The Observation Deck

Hi all,

There's a special Board meeting this morning at 7:30, yes in one hour. It's purpose according to Treasurer Tim Penton is:

"...approval of a Resolution authorizing the Board of Education to apply for an active planning process with the Ohio School Facilities Commission, Classroom Facilities Assistance Program, for possible consideration of approval by the OSFC in July 2013 and any other business that may come before the Board of Education."

According to quotes from Jeff Patterson and Christine Gordillo, this "active planning process"'s purpose is to implement the Board's last decision regarding the School rebuilding plan, ie, renovate or rebuild Roosevelt and Lincoln, and finish the high school. And, leave Grant out of it. Ie, Grant is not going to be one of our rebuilt schools.

So all the talk this Fall about our increased enrollment, and keeping seven schools open, seems to have gone away. Along with the promise that the OSFC would be asked to come back and re-evaluate our population, and our plan.

Our superintendent is quoted as saying that the only things we have to re-examine are whether to rebuild or renovate the buildings already on the plan.

I wasn't sure that the "news" I was hearing was accurate, so I called Ed Favre and asked him about what I had read. He vehemently denied that today's meeting is about moving directly forward to implement our outdated and outrageous at the time (choose a school that costs 16 million more to rebuild?) plan.

He said that the old plan would be "revisited, but not completely." He also said that it would be "re-evaluated" but not completely. He said they were "not starting from square one."

He said that though we have a definite population increase among our youngest residents, and he believes that this population will increase even more, that it was not enough that the OSFC would consider seven schools. So suddenly, though that was a big part of Superintendent Patterson's promise this past Fall, that seems to be now be in question.

I asked about the Executive Sessions of late, where the Board has been meeting out of the public's view, to discuss the "purchase or disposal of buildings or property." Mr. Favre stressed that only vacant school properties were being looked at to demolish and dispose of.

But he also said-- "If we're doing a demo (demolition) order, doesn't it make sense to order it all at one time? Like if we are demolishing McKinley, we get a better deal if we also add in demolishing Lincoln and Roosevelt."

So I said, then this is about the old Phase 3 plan, if we're talking about demolishing Lincoln and Roosevelt. He said that it was not. He said that everything would be re-evaluated, but if one of our properties was being considered for demo and sale, they had to get moving on that, because of the law requiring public notice regarding sale of public school property. (Charter schools get the first crack at it.)

So all in all, disturbing and inconclusive information, though Mr. Favre thoroughly answered my questions, and was patient about describing the process.

Do we have increased enrollment or not? Is this another way around the back to clear land in the middle of the city for the development of Downtown, as we celebrate the fact that maybe someday the high school will be finished?

Mr. Favre that that was "emotional, biased" talk. I said that the only way that an unbiased decision could be made would be if all of the facts were on the table. Where is the student population and family population the most dense? How much will it cost to rebuild each, renovate each. If Grant is already taken off the table, it can be made to look like we had no choice but to spend 16 million dollars instead of 4 and a half million. We could use that money for teachers and programs. Especially now.

I thanked Mr. Favre for his transparency and patience. The current Board and Administration have been very responsive to the public. I am encouraged by their willingness to talk and explain. If the decisions they are making are based on taking the best care of our kids that they can, I know that they will make that clear.

The Root and Caribou are already open, get your coffee and get down to the Board building for this special meeting, where the Board will approve re-activating the Phase 3 discussion with one reading.

I will return for an update. If I got anything wrong I apologize, this was a lot of information to process quickly. I have not spoken to Superintendent Patterson or Christine Gordillo and am in no way sure that what I was commenting on above is accurate. I will find out.

Head to the meeting. It has to be short, everybody has to go to work. 7:30 is THE time that moms and dads cannot get to a meeting. It is THE time you are getting your kids ready to go out the door to GO TO SCHOOL. Just saying.

Betsy Voinovich

Here is the full text of Tim Penton's letter and the agenda for this morning's meeting. Better hurry.

Betsy Voinovich

Please find the attached Agenda for the Special Board of Education Meeting which has been scheduled for Thursday, December 13, 2012 at 7:30 a.m. in the first floor Board Auditorium of the Lakewood Board of Education building, 1470 Warren Road, Lakewood, Ohio 44107, for the purpose of approval of a Resolution authorizing the Board of Education to apply for an active planning process with the Ohio School Facilities Commission, Classroom Facilities Assistance Program, for possible consideration of approval by the OSFC in July 2013 and any other business that may come before the Board of Education.


Timothy J. Penton,

Treasurer/CFO

SPECIAL BOARD OF EDUCATION MEETING
Mrs. Betsy Shaughnessy, President
7:30 a.m., Thursday, December 13, 2012
Board of Education Building
Board Auditorium
1470 Warren Road, Lakewood, Ohio 44107
AGENDA
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Adoption of the Agenda (ROLL CALL VOTE)
IV. Business
A. Finance
1. Approval of a Resolution Authorizing the Lakewood Board of Education to Apply for an Active Planning Process with the Ohio School Facilities Commission Classroom Facilities Assistance Program (Request Approval on One Reading)
2. Athletic Trainer Services Agreement (Request Approval on One Reading)
V. Other Board Business
VI. Adjournment

Betsy,

Are you sure that the facts in your initial post are correct?


In an August 6, 2012 post, entitled, "Superintendent Patterson To Recommend Not Closing School," Jim O'Bryan posted the following:

Jim O'Bryan wrote:From the Lakewood Schools,

After thoroughly combing through data on the city’s youth population, Superintendent Jeff Pattterson [sic] has determined that closing an elementary school at this time is not in the district’s best interest due to significant growth in Lakewood’s age 0-5 population and the affect that likely will have on the district’s future enrollment.

In May, the Board of Education passed a budget reduction resolution that included closing an elementary school beginning with the 2013-2014 school year. At that time, Superintendent Patterson announced that the administration would do its due diligence in examining the data of where students live, how many would be affected by specific schools closing and the capacities of the remaining schools should one close and that he would announce his decision on which school to close in August.

“We promised the public we would painstakingly go over the data to make sure the right decision was made in regards to closing a school. In the process, we discovered that the population among our youngest Lakewood residents is growing and that closing an elementary school may not serve us well at this point in time,” Patterson said. “I apologize for any distress the earlier announcement of a planned school closing has caused parents. We are confident that reversing that decision is the right one for our current and future students.”

Superintendent Patterson will make his recommendation to the Board of Education at its meeting today, Aug. 6.

Data obtained through the U.S. Census and City of Lakewood’s live birth records indicate that 3,020 children ages 0-4 are living in Lakewood. That is compared to 2,631 children ages 5-9, or a nearly 15% increase. Historically, on average 79% of the children living in Lakewood will enroll in Lakewood City Schools. Using that figure, district officials calculated that six remaining school buildings with a capacity of 430 (the current capacity of the district’s new buildings) would not be able to accommodate the projected increased enrollment. In addition, between 500-750 students would be affected by redistricting if Grant, Lincoln or Roosevelt closed.

In an effort to replace the estimated $400,000 in annual savings that was expected to come from the school closing, the district will continue to find places to reduce costs as well as explore new sources of revenue.

In addition to asking the Board to revise the budget reduction resolution, Patterson also plans to ask the Board to request a new district enrollment projection from the Ohio School Facilities Commission. The OSFC in 2008 revised the district’s Master Facilities Plan due to decreasing enrollment at the time to include six elementary schools rather than seven be rebuilt or renovated in the district.

Due to the state’s revision of the master plan, the Board of Education in April 2009 voted to close Grant Elementary School as part of Phase III of the master plan, leaving Roosevelt and Lincoln elementary schools to be the fifth and sixth elementary schools rebuilt in the district. A new enrollment projection by the state, if it agrees to conduct one, would determine if a seventh elementary school should be re-instated in the Master Facilities Plan.

http://www.lakewoodobserver.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=11134

In your August 2012 LO article, entitled, "Superintendent Patterson: No School Closing Announcement Elementary Enrollment Up By 500 Kids," you wrote the following:

Betsy Voinovich wrote:Whereas at last evaluation, Lakewood only “qualified” for six schools, this time around, we may very well rate seven elementary schools. The State did not require the closing of any elementary schools the last time around.

http://lakewoodobserver.com/read/2012/08/07/superintendent-patterson-no-school-closing-announcementsubhead-elementary-enrollment-up-by

Matt

Lakewood City School District has posted more information about their engagement with the OSFC on their website.

http://www.lakewoodcityschools.org/districtNewsArticle.aspx?artID=1808

Their article states "the planning process will include a thorough evaluation of the district's current Facilities Master Plan along with examination of enrollment projections and building assessments as needed."

Thanks, Meg.

I posted the article earlier today and it somehow "disappeared" from this thread.

Here is the whole statement from the Lakewood City Schools' website:

www.lakewoodcityschools.org wrote:DISTRICT, STATE TO ENTER PRE-PHASE III PLANNING PROCESS

The Lakewood Board of Education has agreed to “engage in an active planning process” with the Ohio School Facilities Commission (OSFC) for its Classroom Facilities Assistance Program with the purpose of being prepared to accept possible approval into the program in July 2013. With approval, the district would be eligible for more than $46 million in state funding to help the district finish the third and final phase of its school construction plan.

In late November, the district received a letter from the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission, which oversees OSFC, asking if the district would “desire to engage in an active planning process” as the commission believes “there may be a chance we could fund your district in July 2013.”

“We welcome the opportunity to move forward with our Phase III planning,” said Superintendent Jeffrey W. Patterson. “Although this is not a guarantee that our number will be called this year, at least we are getting closer and when our number is called, we will be ready.”

The planning process will include a thorough evaluation of the district's current Facilities Master Plan along with examination of enrollment projections and building assessments as needed.

The OSFC currently has more than 140 districts on the waiting list for funding. The commission intends to evaluate how many of those districts would like to commit to moving forward with a project in 2013. Based on the information it receives from the districts, OSFC can then determine how many districts it can recommend for approval when the Commission/Controlling Board meets in July 2013.

If the OSFC includes Lakewood City Schools on its priority list after its evaluation of districts in January, a planning process would begin that would result in a master plan agreement by May 2013, with formal Board approval in June leading up to the Commission/Controlling Board vote in July.

If the district is not given approval in July 2013, the next opportunity for approval would come in July 2014.

http://www.lakewoodcityschools.org/districtNewsArticle.aspx?artID=1808

Matt

There is also a copy of the letter from the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission.



http://www.lakewoodcityschools.org/userfiles/2312/OSFC%20letter2.pdf

Meg / All

What will really be interesting is if the School Board even asks the Ohio School Facilities
Commission (OSFC) if they can keep seven schools open, which has never been taken off
the table by OSFC - ever.

It would sound from some of my discussions that the School Board has never even asked
for OSFC to keep its promise. Isn't that what the School Board said it would do in August
of 2012?

It would seem, that the sale of the buildings, errrrr, the tearing down, hence no sale of
the "buildings" was paramount back at the very beginning of this project, and the sale of
the building or commercial purposes is still what is driving the whole process, from the
faux year long committee meetings, through the last election, and some of the
candidates, to the very act of "special 7:30am meetings" after at least 3 "Executive
Sessions" to talk about the OSFC and how to get them to agree to less than seven, and
let them tear down buildings instead of re-purposing.

So now we will see where the hearts and souls of the School Board "lie." If the School
Board asks and fights for seven - as promised - then we will know it is about the kids and
learning. If they ask for six, then we will know it is to complete the City Hall agenda that
was set alive in Lakewood almost a decade ago, and their dream of Marc's type strip malls
and dollar stores all throughout the city.

So which is it?

Also, I have not heard Taft mentioned as being one of the ones being bidded out to be
torn down. I thought that is another possible location where Shawn Juris wanted to get
the new Day's Inn in Ward 3? But not as good as the plans some have that have it right
off I-90 between McKinley and Warren on the north side of I-90. while I dislike the
destruction of neighborhoods for business, it makes more sense as explained to me that
that the area around I-90 will see more commercial development.

FWIW

.