifeQuest co‑founder said their proposal includes space for K–12 programming and community services; the West Grand director said her group had already raised seed funds and broad neighborhood support.

The board did not consummate a sale at the meeting. Staff noted the item was removed from the agenda earlier in the evening and that the district plans to return with additional information for a June vote that would authorize negotiation and move selected proposals into purchase-agreement development.

What happens next: If the board authorizes negotiations in June, staff said the district will draft purchase agreements that include due‑diligence periods, financing conditions and zoning contingencies. Staff also said any final transfer would be subject to the city’s zoning approvals and the contract terms negotiated between the district and a selected partner.

Speakers quoted in this article are identified in the board transcript and correspond to the meeting record.