CH-UH Board Aiming To Place Facilities Master Plan On November 2013 Ballot
During the special meeting at Roxboro Middle School Aug. 21, the CH-UH Board discussed the next steps and a timeline for the facilities master plan.
Photos
The Cleveland Heights-University Heights School Board discussed the next steps of the facilities master plan for nearly three hours at a special meeting Tuesday night.
Board members agreed that the best time to place the facilities master plan, or Plan C, on the ballot is November 2013, and that they would be open to modifying the plan.
Board member Nancy Peppler at first suggested May to give the district more than one chance to pass a bond issue and other reasons.
"A whole lot of good work has been done, and I don't want this to stretch and stretch and stretch on," Peppler said.
Plan C was approved by a narrow vote of 3-2 at the July 3 Board of Education Meeting, as was a resolution to put a $130.6 million bond issue on the November 2012 ballot that would have paid for a portion of the $206.2 million plan. But the concern from residents prompted three board members to change their vote the next time around, so that instead of approving the bond issue on second reading 3-2, the board unanimously rejected it.
Board member Kal Zucker thought May was an unrealistic time frame, as it would mean the board would have to take action in January 2013.
And board member Ron Register said they needed more than three or four months to "build trust in the community."
The board also agreed that it needed to form a citizens facilities committee, as suggested by Reaching Heights and FutureHeights, to help make recommendations and suggestions as they continue to work on Plan C.
CH-UH Superintendent Doug Heuer and Business Services Director Steve Shergalis had board members write down suggestions of who should be on the committee and what their tasks should be on sticky notes. Heuer and Shergalis then organized the sticky notes on a white board so members could use them as discussion points.
Board members said city officials, community leaders, alumni, PTA representatives, parents, teachers, voters without children in the district, union members, a private school representative, members of past facilities committees, board members, the administration and more should be on the 15- to 25-person committee. The committee should be tasked with creating alternate plans, engaging the community and coming up with marketing strategies, among other tasks, they suggested.
The school board discussed the possibility of having people apply for roles on the committee, but decided against it as it would push the timeline back at least four to six weeks.
Instead, board members are going submit names of people from each of the representative groups that they think should be involved to Board president Karen Jones by Monday. She will then review the names, select those that have been repeated and appoint the rest, ensuring all groups have been represented.
At the beginning of the meeting, Shergalis and Heuer had board members again fill out sticky notes with portions of the plan they think should be reevaluated to help the administration decide "where we move from here," Heuer said.
They wrote budget, financing, community involvement, grade configuration, building placement, Gearity, historic preservation, demolition vs. renovation and more.
After discussion, they decided the first step would be to set a goal date and talk about the citizens committee.
"I think one of the cries out that we heard is that the community felt like we didn't do enough to communicate with them," Register said.
Heuer said the administration would summarize questions and discussion from the meeting and send it back to the board to again help the district decide how to move forward.
Members agreed that they would be open to modifying Plan C, but did not discuss specifics.
Visit our CH-UH Facilities Master Plan page for background and more information.
In This article
-
-
-
-
Gearity Professional Development School and Early Childhood Center
2323 Wrenford Rd, Cleveland, OH
Garry Kanter
12:27 pm on Wednesday, August 22, 2012
I hope the project group is not limited in size.
With a well thought out organization structure for the project team, and good leadership, anyone in the community should be able to contribute their expertise and concerns, without things becoming unwieldy.
I hope this team will conduct Outreach to find interested individuals, and Coalition Building to find interested groups, or groups with interested members.
It is in this way, only, that the Trust will be restored via transparency and inclusion.
We The People of CH can do great things when we are unleashed!!!!
UH Resident
11:19 am on Thursday, August 23, 2012
Plan C, in its current form, is unacceptable.
Looking back, Plan B isn't that bad. Two middle school sites (Roxboro, Wiley) and five primary school locations (Roxboro, Wiley, Oxford, Coventry, and Canterbury). Yes, two of those sites would be shared K-8 campuses, but as long as they're split between primary grades and middle grades, like Roxboro has been for years, I see no big problem with this idea.
Joan Drushel
10:38 am on Friday, August 24, 2012
Plan B is not acceptable because it contains only two elementary schools and no middle school north of Cedar Rd. This would create no school in walking distance for half the elementary students and all the middle school students in the northern half of the district.
John H.
10:38 am on Friday, August 24, 2012
Plan B was confusing. Also, it doesn't handle the student base where they are. Of the three points of the district- North, Southeast, Southwest- the greatest number of students live in the Northern section (Monticello, Oxford). The thing about plan C, was it understood that, giving that section an extra school. In Plan B, some Pre-K- 3rd grade students could go to Oxford, but the rest would have to be bused out. It simply doesn't meet the needs of the district.
UH Resident
3:58 pm on Sunday, August 26, 2012
What was confusing about Plan B? Yes Plan C gave an extra elementary school to northern Cleveland Heights at the expense of University Heights. To me that is unacceptable. I'd much rather UH have an elementary school than an intermediate school, though I'd prefer to see a K-8 school or campus in UH if at all possible.
I will say this, though, if it came down to Monticello or Wiley, the former is a beautiful, historic building that seems to be in good shape. I would like to see it maintained and used in some capacity moving forward. That's probably my biggest issue with Plan B.
Truth of the matter is that if schools are closed, some students and families are going to naturally lose their ability to walk to school. This is the unfortunate inevitability with school consolidation/reorganization. Although I think it is important to make decisions with the density map in mind, I don't think it should strictly guide the entire process. We're talking about making changes to our district that could/should last several decades, not just the next few years.
Garry Kanter
10:10 pm on Sunday, August 26, 2012
Yes! *Somebody* has to lose. The BOE cannot change that fact.
What they *can* do is make smart, open, decisions. And do something that is thoughtful for today *and* tomorrow.
I hope the Lay Facilities Committee gets to really contribute.
Joan Drushel
10:38 am on Friday, August 24, 2012
Plan B is not acceptable because it contains only two elementary schools and no middle school north of Cedar Rd. As a result, half of the elementary students and all the middle school students in the northern half of the city will not have a school within walking distance of their homes.
John H.
11:45 am on Monday, August 27, 2012
UH Resident- "Yes Plan C gave an extra elementary school to northern Cleveland Heights at the expense of University Heights. To me that is unacceptable"
Please explain this "expense". UH is in the Southeast portion of the district- under plan C they get a middle school and an elementary school. The southwest portion of the district gets the same. They only reason the North section got an extra school is that they had more students. The schools were divided based on student population demographics. And it's pretty fair for the most part.
I understand you're upset because Canterbury was chosen for the Southeast portion of the district, instead of Gearity. (Canterbury is literally a block outside of UH). Perhaps that is where you should focus your efforts- because Gearity is a better school than Canterbury. At least where test scores are considered.
UH Resident
10:19 pm on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
I know where Canterbury is in relation to UH. I walked to school there everyday two decades ago from my childhood home in UH. However I just think--and I'll be honest with you--that a big part of this discussion comes down to perception. I believe it would be very symbolic to undergo a district reorganization plan that leaves UH without an elementary school. I don't think it matters if Gearity were kept open or if a new elementary school were located at Wiley (a more central location), I just truly believe that it's essential that this city have an elementary school.
John H.
9:24 am on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
What is interesting is that you grew up in UH and went to Canterbury- I grew up in CH and went to Gearity. Ironic.
I don't object to UH having an elementary school, but spending money to keep open two elementary schools where only one is required does not seem fiscally responsible to me. If having an elementary school inside of UH's borders is this important -and I don't deny it is- we need to figure out how to make it happen in a fiscally responsible way. And that may mean UH is going to have to come out of pocket on it- they can't vote down a levy and then complain the District is closing a school. Keeping schools open requires money, and UH (and CH and SE) may have to pony up.
UH Resident
1:27 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
I could be mistaken, but I think that the most fiscally responsible idea proposed (Plan A) was overwhelmingly poo-pooed by the community. So clearly fiscal responsibility is not the bottom line here. I realize that trying to maintain an elementary school in UH may cost more money, but I think it's worth it to try to salvage what little school support there is left here.
As I'm sure you're well aware, the relationship between CH and UH has been contentious, to say the least, over the years, particularly regarding the shared school district. Even if most residents in this city are being dragged along kicking and screaming (which often seems to be the case) in funding the district, they're still funding it. And it's not a big secret that the UH puts in more than it gets out in terms of how many students actually use the public schools. So as far as I can tell, UH is already ponying up more than its fair share and probably has a legitimate right to make a few "suggestions" in what would most benefit the city in this reorganization process. Truth be told, UH would almost certainly be much better off fiscally, at the very least (and perhaps in other ways as well), if it weren't in a school district partnership with CH. So I don't know if it's fair to suggest that UH should have to pay more to ensure an elementary school district in the city. Nor do I think that it would have to cost much more to simply move an elementary school in Plan C from Canterbury to Wiley.
John H.
2:05 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
I wasn't suggesting that UH would have to Pony up alone....everyone would have to. We are one district here- UH's problems are everyone's.
From what I gathered from the data collected by the architects and consultants, renovating Gearity would be more expensive that renovating Canterbury. However, that would be a one-time cost. Where would it go at Wiley? The building currently handles 3 grades, to make it handle 9 grades plus pre-K.....that sounds like it would require tearing down Wiley to build a much bigger school. There isn't much land at Wiley either.
If we are going to do the Pre-K through 8 school ( a la Roxboro), then we should do it like this:
1) Close and demolish Gearity moving all the students to Cantabury.
2) Build new PreK-8 campus on Gearity's massive 12 acres (second largest property in the district).
3) Move Canterbury and Wiley students to new Gearity campus. Close Wiley & Canterbury.
How does that sounds UH resident? Expensive to be sure, but effective.
UH Resident
9:03 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Your plan sounds like a possibility. However all I was really suggesting was to use the basic idea of Plan C but simply switch the roles for Wiley and Canterbury if at all possible. So Wiley (or some renovated/rebuilt/renamed school at that site) would become a primary (PK-3) school and Canterbury would become an intermediate (4-8) school. That might be the simplest and most inexpensive way to maintain an elementary school in UH, although there are certainly other ways as well. Best of all with such an idea is that Wiley is a bit more centrally-located than Gearity and I believe it would be less expensive to renovate or rebuild.