Grandview Heights board presents $69.5 million bond plan for new Stevenson Elementary and athletic upgrades

The Grandview Heights Schools board of education outlined a proposed $69,500,000 bond that would fund a new Stevenson Elementary School and early phases of a K–12 athletic complex during a community forum.

Board member Katie Matney told the audience the package includes $52,200,000 for a new Stevenson Elementary and $17,300,000 for phases 1 and 2 of athletic improvements, and she said the proposal equates to about 6.95 mills — stated at the meeting as roughly $243 per $100,000 of assessed value. "These costs have been scrubbed and evaluated and vetted," Matney said, introducing the architects and construction team available to answer questions.

Architect Steve Turkas described a three‑workshop planning process that produced program diagrams and a reduced‑scope design after community input. He said the conceptual Stevenson replacement would be about 69,580 square feet and that the team pared roughly 14,000 square feet from an initial "wish list" to align the plan with budget constraints. "We essentially did three full‑day workshops... we knew how many spaces, what size of spaces," Turkas said.

Turkas and architect Amy Eckman showed site diagrams that favor a two‑story replacement building with classrooms oriented north–south, preserved vegetation, a small playground, and community‑usable gym and cafeteria spaces that can be secured after hours. Eckman said the committee coalesced around a two‑story scheme during community engagement.

On the athletic campus, planners described a three‑phase master plan; the board is considering phases 1 and 2 under this bond, which focus on replacing the concrete bleachers with ADA‑accessible seating, adding fully accessible restrooms and locker rooms, consolidating scattered field equipment and equipment shelters, and improving visitor seating. The architects said a future phase would address parking and other site completions.

During an extended Q&A moderated by Dan Goode, the panel said students would be taught in modular classrooms placed on vacant land in front of Larson Middle School while Stevenson is demolished and rebuilt. Turkas summarized the construction timeline as "summers on either side and one full academic year" to remove the old building and construct the new facility. "They do fit" on the vacant piece of land, he said of the modular units, adding they would share existing facilities such as a gym and some cafeteria functions.

Financial and legal context was raised repeatedly. Panelists said the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission would not provide funding for this project and that soft costs such as technology and furniture are included in the budget. A board member noted the district is in an "inform and educate" phase and said, if advanced, the levy would be placed on the November ballot; the board had put a resolution forward in May to begin the process and expected a June board meeting vote to finalize placement.

Speakers referenced earlier district planning: the 2018 bond focused on Larson Middle School and the high school and left Stevenson largely untouched except for limited ADA and security work; presenters declined to guess current deferred‑maintenance totals and said that figure would be posted in the FAQs. On that point the board said they would follow up publicly: "I don't want to guess on a whim," a board presenter said, promising to add the number to the posted FAQs.

Panelists also cited Ohio law governing school district debt and said voter approval is required to raise the district's debt ceiling. One board presenter described taxes and legal constraints that make the public vote a necessary step in any bond issuance.

Superintendent Andy Culp closed by thanking the community, pointing to a QR code and handout for follow‑up questions and saying the district would continue the conversation online and through posted FAQs. The board encouraged attendees to submit index‑card questions and said members would remain after the forum for additional one‑on‑one questions.

What happens next: the board has initiated the resolution process that would allow the measure to be placed on the November ballot if the board approves placement at a future meeting; no formal levy vote took place at the forum.