CH-UH School Facilities

CH-UH School Facilities

FutureHeights
on Nov 14, 2012

Last spring, after residents of Cleveland Heights and University Heights rejected the school facilities plans presented by the school district, a new Lay Facilities Committee was formed and charged with shaping a plan that would have the support of voters in Nov. 2013. The committee needs to hear residents' concerns regarding new and/or renovated school facilities.

Participants (19) See All

What do you think?

Anonymous
on 2014-07-25T10:32:34+00:00
Login or Register to contribute to this conversation

Recent Activity

Sam Bell
on Feb 08, 2014
"http://chuhfacilities.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/SWG-Report.pdf ..."
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Jun 17, 2013
"Hi, D.H., I'm Deanna Bremer Fisher, director of FutureHeights. I was a member of the Lay..."
D H
D H
on Jun 16, 2013
"So what's happened to this conversation since May?  It just ends.  Did it switch to some other..."
Christy Dolan
on May 24, 2013
"I guess I have to add: I do not think it serves the districts' purpose to negatively describe..."
Christy Dolan
on May 24, 2013
"Ok.  Thanks for that clarification.  So would you say that the problem with the repair regime..."
Sam Bell
on May 24, 2013
"Christy, As a snap-shot indicator, consider this: the incidence of intentional vandalism of..."
Christy Dolan
on May 23, 2013
"I am going back through these posts now for a few reasons.  I realize this is an older post.  I..."
John Clark
on May 19, 2013
"Recently, Garry Kanter pointed out to me that an administrator had locked him out of this..."
Sam Bell
on May 04, 2013
"Those seeking external validation of the recommendations made by the Sustainability Working Group..."
Patrick Mullen
on May 02, 2013
"Three documents submitted by the Lay Facilities Committee's Sustainability Working Group are..."
Patrick Mullen
on May 02, 2013
"Three documents submitted by the Lay Facilities Committee's Sustainability Working Group are..."
Sam Bell
on Apr 27, 2013
"Fran, Yes, dollars and cents are an important part of the picture.  This has been one of the..."
Fran Mentch
on Apr 26, 2013
"I am following this from the sidelines and I thank you for this conversation. I do feel that..."
Patrick Mullen
on Apr 22, 2013
"On the Meetings tab of the Lay Facilities Committee blog (link below), you'll find an updated..."
Sam Bell
on Mar 27, 2013
"Really?  Health issues aside?    and legal issues, too, I suppose!  Yes, artificial turf will..."
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Mar 26, 2013
"Health issues aside, among the reasons the district cites for advocating for an artificial turf..."
Sam Bell
on Mar 25, 2013
"the rest of the notes follow: 8. Menichini E, Abate V, Attias L, De Luca S, di Domenico A,..."
Sam Bell
on Mar 24, 2013
"Sustainability Working Group Note on proposed artificial turf installation at CHHS   The..."
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Mar 22, 2013
"Thanks, Sam. There are a lot of good ideas here. Many that the district should be able to find..."
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Mar 22, 2013
"Thanks, Brian. Her name is Vicky Knight and it is an intriguing idea. Here's a link to a brief..."
Brian Schaner
on Mar 21, 2013
"At last evening's meeting a citizen (sorry but I don't know her name) referenced the Cincinnati..."
Sam Bell
on Mar 21, 2013
"CHUH Lay Facilities Committee Sustainability Working Group Recommendations for Sustainable..."
Patrick Mullen
on Mar 20, 2013
"Brief update on tonight's Lay Facillities Committee meeting at Oxford School, starting at 7pm: We..."
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Mar 20, 2013
"I've gotten several questions from folks in the Noble Elementary School neighborhood about why..."
Garry Kanter
on Mar 19, 2013
"Another reason why this was an inappropriate venue for the BOE's (taxpayers') LFC to use. I..."
Dan Moulthrop
on Mar 19, 2013
"I'm going to jump in here and ask that this behavior stop. Too many threads in this conversation..."
Garry Kanter
on Mar 19, 2013
"The latest from my friends in Rehoboth Beach... ----------- "Board members wanted more..."
Garry Kanter
on Mar 19, 2013
"This website is about: You, Deanna, posting when meeting are My various postings Your..."
Garry Kanter
on Mar 19, 2013
"No, Deanna. You are the only person on this forum making any personal attacks. And they should..."
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Mar 19, 2013
"You continually attack other people, and perhaps I am the only person who is willing to call you..."
D H
D H
on Jun 16, 2013 - 2:49 pm

So what's happened to this conversation since May?  It just ends.  Did it switch to some other web site?  What is happening with the 'plan'?

 

Responses(1)

Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Jun 17, 2013

Hi, D.H.,

I'm Deanna Bremer Fisher, director of FutureHeights. I was a member of the Lay Facilities Committee, which has now completed its work. We presented our recommendations to the Board of Education in May, and it is now in the board's hands.

Do you have questions about the plan? Comments? This is a good place for them.

Would you like to tell us your name and what neighborhood you are from?

Deanna

 
Expand This Thread
John Clark
on May 19, 2013 - 4:06 pm

Recently, Garry Kanter pointed out to me that an administrator had locked him out of this forum[0], perhaps because his advocacy on this issue had grown particularly astringent and aggravating to some of the participants.  Garry does care deeply about this and other local issues, though, and I value the attention that he gives to them.  I'm anxious about no longer having his voice in the conversation, and I would like him to be able to once again participate.  I also strongly second the spirit of the questions posed by Cindy Hannover[1], which, in brief, is that it is unfortunate and dangerous that public conversations are being held in a private and opaquely managed forum.

There exists a conflict mediation and empathy technique called Nonviolent Communication (NVC), which can be used by everyone involved in discussions such as this to try to connect with the needs that everyone else has by acknowledging how our feelings represent these needs.  In brief, NVC consists of 1. making dispassionate observations about a key situation, 2. expressing and exploring what we are feeling, 3. identifying what needs are at the root of those feelings, and 4. making specific requests that would meet our needs.  I see a lot of feelings and needs going on in this thread, but not a lot of acknowledgement of either, which has certainly contributed to general isolation and a lack of progress on this decision.  I am quite afraid of the implications of censoring opinions that some may find unpleasant, and so I request that you restore access to this forum to Garry Kanter and Cindy Hannover, and I invite everyone to find ways to connect with each other over our mutual needs (possibly by using NVC, for example), rather than attacking and isolating each other and thus breaking down community cohesion.

[0] http://clevelandheights.patch.com/blog_posts/the-boes-the-lfcs-thought-police-hard-at-work-on-the-taxpayers-dime

[1] http://pastebin.com/6ADNkUkZ

 
Patrick Mullen
on May 02, 2013 - 2:11 pm

Three documents submitted by the Lay Facilities Committee's Sustainability Working Group are available on the committee's blog, chuhfacilities.org under the Meetings tab.

The committee will present its final report to the CH-UH Board of Education at the Board's next regular meeting, to be held at 7pm at the Delisle Educational Options Center, 14780 Superior Rd. in Cleveland Heights. The full report will be posted that evening.

 

Responses(1)

Sam Bell
on May 04, 2013

Those seeking external validation of the recommendations made by the Sustainability Working Group will be pleased at the close parallels found in the Green Building Coalitions latest  guide published in April.  http://www.centerforgreenschools.org/investmentguide

 
Expand This Thread
Patrick Mullen
on May 02, 2013 - 2:11 pm

Three documents submitted by the Lay Facilities Committee's Sustainability Working Group are available on the committee's blog, chuhfacilities.org under the Meetings tab.

The committee will present its final report to the CH-UH Board of Education at the Board's next regular meeting, to be held at 7pm at the Delisle Educational Options Center, 14780 Superior Rd. in Cleveland Heights. The full report will be posted that evening.

 
Fran Mentch
on Apr 26, 2013 - 12:04 am

I am following this from the sidelines and I thank you for this conversation. I do feel that Garry Kanter should be permitted to participate in this forum. I believe in free speech and the need for all ideas to be aired and respected. Garry is focused on the dollars and cents and in the end that is what most people will care about. Because our resources are scarcer now than they have been in the last 25 years, voters will care about money. From what I understand phase 2 of this plan has little chance of being funded. I hope Garry and others will be encouraged to talk about phase 2 in terms that the public can easily understand.

 

Responses(1)

Sam Bell
on Apr 27, 2013

Fran,

Yes, dollars and cents are an important part of the picture. 

This has been one of the main drivers of the entire facilities planning process.  We believe this is best accomplished through a focus on reducing operating costs.  This will be accomplished both through building in more efficient systems such as heating, ventilation, and lighting,  and through eventual consolidation of the number of schools.  Including proper water and stormwater management plans, provisions for solar photovoltaic electrical generation, and similar features will enable us to reduce overall utility costs.  Typically, operating costs account for approximately 80% of all expenditures over a building's lifespan; construction costs average about 20% of that total.

I think it's vastly premature to make predictions about phase 2 funding at this time.  My understanding is that, depending on the vagaries of the OSFC, some state funds will eventually become available in the form of reimbursements for approximately 14% of covered phase 1 expenditures.  These funds would then be available to help with phase 2 projects, as would certain loan proceeds capitalizing on the phase 1 operational cost savings.  A second bond levy is likely to be required as well.  Eventually, a similar percentage of eligible phase 2 costs would also be reimbursed by the OSFC.

 
Expand This Thread
Patrick Mullen
on Apr 22, 2013 - 2:34 pm

On the Meetings tab of the Lay Facilities Committee blog (link below), you'll find an updated cost estimate for the high, school, 2 middle schools and 5 elementary schools. Also an estimate for 7 elementary schools, a comparsion of features of a renovated pool vs. a new pool at the high school, and minutes from our last meeting.

Our next meeting is this Wednesday, April 24 at 7pm in the Social Room at Heights High. We will get an update from our working groups, and clarification from our consultants on the difference between a renovated and new pool. 

Our goals Wednesday:

-- clarify elements of Segment One of the project, the high school and middle schools

-- identify elements from our working groups that will be included in our final report

 

The final full meeting of the committee will be Tuesday, April 30, also in the Social Room of the High School, to review a draft of our report to the school board. 

We will present the report to the school board at their May 7 meeting.

 
Sam Bell
on Mar 24, 2013 - 10:05 pm

Sustainability Working Group

Note on proposed artificial turf installation at CHHS

 

The LFC should advise the BOE not to pursue artificial turf for the High School football fields at this time:

 

Natural grass playing fields provide a number of important biological services such as breaking down and absorbing perspiration, saliva, and blood.  Because artificial turf surfaces lack the ability to perform the ordinary biological functions of natural grass fields, all manufacturers of artificial turf playing fields specify the regular and routine use of pesticides,    fungicides, and anti‐bacterial treatments in order to disinfect the playing surfaces. [SyntheticTurfCouncil.org]  The application of such pesticides to public spaces, specifically including school-owned fields, is wisely prohibited by ordinance 1785.02 in Cleveland Heights.

 

The precautionary principle, widely accepted within the sustainability movement, urges us to err on the side of caution when considering the best response to questions where insufficient or conflicting health, safety, and/or environmental data exist.  Thus,

 

  • When it comes to children and toxins, it is safer to err on the side of         caution.

  • When it comes to clean air, water, and your carbon footprint, it is     safer to err on the side of clean air, water and lessening your carbon footprint.    

  • The presence of toxins in artificial turf is an undeniable fact.   

    • Artificial turf has been shown to contain lead (neurotoxin),         benzothiazole (skin and eye irritant), butylated hydroxyanisole,         (carcinogen and toxicant affecting the gastrointestinal, nervous, and immune system and suspected endocrine toxin) benzene     (carcinogen and developmental and reproductive toxicant), n-Hexadecane (severe irritant), 4-(t-octyl) phenol (corrosive and destructive to mucous membranes). Metals leached from tire crumbs included: cadmium (toxic at low concentrations), zinc (irritant), and selenium. (The most recent plan is to use a product containing a silica-based filling, rather than tire crumb rubber. This is a newly introduced product for which safety data is not yet available.)

    • No level of lead in the bloodstream is safe (1) and the American Academy     of Pediatrics says "There is no safe level of lead exposure."       

    • Neighbors of the recently-installed Shaker Heights artificial turf field could clearly smell, from inside their homes, chemicals outgassing from the artificial turf.       

    • From an Environment and Human Health, Inc. report: “The health assessment     looked at one chemical at a time for the artificial turf's affect on people's health - yet the data indicates that children are being exposed to a soup of toxins from these fields, and these exposures are experienced all at the same time.”   

    • The data also show that the more people who are playing on a field the         more toxins are released -- and thus the greater the exposures to         students.   

  • Science regarding the toxicity risks associated with artificial turf is limited.   

    • A  PubMed search for “artificial turf” found 84 studies (2). Of these, only 7 examined toxicity (3-9).   

    • The scope of these studies is limited to small samples or theoretical         models of release of toxins. There are no studies of long-term         exposure.

    • As the evidence is limited, students, residents and employees of         Cleveland Heights and its schools become the guinea pigs.

  • There are now a large number of studies showing potentially increased injury risks to players on artificial turf surfaces vs natural grass playing fields.  Injury rates and patterns vary with a number of factors, with each type of surface having some reported benefits. According to survey results posted at http://www.turfgrasssod.org/webarticles/articlefiles/130-NFLPA_Players_Playing_Surface_Survey.pdf, 73% of 1500+ active NFL players preferred natural grass to artificial turf playing surfaces, with only 18% preferring artificial turf.

    • The rate of ACL injury on artificial surfaces is 1.39 (95% CI, 1.11-1.73) times higher than the injury rate on grass surfaces. (Am J Sports Med. 2012 May;40(5):990-5. doi: 10.1177/0363546512442336. Epub 2012 Apr 5. Incidence and risk factors for injuries to the anterior cruciate ligament in National Collegiate Athletic Association football: data from the 2004-2005 through 2008-2009 National Collegiate Athletic Association Injury Surveillance System.

Dragoo JL,Braun HJ,Durham JL,Chen MR,Harris AH.Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, Redwood City, CA 94063-6342, USA. jdragoo@stanford.edu

 

    • Inferences relating to injury severity were inconsistent, with the exception that artificial turf was very likely to have harmful effects for minor injuries in rugby union training and severe injuries in young female soccer players....In conclusion, studies have provided strong evidence for comparable rates of injury between new generation artificial turfs and natural turfs. An exception is the likely increased risk of ankle injury on third and fourth generation artificial turfs. [Emphasis added] Sports Med. 2011 Nov 1;41(11):903-23. doi: 10.2165/11593190-000000000-00000. A review of football injuries on third and fourth generation artificial turfs compared with natural turf.Williams S,Hume PA,Kara S.Sports Performance Research Institute New Zealand, School of Sport and Recreation, Auckland, New Zealand.

    • Players sustained 25.5 injuries per 100 players, 9.3 injuries per 10,000 player-hours, and 8.4 injuries per 100 session-hours. Session rates were highest during games, on artificial turf (13.8 of 100), during foggy weather (25.1 of 100), and on clear evenings (21 of 100). [Emphasis added] Am J Sports Med. 2006 Jul;34(7):1147-58. Epub 2006 Feb 21.Injuries to high school football athletes in California. Ramirez M,Schaffer KB,Shen H,Kashani S,Kraus JF. Department of Pediatrics, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Division of Research on Children, Youth and Families, Saban Research Institute, Childrens Hospital Los Angeles, 90027, USA. MarizenRamirez@chla.usc.edu

    • RESULTS:There was no significant difference in the incidence of acute injuries between the 2 surfaces during training and competition. However, the AT [Artificial Turf] group showed a significantly higher incidence of low back pain during training (IRR, 1.62; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.48). Early adolescence and prolonged training hours were factors associated with an increased incidence of chronic pain in the AT group. [Emphasis added.] CONCLUSION:Adolescent players routinely training on AT for prolonged periods should be carefully monitored, even on AT conforming to new standards. Clin J Sport Med. 2010 Jan;20(1):1-7. doi: 10.1097/JSM.0b013e3181c967cd. Incidence of injury among adolescent soccer players: a comparative study of artificial and natural grass turfs. Aoki H,Kohno T,Fujiya H,Kato H,Yatabe K,Morikawa T,Seki J. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, St. Marianna University School of Medicine,2-16-1, Sugao, Miyamae-ku, Kawasaki, Kanagawa 216-8511, Japan. h2aoki@marianna-u.ac.jp
    • The University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture website “Turfgrass Science,” [http://turf.uark.edu/turfhelp/archives/021109.html] warns:

    • Maintenance

      •            It is a myth that synthetic fields require less maintenance than natural turfgrass fields or to say that artificial turf fields are maintenance free. Synthetic fields require 1) additional infill, 2) irrigation because of unacceptably high temperatures on warm-sunny days, 3) chemical disinfectants, 4) sprays to reduce static cling and odors, 5) drainage repair and maintenance, 6) erasing and repainting temporary lines, and 7) removing organic matter accumulation. In a recent presentation by the Michigan State University, Certified Sports Turf Manager, she cited that the typical annual maintenance costs of her artificial turf fields ranged from $13,720-$39,220, while the typical annual maintenance costs of her natural turf fields had a similar range of $8,133-$48,960.

    • Long-term costs

      •            Long-term costs are less with natural turf fields compared to synthetic turf fields. Artificial fields need replacing every 8-10 years, whereas a natural turf field does not need as frequent renovation and can be renovated at a much reduced price compared to an artificial field. In a 16-year scenario, Fresenburg came up with an annual average cost for each field type as follows: the natural soil-based field, $33,522; the sand-cap grass field, $49,318; the basic synthetic field, $65,846; and the premium synthetic field, $109,013.

    • Disposal costs

      •            When artificial turf (in-fill systems) needs renovating every 8-10 years, there is a hidden cost of disposal. Because the field is filled and top-dressed with a crumb rubber material (typically made from ground automobile tires), the material may require special disposal. Disposal costs are estimated at $130,000 plus transportation and landfill charges.”

Please see the cited web address for the associated footnotes which are omitted here.

 

    • Brad Fresenburg, a University of Missouri Extension turfgrass specialist, recently completed a cost analysis of installing and maintaining natural and synthetic fields. Fresenburg said a public agency could take the same money it would cost to install a synthetic field and instead put in a sand-capped field. The remaining money could be placed into a maintenance fund with recurring bond revenue. Then the agency would have a premium natural grass field with most of the maintenance costs covered. "Schools say ‘we don't have the money to maintain natural fields but then turn around and spend $600,000 to install a synthetic field,'" Fresenburg said. "Everyone is going to this because they want to keep up with the Joneses." Sand-capped fields are natural grass fields made with a mostly sand base. The fields are less prone to compaction and muddy conditions common in native clay soils.

  • [Gradient Corporation, a company whose risk evaluation of artificial turf has been widely cited, itself has a history of bias.   

    • They have consistently provided reports, after receiving substantial sums from industry, to argue the limited risk of a number of toxins, including arsenic in wood (10), bisphenol-A in plastics (11) and lead in the air (12).   

    • They received $700,000 from RJ Reynolds (13) to support the health         benefits of the smokeless cigarette (14).

    • “Gradient’s game, says Richard Clapp, professor of environmental health at     Boston University’s School of Public Health, “is product defense.     Its services include promoting industry positions in op-eds, providing expert testimony in court, legislative, and regulatory proceedings, and issuing scientific reports.... They wind up defending people who are worried about liability,” Clapp says,     “though they would say they’re there to make sure that there’s sound science behind whatever regulatory steps or litigation happens in this country.” (13)]       

  • Please carefully review the information on the Environment and Human Health, Inc. website regarding synthetic/artificial turf (http://ehhi.org/turf/). They receive no money from businesses, but rather are public health experts. Also, they address the myriad     concerns regarding this product (many stated above, but also the heat of the field, etc.).                

   

An artificial turf playing field is a multi-ton plastic product with a projected useful life expectancy of approximately ten years. It will then need to be disposed of and replaced.  

If no other argument (such as the blatant illegality!) suffices, let me try this:

There is a great likelihood that some or all of the field space will be taken up by construction trailers, equipment, temporary storage facilities, etc.  It will also be necessary to the site prep work to lay in drainage pipes, collectors, etc.  It is also possible that some or all of the proposed geo-thermal installation will underlay that area.   Placing anything there before the building phase has been completed would simply be wasteful.  For the moment, that would be the minimum acceptable statement from the LFC.

 

References

 

  1. CDC.     Preventing lead poisoning in young children. Atlanta, GA: US     Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2005.    

  2.     http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=”artificial     turf”

  3. Zhang     JJ, Han IK, Zhang L, Crain W. Hazardous chemicals in synthetic turf     materials and their bioaccessibility in digestive fluids. J Expo Sci     Environ Epidemiol. 2008 Nov;18(6):600-7. Epub 2008 Aug 27.

  4. Lioy PJ, Weisel CP. Artificial turf: safe or out on ball fields around the world. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2008 Nov;18(6):533-4.

  5. vanRooij JG, Jongeneelen FJ. Hydroxypyrene in urine of football players after playing on artificial sports field with tire crumb infill. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2010 Jan;83(1):105-10. Epub 2009 Sep 25.

  6. Li X, Berger W, Musante C, Mattina MI. Characterization of substances released from crumb rubber material used on artificial turf fields.     Chemosphere. 2010 Jun;80(3):279-85.

  7. Kim S, Yang JY, Kim HH, Yeo IY, Shin DC, Lim YW. Health risk assessment     of lead ingestion exposure by particle sizes in crumb rubber on artificial turf considering bioavailability. Environ Health Toxicol. 2012;27:e2012005. Epub 2012 Feb 2.   

  8. Menichini E, Abate V, Attias L, De Luca S, di Domenico A, Fochi I, Forte G,     Iacovella N, Iamiceli AL, Izzo P, Merli F, Bocca B. Artificial-turf playing fields: contents of metals, PAHs, PCBs, PCDDs and PCDFs,     inhalation exposure to PAHs and related preliminary risk assessment.     Sci Total Environ. 2011 Nov 1;409(23):4950-7. Epub 2011 Sep 9.   

  9. Gomes J, Mota H, Bordado J, Cadete M, Sarmento G, Ribeiro A, Baiao M,     Fernandes J, Pampulim V, Custódio M, 

Responses(3)

Sam Bell
on Mar 25, 2013

the rest of the notes follow:

8. Menichini E, Abate V, Attias L, De Luca S, di Domenico A, Fochi I, Forte G,     Iacovella N, Iamiceli AL, Izzo P, Merli F, Bocca B. Artificial-turf playing fields: contents of metals, PAHs, PCBs, PCDDs and PCDFs,     inhalation exposure to PAHs and related preliminary risk assessment.     Sci Total Environ. 2011 Nov 1;409(23):4950-7. Epub 2011 Sep 9.   

9. Gomes J, Mota H, Bordado J, Cadete M, Sarmento G, Ribeiro A, Baiao M,     Fernandes J, Pampulim V, Custódio M, Veloso I. J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2010 Jun;60(6):741-6. Toxicological assessment of coated versus uncoated rubber granulates obtained from used tires for use in sport facilities.   10. Liptak     A. The Poison Is Arsenic, and the Suspect Wood. New York Times. June     26, 2002. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/26/us/the-poison-is-arsenic-and-the-suspect-wood.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm   

11.    States Consider BPA     Restrictions; FDA Says 'Safe'. Integrity in Science Watch. August     18, 2008.http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/press/200808181.html   12. EPA Met with Industry Prior to Final Lead Rule. Integrity in Science Watch. October 20, 2008.     http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/watch/200810201.html

13. Gross     L. The Toxic Origins of Disease. PloS Biology. 2007 Jul;5(7):1392-8.     http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050193. See     especially the section “Skeptics for Hire.”   

14. Contract: Gradient Corporation to Organize Conferences on the Smokeless     Cigarette.     http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/oif53d00;jsessionid=B5C8EAAF905DC7CD94E407CD14368DDF.tobacco03

 
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Mar 26, 2013

Health issues aside, among the reasons the district cites for advocating for an artificial turf field is the fact that the field could be used by other sports teams. Currently, it is only usuable by the football team. So we would need to take into account the installation and maintenance costs of the fields those other sports are using now to see if this is cost-effective.

 

 
Sam Bell
on Mar 27, 2013

Really?  Health issues aside?    and legal issues, too, I suppose! 

Yes, artificial turf will allow some more organizations to utilize the field.  Please consider total costs in whatever matrix of evaluations you choose, and do not rate medical, legal liability, and environmental costs as zero.

 
Expand This Thread
Brian Schaner
on Mar 21, 2013 - 5:20 pm

At last evening's meeting a citizen (sorry but I don't know her name) referenced the Cincinnati school system and the effort they have made to provide "wrap around" services to the community through their schools.  It is an intriguing idea.  Cincinnati is very proud of this program and it might be a good idea to actually visit them to see what they are doing and if it could be a fit for us.

Information is available on the Cincinnati Public Schools website.  Here is the link:

http://www.cps-k12.org/community/CLC/CLC.htm

 

Responses(1)

Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Mar 22, 2013

Thanks, Brian. Her name is Vicky Knight and it is an intriguing idea. Here's a link to a brief description of the program. I think our district was beginning to think along similiar lines when it hired a consultant to explore potential partnerships, but I'm not sure where that process led as many of the potential partners didn't want to be identified at this early stage of the game.

This is an idea worthy of exploring with the philanthropic community as we would definitely need their support.

Another aspect of the program is that each school has a group of parents, teachers, local business owners and other community members that develops partnerships and programs that fit the unique needs of each neighborhood. So each school does not have the same programs. That's a key point because many have expressed a desire to have exactly the same opportunities available in each building in our district.

Can such a program help us retain more of our buildings? The OSFC does have a minimum number of students that it requires for each building or we wouldn't be in compliance with their program and ineligible for their funding.

 
Expand This Thread
Sam Bell
on Mar 21, 2013 - 7:39 am

CHUH Lay Facilities Committee

Sustainability Working Group

Recommendations for Sustainable Schools

The Sustainability Working Group of the Lay Facilities Committee makes the following recommendations for our schools at this critical redesign and rebuilding of our schools. These recommendations consider overall design and implementation, buildings and outdoor space, operations and transportationin to order increase healthy space for our children and staff to live in and to minimize the adverse impacts of our operations on our planet.

 

Design Stage:

 

  • Hire a sustainability specialist (grand poohbah) for the District to oversee the process from this point forward

  • Hire a local architect with a proven record in green design or to be a consultant to the lead architect and the construction manager with attention to usability

  • LEED is outdated and also very expensive just to attain the certification. The District should aim for higher standards, such as Carbon Neutral buildings on any new construction.

  • Any/all new designs with attention to Renewable Energy Ready Planning (RERP), passive solar and wind orientation of new buildings and landscaping.  Alternate-source-ready construction, especially on any renovated or new exterior walls.

  • Passive solar orientation of new buildings and solar capture on southern exposures of existing buildings

  • provision for recycling and evolving waste-stream handling facilities built-in/designed-in at each facility

  • Plan for reuse of the many beautiful features from our existing buildings, eg oak doors and their hardware can be refurbished rather than buying new

  • Sourcing to use locally made products, from bricks to solar panels to paint

  • Green roofs

  • Kitchens in each building

  • Gardens under glass and space and light for indoor plants

  • Low VOC paint

 

  • Comprehensive stormwater management plan for each site.

  • Allow for “cutaway” design elements in each building for educational purposes, e.g. transparent wall sections surrounding labelled pipes, conduits, etc.

Destruction and Construction

 

  • Hire a sustainability specialist (grand poohbah) for the District to oversee the process from this point forward

 

  • Place concrete K-barriers around trees and shrubs to protect them during construction. Orange barrels and plastic fence are insufficient protection as they can easily be moved.

  • Recycle demolition waste, as possible

  • Deconstruct and reuse or sell material, as possible

  • Be aware of the need for asbestos remediation in many buildings

 

The following recommendations are general guidelines to be considered for each building:

 

Utilities:

 

  • New, energy efficient HVAC  (programmable and controllable)

  • Geothermal wells for heating and cooling

  • Solar roofs, solar parking lot canopies

  • Solar awnings to shade windows

  • Solar hot water for bathrooms and pre-treatment for boilers

  • Alternate energy source-ready construction

  • Monitors for data display of energy generation and use within each building in centrally located space within each building will encourage human behavior changes

  • Proper ventilation that includes heat-exchangers and effective filtration of particulate matter, especially in the PM 2.5 range

  • Day-lighting

  • Alternate/additional communications/energy distribution -ready construction (several moderate diameter empty conduits in walls)

  • Fiber optics (daylighting, communications, lighting?)

  • Energy efficient lighting options including high-efficiency fluorescent and LED and emerging technologies

 

Plumbing:

 

  • Waterless urinals; low-flush toilets; dual-flush toilets

  • Grey-water collection for use in toilets and landscape

  • Water purifying system on potable water

  • Verify condition of sewage pipes

 

Insulation:

 

  • Increase insulation R-factor in walls and roofs

  • Thermal mass for insulation

  • Caulk!

  • Wrap heat ducts with insulation batting

  • Install insulating, reflective or security window film (such as 3M) on windows, as appropriate

 

Recycling:

 

  • Hire a sustainability specialist (grand poohbah) for the District to oversee the process

 

  • Recycling center within each building

  • Provision for recycling and evolving waste-stream handling facilities built-in/designed-in at each facility

  • Easy outside storage of and access to recyclables and trash for haulers

  • Recycle demolition waste during reconstruction

  • Sourcing materials for new construction and reconstruction locally

  • Plan for composting kitchen and post-consumer cafeteria food waste

The following recommendations are general guidelines to be considered for Outdoor Space at all sites:

 

Set goals to minimize unproductive Open Space, such as turf grass and impervious surfaces. At the same time, maximize aesthetically pleasing, yet highly productive Open Space. Measure cost and environmental effects of these actions. To do this, incorporate the following with plans and construction of the buildings:

 

Curriculum

 

  • Math and science, English, poetry, art, all benefit by outdoor experience as part of the curriculum

  • Incorporate farming and gardening into Career Technical education

  • Learning gardens

  • Weather stations

  • Outdoor amphitheaters/classrooms

  • Health - food and exercise

 

Playgrounds and Athletic Fields

 

  • Opportunities to play with physics and nature

  • Woodchip or other natural, pervious footings

  • Organic turf care, including the HHS football field

  • Determine actual need and minimize size

  • Specifically disallow artificial turf on school grounds

 

Geothermal Fields

 

  • Placement and type of ground cover need consideration

  • Design for increased capacity

 

Paved areas (parking and sidewalks)

 

  • Pervious paving

  • Solar collection canopies over parking

  • Air compressor for inflating car and bike tires on solar-collection canopies

  • Bioswales, curb cuts around and within parking areas designed to catch and filter all stormwater runoff, part of a comprehensive stormwater-management plan for each site

  • Tree islands with adequate footings and structural soil underpaving

  • Alternatives to salt for de-icing

  • Safe (and fun!) routes to school for pedestrians and bicyclists

   

Bike racks

 

  • Safe for riders and locked bikes

  • Adequate number

  • Easily accessible near building entrances

  • Visually pleasing

  • Covered, solar roofs with air compressor for filling tires

 

Lighting

 

  • Outdoor lighting for parking and safety should be LED, motion-activated, except possibly where intermittence would create a nuisance to neighbors.

  • Outdoor lighting shielded and directed to minimize light pollution spilling off property

 

Soil

 

  • Rainwater collection in rain barrels and cisterns

  • Increase carbon sequestration - In temperate climates, soil is the largest potential reservoir of carbon.

  • Increase natural sources of nitrogen, potassium and phosphorous

  • Regular aeration

  • Reduce compaction

 

Gardens

 

  • Learning Gardens, including space for a Career Technical Education site

  • Community Gardens

  • Rain Gardens for rain barrel overflow (or divert to supplement grey-water system)

  • Aesthetically pleasing native flower gardens

  • Outdoor classrooms - implement curriculum for environmental education and hands-on learning

  • Rooftop Gardens

  • Permaculture Forests

 

Tree communities

 

  • Create an Urban Tree Canopy Inventory. (Grant money is available from the EPA for tree planting to protect water quality of Lake Erie.)

  • Plant large shade trees to increase canopy at each site. (Grant money is available from the EPA for tree planting to protect water quality of Lake Erie.)

  • Increase overall tree canopy across the District to at least match the tree density of the surrounding neighborhoods

  • Mulch and plant forest ground cover to replace grass under trees. This will decrease mowing costs and increase tree health.

 

Responses(1)

Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Mar 22, 2013

Thanks, Sam. There are a lot of good ideas here. Many that the district should be able to find support for from the philanthropic community.

 
Expand This Thread
Patrick Mullen
on Mar 20, 2013 - 6:14 pm

Brief update on tonight's Lay Facillities Committee meeting at Oxford School, starting at 7pm: We don't yet have pricing information on the scenarios that we're considering, but will have them for the April 10 meeting at Wiley Middle School. Tonight, we'll hear from the Community Subcommittee with highlights from last week's community meetings at the three middle schools, and from the Sustainability Commitee, with an update on their work.

On the meetings tab of chuhfacilities.org, I've posted a pdf of summary sheets with questions from last week's meetings.

 
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Mar 20, 2013 - 11:16 am

I've gotten several questions from folks in the Noble Elementary School neighborhood about why Oxford Elementary is preferred over Noble.

Here are some of the reasons:

The Oxford site is 9.75 acres, while the Noble site is only 4.6 acres. So Oxford has more green space, parking and cirulation (pick-up/drop-off), and so is more flexible and has more room for expansion should the need ever arise.

When the Ohio School Facilities Commission evaluted the buildings in 2010, it reported that it would take $13.5 million to renovate Noble, while the cost to renovate Oxford was $11.4. The reasons for this have to do with the types of additions that have been added onto the buildings over the years, how efficient/inefficient they are and how the floor plates of those additions either match up or don't match up with the original building.

Oxford is located among a "hot spot" of students attending the district according to attendance maps.

Both buildings were originally constructed in the 1920s. They are solid and architecturally significant. Oxford contains WPA-era murals, which would have to be moved if the building were closed.

We will have more information on potential renovation costs soon from the districts consultants.

If anyone has more questions or comments about Noble, Oxford or any of the other specific buildings, please let us know.

 

 
Garry Kanter
on Mar 19, 2013 - 2:19 pm

The latest from my friends in Rehoboth Beach...

-----------

"Board members wanted more information on where a fifth elementary school would be located and which middle school the students would attend. Bassett said the district requested a detailed population study of the district from the University of Delaware to determine where future growth may occur. The cost is $12,500 for the study. Bassett said he did not know how long it would take to complete the report.

----------

Now, why didn't I think of that?

http://capegazette.villagesoup.com/p/cape-school-board-considers-middle-school-expansions/976269

 
Garry Kanter
on Mar 19, 2013 - 9:02 am

Let's actually discuss the $140-ish MILLION Phase I. As I understand it, it would be the high school and the middle schools.

I'll address the middle schools with this post.

According to the 2010 study, there will be 1,225 students enrolled in the CH-UH middle schools.

A Boulevard Middle School capable of handling 600 students is right on target.

As part of the scenarios already discussed, then, we need to know the cost to accomplish this.

As well as the costs to revitalize the three existing middle schools.

As I've mentioned before, we need to know where the enrolled population will be living.

We also need to know the future financial value (sale or lease, less operating expenses) to the district of a closed Roxboro Middle, a closed Wiley Middle, or a closed Monticello Middle. Even a closed Boulevard Elementary.

And a sale would begin to generate property taxes for the schools. Which would be more or less, depending on the property value.

We also need to consider the impact to the cities of closing schools. Even beyond the CH/UH discussions. Maybe certain choices could have a positive impact on a city. Maybe some choices will have an outsized negative impact on a city.

I don't claim to have the answers. But I know what questions need to be asked. And until they're asked, they won't get answered. And thoughtful decisions aren't possible.

-------------

Here's where I got the enrollment:

http://www.chuh.org/includes/uploads/pdf_files/district/OSFC/building_enrollment_report.pdf

 
Garry Kanter
on Mar 19, 2013 - 6:59 am

So, this committee has focused almost exclusively on the school closing scenarios, having decided to offer no recommendation on Grade Configurations or Learning Communities.

The committee will only offer it's "recommendation" to the BOE on the school closings, which is about one middle school, and three elementariness.

And the elementariness aren't even part of Phase I, which is the levy that We The People are voting on on November.

Am I the only one that sees a disconnect?

 

Responses(1)

Garry Kanter
on Mar 19, 2013

Let's suppose the Phase II levy will be in five years.

What has the 2018 CH-UH BOE said about their intentions to rely on a five year old recommendation from this committee?

Or are you all expecting that the BOE will be comprised of the same five members?

Simply more Logical reasons why this committee has *not* accomplished what it was charged with.

ps Sorry about the bad spelling of "elementaries" in the prior posting

 
Expand This Thread
Garry Kanter
on Mar 18, 2013 - 11:10 am

Maybe someone could explain why this has to be passed RIGHT NOW! due to borrowing capacity decreases after 2013, but it won't be a problem coming back for more to pay for Phase II ?

 
Garry Kanter
on Mar 18, 2013 - 7:53 am

From The CH-UH Lay Facility Committee's website...

Which explains why every private citizen (lacking "constituencies that should be represented") that applied to be on the committee was turned down. By Invitation Only is mutually exclusive with Community Engagement.

See, I kept thinking membership would be about skill sets, not just perceived standing in the community. You know, the ability to gather, analyze, and present data as information in all the disciplines a huge undertaking like this requires.

But no, we get the usual suspects.

-----------------

Q. Who chose the committee’s members?

A. All five members of the CH-UH Board of Education identified constituencies that should be represented on the committee. Board President Karen Jones worked from those lists in extending invitations to take part in the committee’s work

 

http://chuhfacilities.org/faq/

 

Responses(4)

Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Mar 19, 2013

Everyone had an opportunity to join subcommittees, and several people who are not LFC members did so. You attended at least one sustainability working group meeting, were given an assignment and you decided to take yourself off. You came to one of the building subcommittee meetings. All of the meetings were open to the public and to public particpation, including yours.

 
Garry Kanter
on Mar 19, 2013

“Never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel.”

I've already had a bite of that apple with the way you handled my request for support against the $4 MILLION Lee-Meadowbrook tax abatement. Remember?

Without any advance indication, instead of aiding me, the Observer posted two favorable opinion pieces from FutureHeights board members. Neither of whom ever contacted me.

 
Garry Kanter
on Mar 19, 2013

Your inappropriate attempts to discredit me actually point out the extent of engagement.

My attendance at a Sustainabilty work group meeting, a Buildings Sub-committee meeting, put me ahead of 99.99% of my fellow community members.

And, as far as I can tell, that also puts me ahead of about half of the LFC committee members.

And I've watched LFC meetings on the CH-UH website.

So, please, stop your personal attacks.

 
Garry Kanter
on Mar 19, 2013

"...were given an assignment and you decided to take yourself off." - DBF

I don't repond to heresay. Especially when it's wrong.

I used to expect better from the publisher/editor of a newspaper.

 
Expand This Thread
Garry Kanter
on Mar 18, 2013 - 7:36 am

Being as anything coming form this committee is a "recommendation" to the BOE, what the taxpayers will really be voting on is simply the 5.9 mil tax increase.

So, whatever recommendations you all come up with are moot upon presentation. Pointless.

The committee was actually created as a way of rebuilding Trust and Transparency with the community.

Well, given that

  •  The promise of community-wide membership and involvement was a sham
  • Very little meaningful data has been gathered
  • Whatever data that has been gathered is only presented to We The People after being filtered through members' personal biases
  • Committee presentations are not supported by the data reported just a year ago to support Plan C

I have no intention of voting for that tax increase. And I hope my neighbors won't, either.

 
Garry Kanter
on Mar 16, 2013 - 5:33 pm

As explained to me by a committee member, Learning Communities are the opposite of Open Classrooms.

That is, rather than one size fits all in all situations, the Learning Communities are an integrated system that allows for almost limitless reconfiguration of a space. With sound proof walls.

If this is correct, then the analysis and communication of the utility, pros and cons, and costs - for each building, of such a design decision are *exactly* what should be a focus of the LFC.

Instead, imho, you all got it backwards, and spent all your time on the highly controversial school closing scenarios - without knowing anything about the future enrollment by neighborhood. 

 
Garry Kanter
on Mar 15, 2013 - 12:05 pm

And if after months of heated discussions, you all decide to kick the can on even a "reccommndation" on Grade Configurations or Learning Communities, then it seems to me that recommending which schools to close is waaay beyond your scope.

Do you guys ever consider things like Logic when you make and announce such decisions? Or that the taxpayers/audience/fellow citizens *do* rely on Logic when making decisions?

 
Garry Kanter
on Mar 15, 2013 - 7:21 am

I just posted this on the CH Patch. I hope you'll each read through this serious effort to get a bond levy passed in 2013.

---------------------

Forget whatever notions you have about the BOE's schemes for the $206 MILLION.

The simple facts are:

  • They have let the buildings get rundown - over $40 MILLION as of 2007. It's lots higher now.
  • We have fewer students than ever
  • Some previous construction wasn't so good

So, what the students need is buildings that are safe and conducive to education in 2013 and beyond.

There's you're problem statement.

The answer is to determine, for each of the 15 (?) buildings (including, in some way, the district office, Taylor, Coventry, and Millikin) how much do we have to spend.

And we would develop solutions that show:

  • lowest cost to remediate
  • lowest cost to operate
  • greatest sustainability

And these four categories would be all we need to group things by:

I. Building systems:

  • roofs
  • windows
  • boliers
  • kitchens
  • bathrooms

II. Building additions - Listed in detail by building. Each addition's "defects" would be identified. Imho, simply being built subsequent to WW II is not a defect, but I won't be making your decision for you.

III. Grounds -  parking lots, fields, etc - It's all about safety, cost and sustainability.

IV. Other - for instance, Boulevard and Fairfax, I guess

This isn't complicated. It's not easy, either. But don't let anyone tell you it's not simple.

http://clevelandheights.patch.com/blog_posts/fine-ill-just-do-the-darn-thing-myself-right-here-and-now

 

Responses(1)

Garry Kanter
on Mar 15, 2013

Subsequent thoughts...

Once the levy is passed for the amount the community has been shown, and agrees is necessary and beneficial, a citizen (and others) committee would be established for each building (and related grounds).

These people would likely be advocates for "their" building. Or not.

Each committe would have one or two chairpersons, who were part of a district-wide buildings committee that established scopes, procedures, etc.

There would be no limits on the committee size for each building.

Then, very meticulously, the when, wheres, and hows of the project would be developed by the committees, all as recommendations to the BOE, or course.

 
Expand This Thread
Garry Kanter
on Mar 14, 2013 - 10:45 am

Here's the link to the Sun Papers editorial singing your praises.

Apparently, they've understood your mission quite clearly, while I kept thinking this was supposed to be all about that "Vision" thing.

Silly me. It's just $206 MILLION, and the future of our community.

"No one plan will satisfy everybody, of course, but the goal has been to find one that offers the least amount of resistance from the community, which is especially critical because voters will be asked to approve a levy this fall to fund the facilities plan."

http://www.cleveland.com/cleveland-heights/index.ssf/2013/03/getting_closer_to_a_facilities.html

 
Garry Kanter
on Mar 14, 2013 - 6:32 am

By the way, Committee, that was BS eliminating the 2nd Questions and Comments session - that was on the agenda - because that mini-survey took too long, Wednesday night.

We The People were there to ask questions, not answer them.

 

Responses(13)

Garry Kanter
on Mar 14, 2013

In fact, the order of the agenda was changed, putting the mini-survey ahead of the Questions and Comments.

Without notice that the Comments and Questions were being eliminated.

Make that, "TOTAL BS".

 
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Mar 18, 2013

All of the LFC members stayed after the meeting to answer questions and listen to comments. You were rude to Eric Silverman when you said he was "wasting your time" when he attempted to answer your question. You may disagree or you may have questions, but, IMHO, when you are uncivil and call everything BS, you can't expect that anyone will want to engage with "You the People."

 
Garry Kanter
on Mar 18, 2013

I said he was "using" my time.

Thank you for the documents.

Otherwise, your responses add no value, and merit no response from me.

 

 

 
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Mar 19, 2013

Perhaps that is what you thought you said, but that's not the way I or others in the room heard it.

 
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Mar 19, 2013

Oh, and thanks for telling me that my responses add no value. You've been complaining that no one is engaging you. When you insult people, it shuts them down. If you want to have a conversation, then you need to listen and value what other people have to say.

 
Garry Kanter
on Mar 19, 2013

I don't "want a conversation".

I want data. And logic. And thought.

All of which are absent.

 
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Mar 19, 2013

Oh, this website is about civic conversation. Hopefully, the conversation will include data, logic and thought, but opinions are OK, too.

 
Garry Kanter
on Mar 19, 2013

This website is about:

  • You, Deanna, posting when meeting are
  • My various postings
  • Your personal attacks on me

I don't see anything else.

 
Garry Kanter
on Mar 19, 2013

Let's be clear, Deanna, I had the floor during the designated Questions and Comments time.

And Eric was being Eric.

Once again, this is not about Garry Kanter.

This is about the total failure, on every level, of the LFC. Which was convened at the request of, and as per the preferences of, Reaching Heights and FutureHeights.

Why don't you refute any of my postings -with supporting facts, rather than attacking me?

 
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Mar 19, 2013

You continually attack other people, and perhaps I am the only person who is willing to call you on it. Eric was answering your question, and you rudely interrupted him and said he was wasting your time.

Using phrases like "total failure, on every level" is definitely an attack. You undermine your own credibility.

 
Garry Kanter
on Mar 19, 2013

No, Deanna. You are the only person on this forum making any personal attacks.

And they should stop.

I have offered:

  • Sharp criticisms of the workings and output of the BOE & LFC
  • Suggestions on how and what the LFC should be doing
  • Defenses against your attacks

You seem to think that as I have offended your sensibilities that it is OK to attack me. You are wrong.

As to my credibility - another personal attack by you - I am very comfortable with who I see in the mirror.

 
Dan Moulthrop
on Mar 19, 2013

I'm going to jump in here and ask that this behavior stop. Too many threads in this conversation quickly become non-productive and then of limited use to the broader community.

One of our guiding principles here is optimism, by which we mean we look for solutions, not problems. The point of this place isn't to provide a forum for every complaint or a detail of every perceived failing. The point is to provide a place for the community to solve the problems it faces and to support one another in doing that. 

The principle of optimism (along with civility and five other values we hold dear) is something you agreed to do your best to uphold when you created an account. So, to be clear, if you can't be optimistic and if you find yourself unable to be productive, you're welcome to leave the conversation. If you continue to behave in a way that runs counter to the principles of the Civic Commons, we'll be forced to disable your account.

Or, you can choose to participate in a productive manner.

Thanks.  

 
Garry Kanter
on Mar 19, 2013

Another reason why this was an inappropriate venue for the BOE's (taxpayers') LFC to use.

I will not have my attitude questioned, or dictated by any moderator.

I will continue posting as I have in the past. I hope the person making personal attacks against me will stop.

Mr. Moulthrop, you may do as you see fit.

-----------------

"So, to be clear, if you can't be optimistic..." - Dan Moulthrop

 
Expand This Thread
Garry Kanter
on Mar 14, 2013 - 1:31 am

I attended the old Boulevard Elementary and Roosevelt Jr. High in the CH-UH system.

Both schools occupied the site where Boulevard Elementary stands today.

The idea that the property is not large enough for an 800+ student middle school strikes me as counter-intuitive, at best.

 

Responses(6)

Garry Kanter
on Mar 14, 2013

According to that document that has the repairs backlog and the renovations costs by building:

  • Boulevard is on a 10.7 acre site
  • Montilcello on 10.16 acres
  • Wiley is on 12.34
  • Roxboro is on 13.92

http://www.chuh.org/news/detail/2012/4/5/ch-uh-facilities-planning-plan-c-fact-sheet

And the same document shows there are currently 1,247 students enrolled in the three middle schools, with an expected decrease in total district enrollment by 2016-2017 from 6,047 to 5,575, or 472 fewer students.

If I heard correctly, the presentation I saw Wednesday night described, at length, the need for middle schools that could handle 1,600 students.

Again, something isn't adding up here. I'm looking for Trust and Transparency, not salesmanship.

 
Garry Kanter
on Mar 17, 2013

And now that I think of it, Eric went on a great length about how Milliken could handle 1,000 students, and Boulevard no more than 600.

And that would *only* be if dirt were brought in for Boulevard.

But that wouldn't be good, because the kids would sled into traffic on Lee Road.

Every single word above was given at the Roxboro meeting last week as explanation for why a particular scenario had to be scrubbed.

------------

So the data shows two sites both about 10 acres, plus or minus.

I'm told that the larger one is insufficient. But the smaller one is really swell. But I'm only given anecdotal explanations. Which, at the time, defy logic.

Then I discover they most probably defy the facts.

This is one great example of why I don't believe *anything* you folks say.

While building Trust and Transparency was the committee's charge.

Another failure by the BOE and LFC.

 
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Mar 18, 2013

Garry,

The consultants looked at Boulevard as the site of a single elementary school and as one of two elementary schools. They concluded that the Boulevard site was not large enough to house a single middle school and the reuired athletic fields. They also concluded that, if Boulevard were to be the site of one of two middle schools, its maximum capacity would be 600 students. The topography of the site would also require expensive retaining walls. The consultant's data, as well as the preference shown for two middle schools in the community survey, were why the LFC determined that Boulevard is better suited for an elementary school, rather than a middle school.

Attached is one of the studies conducted by the consultant. The yellow would be the footprint for Boulevard as a single middle school. As you can see, in this scenario, there is no room for atheltic fields.

There are two other studies that I will upload separately as I think this site only enables the loading of one file at a time.

 
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Mar 18, 2013

Here is study #2, which shows Boulevard as a middle school site for 600 students. Note the necessary retaining walls.

 
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Mar 18, 2013

And here is study #3, showing a different configuration for a 600-student middle school on the Boulevard site. Note that expensive retaining walls are still needed.

 
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Mar 18, 2013

Sorry. I just noticed that the first file I uploaded was the wrong one. Here is Boulevard study number one.

 
Expand This Thread
Garry Kanter
on Mar 14, 2013 - 12:24 am

I was at Wednesday night's meeting.

I don't care how many times he says it, what venue he says it in, or how many colors he puts on a Powerpoint, an addition to a building is *not* offensive simply because it was built post WW II.

The apparent acceptance of that glib lack of meaningful analysis causes me discomfort regarding everything else put forth by the BOE and the LFC.

 

Responses(1)

Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Mar 19, 2013

There are many reasons why the LFC has recommended the removal of most of the post-war additions:

1) Many of the additions use space inefficently. Many are only one-story, where it would be more efficent to have as many stories as the original building. For example the addition to Roxboro Middle School takes up a third of the building, but houses only a fraction of its class rooms.

2) The floorplates of these additions do not match up to the original, causing ADA accessibility issues and making it difficult to move equipment throughout the building. A systematic renovation of buildings should address these issues.

3) Many of these additions are the main access point for the buildings but were not intended for this function, nor do they house the main office. This not only creates more ADA accessibility issues but is also a safety issue. With heightened concern over school security, this is not how we want our buildings configured.

4) The structural issues of these buildings fall into two categories. Those from the 1950s and 60s have low claustrophobic ceilings and cinderblock walls, which are difficult and expensive to move. Those from the 1970s have soaring ceilings, which serve no function but must be heated and cooled. Some of the additions closed in open air courtyards, blocking natural light from the rest of the building. Others covered over original entrances with one-story additions that are an inefficient use of space.

These additions could be renovated, but in a comprehensive renovation program it would make more sense to to remove them. The state's analysis says that we have excess space. We know we have inefficient use of space, and that is what we seek to fix. More efficient buildings will mean lower operating costs and, ultimately, lower taxes for the public.

 
Expand This Thread
Garry Kanter
on Mar 13, 2013 - 6:31 pm

This document from the CH-UH website contains a table that lists the $40 MILLION in back repairs by school.

The $ amounts are from 2007. I will try to get info on what those $ amounts are today.

CH-UH Facilities Planning - Plan C Fact Sheet

April 5, 2012

http://www.chuh.org/news/detail/2012/4/5/ch-uh-facilities-planning-plan-c-fact-sheet

 

The same table, in a 2nd column shows the OSFC estimate to entirely "renovate" all 11 schools.

"**The 2010 OSFC Assessment represents the cost for a complete renovation of each school building to OSFC standards. Since the Master Plan takes into consideration closing schools, this number is only used for comparison to the overall project budget estimate."

That total is $225,660,167. For 11 schools.

 

There's a lot that needs to be explained, when y'all want top spend $206 MILLION for no more than 7 schools.

And this lends credence to the anomaly I pointed out compared to the Rehoboth Beach project at $80 MILLION less than $206 MILLION.

 
Patrick Mullen
on Mar 13, 2013 - 5:58 pm

Full text of repsonses to open-ended questions asked as part of the Lay Facilities Committee Community Survey are available here: http://chuhfacilities.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CHUH_Lay_Facilities_Survey_Findings-Open-Ended.pdf. These and other documents presented at committee meetings, along with minutes, can be found under the Meetings tab at chuhfacilities.org

 

Responses(1)

Christy Dolan
on Mar 13, 2013

Thanks!  These are very interesting to read.  I am about 1/3-/1/2 through....I hope the committe and BoE is considering and contemplating each comment.  I recognize it is a lot to get through and think about, but it is interesting and telling.

 
Expand This Thread
Christy Dolan
on Mar 12, 2013 - 5:34 pm

Do you know when/where the comments from the survey will be posted?  I apologize in advance if they already are...I just cannot find them.

Thanks.

 
Garry Kanter
on Mar 12, 2013 - 11:50 am

As I posted not too long ago, I used to live in Rehoboth Beach, so I follow the local news.

Just from the two articles I've read, and linked, I already know 10 times more about the methodologies, goals, why, how, when, and where of their project than I do regarding the LFC's project.

http://capegazette.villagesoup.com/p/board-hears-plans-for-new-schools/973374

 
Christy Dolan
on Mar 11, 2013 - 10:23 pm

Last year there was a density map distributed that provided a lot of information...I am sure I have it but I think it would be helpful to post/publish again.  This particular density map was for the entire district (K-12).  At the time, I believe it was requested to create these for the different grade groups:  K-5, 6-8, and 9-12, but I never saw that if it was created. It was especially interesting if you want to consider "gerry mandering" boundaries which I think Mr. Shergalis just brought up again. And "balancing" of the district.  I would appreciate it if you could post last year's density map and even more appreciative if you could get a hold of the density maps by grade configuration.  I believe having this informaiton would prove helpful for the public in considering the variolus scenarios/issues and evaluating the cost estimates that have been requested. 

Thanks!

 

 

Responses(6)

Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Mar 12, 2013

I've asked Steve Shergalis for an electronic copy of the density map. He said he would find it and send it to me. He says there is no such map for density by grade level.

 
Christy Dolan
on Mar 12, 2013

Can he create one?

 
Garry Kanter
on Mar 12, 2013

Christy, is that a map of today's population, or of a future point in time?

 
Christy Dolan
on Mar 12, 2013

My understanding is that it is today's population (from date created).

 
Garry Kanter
on Mar 12, 2013

Thanks, Christy.

To my way of thinking, then, that would *not* be the appropriate decision-making tool/data to use for this once-in-a-lifetime, multi-generation-serving $206 MILLION project.

What does the committee know about population projections in our community?

 
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Mar 15, 2013

Steve Shergalis just sent me this student density map. He says that it is based on March 2012 data and is the most up-to-date version he has.

 
Expand This Thread
Christy Dolan
on Mar 05, 2013 - 10:03 pm

Hello!  

I wanted to clarify something for tomorrow's meeting...you are definitively going to vote on which 3/6 proposals to be costed out by Regency before the community meetings?  And to get to that point you are hoping to come to a consensus on grade configuration, #middle schools, #elem schools and whether or not the learning community concept will be recommended or included in the cost out tomorrow night?  

Also, I wanted to know when the agendas for the community meetings will be available?  

Thanks for your clarifications and also thank you all so much for your efforts on this committee!  I do recognize that you are taking your personal time to devote to this particular issue for the CHUH schools.

 

 

 

Responses(36)

Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Mar 06, 2013

Thanks for your question, Christy. I'm not sure that I can say with certainty that there will be a vote this evening to choose three of the six scenarios to send on for costing. We know that we cannot ask the consultants to cost out all six scenarios and expect to have the costs in time to be able to make recommendations to the board of education. So we are planning to narrow down the scenarios to no more than three.

Another part of the questions is will the three (or fewer) scenarios we request to be costed be one of the current six or some new scenario that comes out of new information or new ideas we have learned since the scenarios were first presented on Jan. 29. We've learned from the consultants that the district does not currently own a site on which a single middle school could be placed without a need to house playing fields elsewhere. Hopefully, the survey results will help us understand how important the community thinks it is that we explore the idea of a single middle school.

Hopefully, the survey will help give direction on whether four or five elementary schools would be best.

The bottom line is that we need to make some decisions at this meeting.

 

 

 

 

 
Christy Dolan
on Mar 06, 2013

Ok thanks.  I realized that the plans could change from the original six...mostly I wanted to clarify that your goal for tonight is to make some of these hard decisions prior to the community meetings scheduled for next week.  

 
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Mar 07, 2013

So we did make a number of decisions last night. Of the six scenarios presented by the building subcommittee on Jan. 29, 2B was the one selected to be sent to the consultants to be costed. In fact, two versions of 2B: the first with Gearity as the elementary school in University Heights and the second with Wiley.

We decided that having one middle school was not feasible. We also decided that Boulevard was not an adequate site for a middle school. this eleminated several of the scenarios: scenario 1, scenario 3A and 3B.

Scenario 2C created problematic attendance boundaries. 2A eliminated all of the elementary schools in the western part of the district.

In addition to costing out the two versions of 2B, we also asked the consultants to provide a benchmark by giving us a cost of keeping all seven elementary schools open, but with only two middle schools. We want to be as cost effective as possible, but don't want to create mega schools or harm neighborhoods where buildings would close.

I hope many Heights residents can join us to discuss the survey results and these scenarios, as well as ask questions on March 12, 13 and 14. The meetings begin at 7 p.m. March 12 is at Wiley Middle School, March 13 is at Roxboro Middle School, and March 14 is at Monticello Middle School.

 

 

 
Garry Kanter
on Mar 08, 2013

Do I understand correctly plan 2B (with the UH elementary location to be determined) is the only suggestion from the LFC that is moving forward?

If so, I'm not sure what is left for the public to discuss other than "yea" or "nay".

Nor is this single "result" anywhere near what I expected from this committee.

Oh, I guess you all recommended doing the elementaries last, and having a second levy for that. Which seems to have escaped thoughtful discussion and recognition of the risks and consequences.

What if the public has the same expectations - for more info, and less decisions - as me? Then what?

 
Garry Kanter
on Mar 08, 2013

What happens to the current $40 MILLION of repairs that are overdue?

How much of that $ figure is associated with the elemtaries?

 
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Mar 12, 2013

Garry,

I asked Steve Shergalis to comment on the $40 million and he said via e-mail: A 2007 IKG facilities evaluation report on the district's website is the origin of the $40 million figure. Because we don't yet have a comprehensive Master Facilities Plan, he can't answer for sure how much of the $40 million in needed repairs will be addressed, but that he would imagine the majority will be.

In answer to why the district has a $40 million backlog, he said, "no school district, ours included, can put enough money away year by year to address all of its capital projects needs as buildings age."

 
Garry Kanter
on Mar 12, 2013

Thank you for that, Deanna.

I do not consider those responses as adequate explantion for $40 MILLION.

And it wold seem like I'm to expect such unexplained and undefined backlogs as a regular course of business.

A concept which I reject.

 
Christy Dolan
on Mar 08, 2013

Thanks.  Yes I was there for part of that meeting.  In addition to deciding on those scenarios to cost out, Mr. Wilcox and Mr. Posch also reopened the issue of whether this committee feels it is necessary to retain an elementary school within the city of University Heights.  I am going to encourage as many people as possible to attend a community meeting and reach out to Patrick Mullen. 

 

 
Garry Kanter
on Mar 08, 2013

Christy Dolan, I'm curious about this statement:

"I am going to encourage as many people as possible to attend a community meeting and reach out to Patrick Mullen."

Patrick Mullen is Executive Director of Reaching Heights, and a co-chair of the LFC.

He has no decision making authority, elected, or otherwise. What is your goal?

 
Christy Dolan
on Mar 08, 2013

I should have been more clear.  I will encourage them to reach out to him if they are unable to attend a community meeting...goal is just to allow them to voice their opinion to someone on the committee and as he is the chair, I picked him.  I really don't care who people reach out to as long as they reach out to let their concerns be known.

 
Garry Kanter
on Mar 08, 2013

Thanks. Good luck with that.

Imho, for over 6 months now, it has been pretty clear that this committee and it's enablers are not interested in hearing from We The People.

Their words say they want to be inclusive, their actions demonstrate otherwise.

For example, you and I both submitted written requests to be included as members of the LFC. And we were both turned down.

In fact, there are *no* members of the committee who were not *invited* to be members. 100% of the committee's membership is comprised of The Usual Suspects.

In fact, when two "regulars" were asked to choose between themselves for one spot, they lobbied - successfully - to *both* be included.

That's no way to build the community's "Trust", eh, Jim?

And of course, the arbitrary limit of 25 members could have been exceeded without consequence. Well,  except for having to hear and consider, rather than blow off, differing viewpoints.

Peace, Christy. The heck with the rest of y'all.

 
Christy Dolan
on Mar 08, 2013

Garry,

I do consider the presence of Phil Ertel, Pam Cameron and Jodi Sourini on the committee to be more representative of University Heights than is typical.  Not that the committee as a whole is listening to their thoughts on that issue, but I don't feel they are part of the "Ususal Suspects".  Otherwise, I pretty much agree with you regarding the general public's representation.

 
Garry Kanter
on Mar 08, 2013

Well, I don't know who those people are, except for Pam Cameron.

I had a very brief, informal conversation with UH Councilperson Cameron, and she described her role on the committee using the term "watchdog".

Which, once again, is different than my understanding of what membership in the LFC was intended for.

Still, I believe all three people you mentioned were "invited" to be on the LFC. No "applicants" from the community at large were deemed fit.

By the way, one *could* read your comments as it takes three people, whose only role is too look out for UH's interests, and they can't get that simple task done. So, even *their* "outside" voices weren't heard by the LFC.

Bah! The whole thing is a sick joke on so many levels.

 
Garry Kanter
on Mar 09, 2013

I looked it up, and Mr. Ertel is a UH councilperson, who "shares" a membership on the committee with Ms. Cameron.

I never liked that arrangement in the first place. It implies that attending meetings is the only responsibility of membership.

And Ms. Sourini was identifed by her association with the Gearity PTA in the Patch article that listed all the members.

So, no, those are *not* three community voices that have been newly engaged by the LFC. Rather, they are more of the same.

And each has a "constituency" to represent, with "expectations". Which I presume you have pretty much shared with us.

All well and good, but not what was promised, and not what was needed. Not by a long shot.

 
Jodi Sourini
on Mar 09, 2013

Garry, 

I am definitely not one of the usual suspects. In fact, I was pretty surprised when I was invited to be part of the LFC since I had spent last spring and summer as an active member of the Save Our School effort and the Heights Deserves Better group that petitioned to get Plan C removed from consideration. I eagerly joined the committee hoping we would have an open and transparent process this time around and that we could create meaningful and positive change for the good of our collective communities. I joined because I wanted a process we could trust. Unfortunately, I am becoming increasingly discouraged. The usual suspects are heavily influencing the process and are ignoring or discounting any idea that doesn't support their preconceived view of how they want things to be. Sam Bell's Sustainability Committee has done excellent work which is constantly dismissed, ignored or undermined. Our community deserves an excellent educational system. I remain on the committee because I believe it is important to be part of the solution no matter how hard of an uphill journey that is. Right now, it feels like that road is getting steeper. I am glad we have people in this community who continue to speak out and voice their opinions.

 

 
Garry Kanter
on Mar 09, 2013

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

"Usual Suspects" can be debated, but to no benefit.

That you were "invited", as was every single member, is not in dispute. Nor is my 6 month old disgust with the make up of this very exclusive committee.

Since we share many similar viewpoints, I should close my comments, and wish you, us, well in our efforts to see that things are done thoughtdfully.

But, that's not me. So I'll point out that the committee's membership choices appear based on something *other* than the skillset each member posesses. No outreach to architects, engineers, builders, project managers, financial analysts. Just the same old friends.

So, the committee simply shmoozed one another, repeating nothing but the same opinions, concerns, and cautions. And pretty much, as far as I can tell, are going with some version of what Eric Silverman has pushed for. With only his explanations/interpretations, not unbiased underlying data, as support.

What questions has the committee answered? How close to  "optimal" will either of the Plan 2Bs get the district for the next couple of generations? What *would* a clean sheet solution look like? Why must the elementaries be last, if they get done at all? How did $40 MILLION of repairs get backlogged, what happens to them, and what's to prevent their reoccurance?

I don't see anything in the least that even acknowledges that there are questions to ask, other than, "How     many schools will we need in UH in order to pass at least two levies? and "Will the voters accept 5th graders in the same building with 8th graders?"

Those are *not* the questions that I need answered in order to understand the requirement for $206 MILLION.

I've reread a lot of documents going back to the BOE's changed vote, and *ALL* is see is broken promises and pandering.

Oh, and Sam and the entire Sustainability "Work Group" deserved greater respect than they were accorded by the LFC. Starting with that demeaning "work group" nomenclature.

Peace.

 
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Mar 11, 2013

When you say "clean sheet solution" what do you mean?

 
Garry Kanter
on Mar 11, 2013

"Clean sheet" mans without regard for current assets or constraints.

"In a perfect world, based on our best understanding of how the population of the district will change over the next xx years, where are the optimal locations for schools, how many, and what grade configs, etc.?"

This question causes the analysis to be long term oriented, causes assumptions to be considered, decided and agreed upon, and provides a benchmark for how good any proposed solutions actually are. And lots more.

Imho, it should have been Step 1 for the LFC.

Thank you for asking.

 
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Mar 12, 2013

I agree that it would have been nice to have more time to complete the task at hand, but I don't think looking at a "clean sheet" would help. We have existing buildings on existing sites, and neighborhood that have been built up around them. The fact that we have to close buildings and possibly disrupt neighborhoods is what makes this project so difficult. We were under the gun to get something on November's ballot before we even started. We all wish we had more time, but we don't. The finance committee analyzed the situation and concluded that if we don't get a facilities bond issue on the ballot this November we will lose the ability to obtain the funding needed.

 
Garry Kanter
on Mar 12, 2013

There's always time to do the job the right way. But it is easy to waste that time. That's what's happened here.

And it always pays to have the necessary info before making a big decision. There is no reasonable alternative.

 
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Mar 12, 2013

We had and continue to have a very tight timeline. At the Jan. 9 LFC meeting, Dave Tabor, chair of the money subcommittee, reported that "if the project slips into 2014 we will lose the ability to raise $40 million from a bond issue." The reason for this has to do with the fact that property values have decreased over the last several years because of the recession and the state's formula is based on a rolling 10-year cycle. That's the reality.

 
Garry Kanter
on Mar 12, 2013

Yes. I've been very close to this situation since the board reversed their levy vote.

In fact, I spoke very passionately at the BOE meeting that followed that reversal.

Not knowing about the old facilities committee, and not knowing that Future Heights and Reaching Heights had already arranged this committee with the BOE, I implored the BOE to set up a committee that would create a shared vision for this huge undertaking, and engage all the concerned, enthusiastic residents of CH and UH who have amazingly varied and deep skill sets to tackle this beast.

Instead, we got this committee.

You all got exactly what you wanted, with only who you wanted on it. You set up your own timetables and goals.

As far as I can tell, beyond the actual committee, "the community engagement" is represented by half a dozen folks on the Sustainability Work Group, plus Volunteer Advisor Mark Chupp.

Plus that way-too-late survey.

And the sustainability folks have already had their work contradicted in print by the BOE. Nice.

As I have posted and discussed endlessly since that BOE meeting, this committee was improperly and poorly constructed, and has brought forward nothing of value towards understanding *anything* about the need for $206 MILLION, or how it would be spent.

And spending $40 MILLION RIGHT NOW!! - because we can, but without explanation - is of no interest to me.

But hey, what I think doesn't really matter. You got a bunch of taxpayers that want to see the fruits of your labors.

And it's SHOWTIME!

 
Garry Kanter
on Mar 12, 2013

In any case, the proper time to discuss and debate goals, strategies, roles, tactics, etc. was six or eight months ago.

Which I did in a series of e-mails with an LFC member - who approached me.

Nothing came of it, of course.

 

 
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Mar 11, 2013

Jodi,

What views do you believe are being discounted?

 
Jodi Sourini
on Mar 11, 2013

I expressed the view that we should be very careful about moving forward based on assumptions, especially the assumption that the High School should go first. I advocated for asking Regency Construction to give us costs for doing different phases of the project first so we could see what would be most cost-effective. This idea was ignored and discounted. Also, I asked if we could look at two middle schools with one being at Monticello and one being at Wiley, this idea was also discounted without further exploration on the belief that the Roxboro neighborhood would not support losing either of its schools. Mark Chupp made the same suggestion at last week's LFC meeting so we'd have more than one plan with 2 variations to consider. His suggestion was also discounted. I have also asked for the data that indicates that Gearity is indeed the most valuable property to sell or repurpose. No data has ever been provided. These are just a few examples.

 
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Mar 12, 2013

I know many of these ideas were discussed at the building subcommittee. I thought there was concensus on moving forward with the high school first, but if there isn't perhaps we should revisit it at the subcommittee level and bring back a recommendation to the full committee.

In regards to a middle school at Wiley, we discussed this idea at the building subcommittee and the conclusion was that we could recommend a plan that had either an elementary school or a middle school in UH, but not both. Plan C closed the elementary school. UH has made it very clear that the elementary school is the priority. The new plan would close the middle school instead. I don't think Roxboro had anything to do with that decision.

You should ask again about the data on Gearity's sale value or potential. This should factor into whether we recommend the Gearity site or the Wiley site for the elementary school.

 

 

 
Christy Dolan
on Mar 09, 2013

Garry,

I will admit that my primary vocal focus is that University Heights retain an elementary school, but that does not negate my many other concerns with Plan C or this entire process, last time and this time.

There is very little trust remaining with this process, district or BOE.  I don't necessarily have any particular skillset or expertise that would qualify me to be on this committee, but I am a homeowner, resident, taxpayer and consumer of the school system's product.

 With regard to my "expectations" of Mr. Ertel, Ms. Cameron and Ms. Sourini and their seat at the table ... well my hope was that they would be able to infuse some new ideas while representing the rights/concerns of the citizens of University Heights and students who attend the schools in University Heights, from retaining a public elementary school in our city to developing a rational cost effective way to manage our buildings and all the details that includes.  These are also issues that are common to both CH and UH residents.

I don't think it is abnormal that citizens of University Heights would expect to have some representation this go around and this is what was offered via invitation.  I think they have done a good job to the extent they have been able to. And it is more representation than I had last go around.

 
Garry Kanter
on Mar 09, 2013

It is a pleasure discussing these concerns that we share.

And I'm glad that more of your concerns have had representation.

But as I describe above, I haven't seen anything else "new" receive any attention.

We'll see how the community at large feels soon enough.

Heck, I did all I could to bring these shortcomings to the committee's attention, on this forum since December, at least - it's too hard to scroll to the top of this single thread on my tablet to get the exact date -and with individual members and all over the place online since day one.

And to date, I haven't seen a single member of the public come forth, patting the committee on the back.

 
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Mar 11, 2013

Garry,

It is my understanding that the Board of Education choose the members of the LFC.

Deanna

 
Garry Kanter
on Mar 12, 2013

I'm not sure why you mention that, Deanna, but I don't think it's correct.

In the documents I requested under the FOIA, I saw no communication between board members discussing the case for or against any of the *applicants* for the LFC.

All I saw was the replies where the applicants are dismissed by the BOE's then-President Jones.

I see no indication that there was a mechanism, or intent, for the board to evaluate and accept any outside applicants.

Nor, from the documents I received, is there any indication that anyone but Ms. Jones decided on the membership.

 
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Mar 08, 2013

Christy,

Scenario 2B maintains an elementary school in University Heights, we're just not sure if it should be at Gearity or Wiley. So, even though the committee didn't vote on that specific issue, our intention is to have an elementary school in UH. Under 2B a school will be closing in UH, and that will be the middle school.

Deanna

 
Christy Dolan
on Mar 08, 2013

Deanna, I apologize for crazy formatting in advance....While I am glad it is your stated intention that we retain an elementary school in University Heights, that is not enough.  The fact that Patrick asked for a vote on this issue, debate ensued, and in the end, no vote was taken speaks volumes regarding the “intent” of the whole committee on this issue.As it has been stated time and time again, everything and anything is up for change by the time the elementary schools are funded (through the 2nd bond issue years in the future) and worked on (many years in the future).  The BOE members and district administration (superintendent on down) may all be different by the time the elementary schools are considered.  By that time, a middle school in UH will be impossible and UH could be left with no school at all if there is no resolve that it deserves one. The best hope for consistency in thought is through the residents who care about the schools; and that hope is currently represented by this Lay Facilities Committee.  If you (as a committee) cannot vote to support the need to keep an elementary school in UH and don’t understand or agree with its importance, I fear there is little left to discuss from my perspective. The communities first need to buy into the idea that we need improvements in our facilities.  In 2006, our buildings were declared to be in Good condition by Dejong.  Gearity in particular had no issues.  They have been left to rot, possibly to prove the need for this expensive rebuild/renovation?  Anyway, if you can get past proving the need for this project, then come the nitty gritty details (about grade configuration, which buildings, how important old architecture is, reuse of property etc etc etc).  I personally agree that the buildings need major work; however, I still question how they were left to get to this point.  And I don’t think the need has been placed forefront to the public (voters), many of whom have no kids in the schools and don’t see the issues on a regular basis.  We’ve become mired in the nitty gritty before we proved the essential need to the voting public If maintaining an elementary school in University Heights – or any school in UH for that matter- is not an important consideration amongst all the others, then there really is nothing more to talk about, from a UH citizens standpoint.  It is arrogant and short sighted.  The citizens of UH pay a lot of taxes to these schools and our property values will be affected by the lack of any school representation, specifically at the elementary school level.  We are fighting for our last and only school in this district (although % wise UH deserves more).  And I personally want to know how these involved and interested “community representatives” on this committee feel about it…and I want to know by a public vote.

 
Christy Dolan
on Mar 08, 2013

I don't know why my response posted that way and I apologize because it is annoying to me and probably to all viewers!

 
Patrick Mullen
on Mar 11, 2013

Hi Christy,

There were a couple of reasons I tabled the vote specifically calling for an elementary school in University Heights. One, every plan calls for an elementary in UH. So in a way, the tabled vote would be akin to voting to keep the high school at its current location. Such a vote wouldn't be needed since there are no plans that would do anything else.

My second reason gets to the ongoing tension between the two cities. As became clear last Wednesday, there are residents of each city who are concerned that their city's interests will be take a back seat to those of the other city. By raising the question of voting to confirm that there will be an elementary school in UH, I whacked the hornets' nest, and I didn't need to do that. Once we had narrowed down the possible scenarios, I could have simply pointed out that each one has an elementary in UH. Hindsight is 20-20.

To make it clear, there is no scenario remaining that does not include an elementary school in University Heights. I've been accused of "throwing UH under the bus." Not true. The question of greater importance is weighing the relative merits of locating that school at Gearity or Wiley. 

While it would be great if we all based decisions that will affect future of the school district by weighing the good of the school district as a whole, the fact is that we have a district that includes two cities and parts of a third. I recognize that fact, and the committee's recommendations will reflect it. 

 
Christy Dolan
on Mar 11, 2013

Hi. Quite frankly you did need to whack the nest, because it was coming sooner or later.  I recognize that every current plan being considered has an elementary school in UH.  However, I also recognize that everything with regard to the elementary schools is up for grabs IF the first bond issue passes and a plan is registered with OFSC. (that is if the plan is still to do the HS and MS first).  That means UH will lose its MS and if the general consensus on this committee and among the "general school people" (that is most of the LFC )isn't that UH deserves at least one school..our elementary school/our only school/our last school could be taken away too. 

I want a vote from the committee...I want to know how everyone on this committee feels regarding this issue.  I think it is only fair to this BOE and future BOE and citizens from all communities that they know where these particular LFC members stand on this issue.

 

 
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Mar 11, 2013

Christy, You make an excellent point about the fact that specifics about the elementary schools could change by the time a second bond issue is proposed. There are several elementary school issues that should be discussed further and nailed down now--not so many that we would tie the district's hands in the future--but enough to ensure that certain basic intentions are carried out.

I expect further discussion on this when the costs come back from the consultants. If we can afford five elementary schools and agree to closing the UH middle school, why not commit to having an elementary school in UH?

 
Expand This Thread
Sam Bell
on Mar 03, 2013 - 12:11 pm
Historic Tax Credits?  My apologies.  I had been told that Lakewood had used Historic Preservation Tax Credits in their recent schools project.  That information turns out to have been mistaken.  I am sorry to have wasted everyone's time and effort by not verifying the information personally.  A bill to allow local school districts to utilize this method of funding died without making it to a floor vote in each of the last two sessions of congress, in spite of reportedly widespread bipartisan support.  I understand a similar bill is being introduced in the current session.  Not holding my breath. It would be prudent to keep an eye on the progress of such a bill, and to plan our projects, to the extent otherwise practical, in such a way as to become eligible  should the legal landscape change. 

There is an example of a successful project in the Appomattox VA area, but it hinged on several factors that might be hard to duplicate here.  Among these was changing the use of the building from "abandoned high school" to "regional high school for the gifted and talented."  It is (barely) conceivable that the District could move out of, say, Monticello or Rox Middle for a period of time, then return them to use, but more than that would also be required under the current law.

 

 

 

 

 

Responses(1)

Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Mar 04, 2013

I had a feeling it was too good to be true. We'll have to keep an eye on that bill. From the beginning of Ohio's school rebuilding process, which created the OSFC, there has been a bias towards new construction, rather than renovation of older structures.

 
Expand This Thread
Garry Kanter
on Feb 25, 2013 - 3:53 pm

I used to live in this school district, so I still follow the local news.

Somehow, their three phase facilities project will include building 5 new school buildings plus a lot of expansions and remodeling, all for $125 million.

Meanwhile, the $206 MILLION for the CH-UH project remains explained.

-------------------

Facilities Task Force finalizing schools plan

A Facilities Task Force will present its findings on future needs of district elementary schools to Cape Henlopen School Board Feb. 28.

"The lion's share of what we're doing is because we're out of space, but it's also to have the best schools going forward into the 21st century," said task force member Christopher Weeks.

...

A preliminary cost for new construction, renovation and equipment for the new facilities was estimated at $125 million. This price, however, does not include money to buy land for an anticipated new school, said Brian Bassett, director of administrative services.

The task force is made up of 23 members; about half are district employees. The other half is made up of parents, former educators and grandparents...

http://capegazette.villagesoup.com/p/facilities-task-force-finalizing-schools-plan/963788

 

Responses(3)

Sam Bell
on Feb 26, 2013

Apples & Oranges

Garry,Just an FYI: the Cape Henlopen plan is to build four (not five) new schools, to add on to two others, and to renovate one other. [http://capegazette.villagesoup.com/p/facilities-task-force-finalizing-schools-plan/963788] These are all elementary schools which do not require the same types or amounts of specialized classroom and laboratory spaces as middle schools or high schools.  It is unclear whether their cost estimates include site preparation work or merely the basic construction costs.  The Cape Henlopen estimates do not include acquisition costs for the planned new sites.Our district will probably wind up with a plan entailing one new elementary school building, the renovation and/or expansion of at least three other elementary schools, renovations to one or ---more likely--- two middle schools, and a major renovation of the high school. No wonder it will likely cost more.

 
Garry Kanter
on Feb 26, 2013

Fair enough, Sam. I see how I added up to 5 instead of 4 - "In Phase 3 new schools..."

The CH-UH plan calls for no more than 1 new school, also an elementary, is that correct?

But I feel "Straw Manned" a little bit. I explained how I came across this example, making no claim that the two situations were "identical".

I hope you would agree a delta of $80 MILLION is certainly worthy of note.

Too bad nobody has bothered to quantify any of those varying building costs you refer to. They needn't be "unknown". But they still are. And that's the problem.

 
Garry Kanter
on Feb 26, 2013

Apparently I tried to edit the above after the time alloted. This is the complete updated response...

-----------

Fair enough, Sam. I see how I added up to 5 instead of 4 - "In Phase 3 new schools..."

The CH-UH plan calls for no more than 1 new school, also an elementary, is that correct?

But I feel "Straw Manned" a little bit. I explained how I came across this example, making no claim that the two situations were "identical".

I hope you would agree a delta of $80 MILLION is certainly worthy of note.

And it is "apples to apples" as far as neither figure included site aquisition or prep costs. (If Cape's figures *did* include them, that would make the difference even *greater*.)

Too bad nobody has bothered to quantify any of those varying building and equipment costs you refer to.

Maybe they're a lot higher, maybe not. Who knows? But I can buy a lot of Bunson burners and iPads for $80 MILLION.Ya know?

Those renovation and equipment costs needn't be "unknown".And I don't mean a huge f-ing lump sum figure.

But they still are unknown. And that's the problem.

 
Expand This Thread
Garry Kanter
on Feb 21, 2013 - 5:46 am

Being as The Survey will represent about 50% of the total output of the LFC, there will be a natural tendency to consider the results as being equivalent to those from a "scientific poll".

Before any results are known, say, on the buildings configuration preferences, I would like to state that The Survey appears subject to any and all biases, errors, unintentional misuse and intentional misuse.

Accordingly, I hope the results will *not* be presented as being "representative" of the community's point of view. Because there is nothing to indicate that is a true or valid statement.

 
Garry Kanter
on Feb 19, 2013 - 11:43 am

It seems to me that The Observer's, FutureHeights', the Observers' publisher's, and the organization's executive director's relationship to the LFC should be fully disclosed with each article or column on the topic of the LFC.

Maybe the same for the sister-organization, Reaching Heights, and it's executive director.

http://www.heightsobserver.org/read/2013/02/19/lay-facilities-committee-seeks-to-narrow-options-requests-community-input

 
Sam Bell
on Feb 16, 2013 - 7:57 pm

CH-UH LAY FACILITIES COMMITTEE

SUSTAINABILITY WORKING GROUP

This list is a followup to the Sustainability Working Group presentation of 2/13/13.   More info to follow. 

Available Documents List

Please contact the listed author for text or more informationThe Promise of Sustainable SchoolsSam Bell, lustywrench@gmail.com  Brief synopsis.Solar at Delisle  Mario Mastrandrea,mastrandrea@sbcglobal.net   Recommendation for pilot solar arraySWG Advisory re mechanical operations  Sam Bell, lustywrench@gmail.com   Recommendations regarding bus garage and mechanical trades sitingRecommend Next Architect Selection Use Best Expertise,  Allen Wilkinson  aw@chaff.biz  Recommendations regarding best energy efficiency standards and practices, includes critical recommendation as to architect/construction management selection and expertise.Education-for-Sustainability,Brett Josephbjoseph59@gmail.com

Sustainable Educationencompasses the entire learning process, and constitutes a paradigm shift that places education within the context of an emerging sustainable society. It produces learners who think critically, systemically and reflexively.”

A deeper view of the interrelationships between sustainably designed and engineered school buildings, student achievement and civic involvement, staff and community development, and a sustainability-focused educational curriculum.Sustainable Curriculum Foundations,Brett Joseph et al.bjoseph59@gmail.comLays out some practical considerations for implementation of sustainability focused learning across broad subject areas.CH-UH School Transportation and Groundskeeping Energy Usage,Sam Bell,  lustywrench@gmail.comThis is a work-in-progress not yet available, but anticipated soon.Open Spaces, Laura Marks,  lfmarks@sbcglobal.net  This is a work-in-progress not yet available, but anticipated soon.The Sustainability Wishlist, lfmarks et al., lfmarks@sbcglobal.net  A detailed list encompassing input from all the papers above. This is a work-in-progress not yet available, but anticipated soon.Recommendation and Advisory Regarding Artificial Turf at CH-UH Schools, lfmarks,  lfmarks@sbcglobal.netBrief review of the legal status and scientific research in this area.

 

Responses(6)

Jewel Moulthrop
on Feb 17, 2013

Thanks for this list, Sam--really helpful!

 
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Feb 18, 2013

Sam, can you provide links to all of the documents you listed here?

 
Sam Bell
on Feb 20, 2013

Deanna,

as stated, the papers are available from the (named) lead authors.   I have provided an email link for each author.   The one for which I am lead has already been posted to this site (above).  Please contact the named authors for the latest versions of theirs.    I will publish my next report to this site when it has been completed. 

 

Thank you.

 
Sam Bell
on Feb 20, 2013

CH-UH School Transportation Energy Usage and Carbon FootprintThe purpose of this brief SWG paper is to examine the gasoline and diesel fuel usage of the CH-UH vehicle fleet with an eye to establishing a  carbon footprint baseline.  The initial hope was that rough measures of energy efficiency could also be derived, but inaccuracies in the record keeping apparent in the raw data provided (121 pages) has made that task difficult.  Suffice it to say, there are buses in the fleet which get about 5 mpg, others which get 8.6, and still others which fall outside these ranges.  Some buses (#1, for example) log well over 1,000 miles per month during the school year, while others, such as #19, go less than half that distance.   Although other operators in similar climates (e.g., central Michigan) report an average of 6.4 mpg for diesel powered school buses in urban driving cycles, ours seem to fall considerably short, with most clustering well below 5.5 mpg on average, a shortfall of 15%.  Some of our vehicles get less than 4 mpg, according to available data.  [It should be noted that an idling vehicle gets precisely zero mpg, so excessive idling may be a factor.]  All told, transportation operations accounted for  a reported 102,986 gallons of fuel (primarily diesel)  at a total fuel cost of $360,872.39 for the 18-month period of 7/1/11 through 12/31/12.General groundskeeping fuel use will be reported and examined elsewhere. For the purposes of this report, we will use the accepted carbon dioxide (CO2) conversion factors of 10,180 gm/gal for diesel and 8,887 gm/gal for gasoline. With transportation consumption of ~ 96,679 gallons diesel and ~ 6407 gallons of gasoline during the 18-month study period, a total of  ~ 693,400 kg/year [[~762 Tons/yr] is calculated.  Since most of the releases take place during the academic year, average monthly releases during that period are likely to be proportionately higher, probably amounting to some 3.3 Tons per day.The figures above do not include carbon releases by private automobiles of faculty, staff, parents, or private autos used by students.  Nor does the figure include carbon releases for those who use public transportation.  Anecdotal evidence suggest that few students, faculty, or staff use public transportation.  On all but the very mildest of days, most students arrive at school via Board-provided bus or private automobile.  analyst: Sam Bell  

 
Sam Bell
on Mar 01, 2013

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SqN97uQH4KcDtGRwLwvaCQ_mkOOZxuZtjBvr486wpQY/edit

CHUH Lay Facilities Committee

Sustainability Working Group

Recommendations for School Playing Fields

Whereas:We recognise the need to renew the CHUH playing fields, particularly the HHS football field, andArtificial turf needs to be cleansed with pesticides, and pesticide use is prohibited on public property and school grounds in Cleveland Heights by ordinance 1785.02, andArtificial turf substrates, whether crumb rubber or silica, contain known carcinogens, andInjury rates increase on artificial turf, andHeat stroke rates increase on artificial turf, andArtificial turf is more than three time as expensive as well maintained organic fields, andArtificial turf decreases stormwater absorption compared to well maintained organic fields,We hereby recommend to the Lay Facilities Committee to recommend to the CHUH School Board to direct the administration to engage in organic turf playing field care, andPut off further discussion of renewing the HHS football field until such time as the facilities master plan is complete, andSpecifically to prohibit the installation of artificial turf on CHUH school grounds.

CHUH Lay Facilities Committee

Sustainability Working Group

Recommendations for School Playing Fields

Whereas:We recognise the need to renew the CHUH playing fields, particularly the HHS football field, andArtificial turf needs to be cleansed with pesticides and pesticide use is prohibited on public property and school grounds in Cleveland Heights by ordinance 1785.02, andArtificial turf substrates, whether crumb rubber or silica, contain known carcinogens, andInjury rates increase on artificial turf, andHeat stroke rates increase on artificial turf, andArtificial turf is more than three time as expensive as well maintained organic fields, andArtificial turf decreases stormwater absorption compared to well maintained organic fields,We hereby recommend to the Cleveland Heights City Council, Planning Commission, City Manager and Planning Staff to prohibit the CHUH City School District from installing artificial turf on CHUH school grounds, andWe also recommend allowing the artificial turf at Denison park to live out its useful life and then replace it with a well maintained organic turf playing field.

 
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Mar 04, 2013

In 1985, the City of Cleveland Heights passed an ordinance banning the use of pesticides on public property, including schools, unless the Environmental Review Board reviews the case and determines that the application is necessary for public health and safety or the preservation of property, and does not pose harm to residents.

It's my understanding that artificial turf requires chemical cleaning so it seems that the city would have to make a determination on this.

Membership of the Environmental Review Board consists of the city manager, the director of the department of community services (or their representatives) and the chairman of the public safety and health committee of council. Jason Stein is the current chair of Public Safety and Health. Susanna Niermann O'Neil is acting city manager and director of community services.

 
Expand This Thread
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Feb 13, 2013 - 11:44 am

The Lay Facilities Committee will meet this evening, February 13, at 7 p.m. in the Roxboro Elementary School auditorium. On the agenda are a presentation by the sustainability working group, a report by the buildings subcommittee, and a survey and community outreach update by the community subcommittee. We hope the public will attend and ask questions or give feedback either on this site or to individual members of the LFC in preparation for the committee narrowing down the scenarios for the consultants to cost out.

 

Responses(3)

Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Feb 13, 2013

I'll post a link to the survey here as soon as I receive it.

 
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Feb 13, 2013

And here it is! Please share this survey with your CH-UH friends and neighbors. The surveys must be completed by Saturday, March 2.

 

 
Jewel Moulthrop
on Feb 20, 2013

I just took the survey and urge others to do so.

 
Expand This Thread
Garry Kanter
on Feb 11, 2013 - 7:49 pm

What a bad joke...

 

November 15, 2012, this page's first posting from "FutureHeights:

------

"Engaging the community in the planning process is a key goal of the LFC, and here is a place to do that. Whichever aspect of the LFC’s task concerns you the most, we want and need to hear your thoughts. We invite participation from all residents of the CH-UH community and members of the Lay Facilities Committee, as well as from the school board and administration. Join the conversation now; don’t wait until it’s decided for you."

=====

February 11, 2013, Sun Press article:

-----

Cleveland Heights-University Heights schools' lay facilities committee to use survey to get input from residents on building scenarios

The committee will use the results of the survey to narrow six scenarios to three at its 7 p.m. meeting March 6 at Canterbury Elementary School.

The LFC’s community subcommittee, which is developing the survey, decided Jan. 29 to ask the community to weigh in on all six options — rather than waiting until they have been narrowed to three — on the recommendation of Mark Chupp, volunteer advisor to the subcommittee.

“The community wants to know what’s happening with the process,” Chupp said. “Engaging the community now says, ‘We care about what you think.’

“Also, going earlier with the survey provides an opportunity to get feedback before you have limited options. There could be a sense of resentment that you didn’t consult with the community before you came away with three (options).

“So I think it’s better to do it sooner than later.”

The goal is to present the survey data to the committee March 6 so it can identify the three scenarios to be recommended to the school board in late April, said Patrick Mullen, who chairs the LFC.

 
Garry Kanter
on Feb 09, 2013 - 9:42 am

Sooo, no longer even the *pretense* of attempting "community engagement"?

 

Probably for the best, I suppose.

 
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Feb 05, 2013 - 9:56 am

The Building Subcommittee will meet at 7 p.m., on Wednesday, Feb. 6, at the Coventry School Building. On the agenda is reevaluating the six scenarios the group presented to the LFC based on feedback from experts and LFC members at the Jan. 29 meeting and other feedback from the general public.

If you have questions or comments for the Building Subcommittee to consider, please post them here or contact a member of the subcommittee directly. You can e-mail me at dbfisher@futureheights.org.

 

Responses(2)

Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Feb 07, 2013

In case you have read that the LFC is considering six scenarios and are wondering what they are, see the attached. We need to narrow down the scenarios to about three, which can then be costed by the consultants.

 

What do you think of the proposal for a single middle school? Two middle schools?

 

 
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Feb 07, 2013

At the Jan. 29 LFC meeting, Steve Shergalis, director of business services for the district, expressed concerns about attendance boundaries with the six scenarios. Attached are his rough sketches of possible attendance boundaries.

 
Expand This Thread
Garry Kanter
on Feb 04, 2013 - 1:02 pm

"The committee needs to hear residents' concerns regarding new and/or renovated school facilities." - From the intro at the top of this page.

What grade do y'all give yourselves?

 

 

 

 

Responses(1)

Garry Kanter
on Feb 05, 2013

I'll answer for you.

It would be impossible for the LFC's 28 or so members to have done *less* to engage the citizens. 

$206 MILLION, and there's no more justification for that sum than there was last summer.

That's a solid "F".

 
Expand This Thread
Garry Kanter
on Jan 31, 2013 - 12:17 am

It seems to me there is an intentional double standard regarding the Sustainability "work group" and the Communications "Subcommittee".

As it was explained to me, one is a "work group" because of it's inclusion of community members who are not LFC members.

Then I read that Mark Chupp is the "volunteer advisor" to the Communications "sub committee".

Seeing no difference between the two situations, and seeing that the Sustainability work group is given inferior status at the LFC meetings, I can only conclude that Sustainability is not a priority of the LFC. And is being left in the shadows.

I hope the community lets the LFC know that this is not acceptable to them.

Because it is not acceptable to me.

 

 

 

 

 
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Jan 30, 2013 - 3:13 pm

Here is my report of last night's Lay Facilities Committee meeting.

 
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Jan 29, 2013 - 1:54 pm

The Lay Facilities Committee has posted an agenda for tonight's meeting at the Delisle Center. On the agenda is a presentation of six possible facilities scenarios by the Buildings Subcommittee.

 

Responses(1)

Garry Kanter
on Jan 29, 2013

There is no specific mention of the survey on the agenda.

 
Expand This Thread
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Jan 21, 2013 - 1:49 pm

The Building Subcommittee will meet tomorrow evening at 7 p.m. at the former Coventry Elementary School. On the agenda is determining several options to present to the full committee regarding how many buildings and where they would be located. At our last meeting, we agreed that we should have one high school and one or two middle schools. We began discussing options for elementary schools but ran out of time before we could finish.

Eric Silverman, one of our co-chairs, e-mailed some notes about the high school building that he had put together. With his permission, I am sharing them here. Both he and I would like to have further discussion about the high school at our meeting tomorrow and would welcome any thoughts/comments from the community on the topic.

Notes on Cleveland Heights High School |Altering Plan C

Before coming up with modifications on Plan C, we must understand what Plan C had in store for Heights High.  It planned on demolishing every addition to Heights since 1926, as well as all of the original building north of the auditorium stage.  The only addition left, the South Pool, would have been renovated, not replaced.  The part of the 1926 building that would have been retained would have been gutted to implement the learning community concept.  We should view Plan C at Heights as a renovation in only the most vague of terms.

All of this demolition has two impacts: in necessitates emptying the building of all students, creating the need for an alternate site for two years (at least) and all of the new construction to replace square footage in the 1930, 1949 and 1958/62 additions typically cost $25, $50 or $75 a square foot more than renovated space.

In building the “new” Heights High, let’s look at the building section by section to create a building that has the amenities we want within the budget constraints we have.

 Suggestions for the 1926 Building

• Eliminate the “all-in” approach to the Learning Community Concept saving us money.  By retaining corridor walls we keep the feeling of the building while we can alter classroom configuration as we have for the last 80 years.  This is because the walls between classrooms are not structural.        

 • Demolish the two 1926 gyms to make room for new construction.

 • Renovate (if possible) the spaces behind the auditorium stage and integrate these rooms into the new construction.  While primarily small classrooms and mechanical spaces, if they can be retasked let’s do this.

 Suggestions for the 1930 Addition | West Wing

• This is the west wing of the building north of the main hall.  People do know that this space is an addition as it matches exactly the original design of the building.

 • Renovate this space like the 1926 building. 

 • At the north end of this wing are classes up a half flight of stairs, posing a potential ADA issue.  If replacing the Voc-Ed Wing with new construction, perhaps address this floorplate issue by aligning these spaces with the programs housed in this new wing.

 • Underneath the entire West Wing (1926 & 1930) place locker rooms and training rooms for the athletic programs.  This would connect two upcoming suggestions, renovations to the South Gym and construction of a new Field House/Gym on the site of the Voc-Ed Wing.

 Suggestions for the 1949 Addition | Social Room

• Renovate the Social Room and the two stories of classrooms above it.

 Suggestions for the 1958/62 Additions | Band Rooms

• Demolish these spaces and restore the courtyard that existed here framed by the 1926 building and 1930 addition.

 • This space could be open air or covered, multiple creative uses possible for this space.

 Suggestions for the 1958/62 Additions | South Gym

• Renovate the gym, adding a façade that matches the rest of the building.

 • The Athletic Department would like to expand the size and seating capacity of the South Gym.

 • By moving training rooms to the basement of the West Wing, we can add locker rooms for home and visitor, both genders, underneath the playing floor.

 Suggestions for the 1958/62 Additions | South Pool

• REPLACE the South Pool with an all-new pool designed for community use.

 • Add locker rooms for home and visitor, both genders, as well as family changing rooms.

 • Create ADA entrance accessible off of the parking lot.

 • The current pool CANNOT be renovated to add these features.

 • Designing the pool to match the architecture of the original building, along with a South Gym with a new veneer means that after we demolish the Science Wing, the building looks like it once did with “wow” appeal.  Our negative of being on Cedar Road becomes a positive with the architecture a marketing tool.

 Suggestions for the 1958/62 Additions | Cafeteria

• Build a classroom wing above the cafeteria and kitchen like in the Alumni Foundation’s plan for Heights High.

 • In this new wing add a 250-seat mini-auditorium at ground level.  Why?  If you have a meeting or presentation with more than 25 people but less than 500, none of the rooms in the building offer you a good space.  By placing it here it becomes a community asset while the rest of the building is dark.  Nearly unlimited potential for concerts, presentations, distance learning, etc. in a space which would not require constant set-up and teardown of recording equipment.

 • On the 2nd floor along with classrooms, move the IMD department to this space.  This allows for easier access after hours as well as to the mini-auditorium for practice.

 • On the 3rd floor, locate the library and or art classes (northern light).  Perhaps move art classrooms to the former library space above the auditorium for a loft-like area with natural light from both sides.

 • In the basement of this new construction locate mechanical systems to power half or two-thirds of the building for a scenario where we renovate the building in two phases.

 • Create a formal entrance and lobby outside of the mini-auditorium addressing ADA access to the building.

 • Along the east side of the building add an arcade at ground level connecting the large parking lot to the Community Pool.  In the middle of the arcade, at the intersection with the main hallway, add the main entrance for visitors.  Where the current Library is locate ALL administrative offices, right off of a ground level entrance with parking.  Flanking this entrance in the arcade, place two meeting rooms, which can be open for use when the rest of the building is dark.

 • Move the parking lot a little into the east field to allow for parking on both sides of the lot with a turning loop at the south end as a drop off at the Community Pool entrance.

 • In this concept we create a number of spaces ideal for public use along a central spine which can be open nights, weekends and summers while the rest of the building is dark.  This is accomplished through wise use of door placement.

 Suggestions for the 1958/62 Additions | Science Wing

• Demolish the Science Wing

 • Restore the Courtyard using a collegiate quadrangle model

 • If implementing a phased approach to renovating Heights, use the Science Wing as on-site swing space, in that we first create new space, close part of the building for renovation, then house “dislocated” classes in the Science Wing.

 Suggestions for the 1974 Addition | Voc-Ed Wing

• Demolish this wing and replace it with a new Field House/Gym replacing two 1926 gyms and related locker rooms.  This consolidates athletics for students and teams on the west side of the building.  Like the east side of the building, this can allow for greater and easier non-school day usage.

 • Examine the space needs for the CTE program, in regard to both square footage and type.  IF the auto program is no more, what other types of unique spaces are needed?  Is cosmetology the only one that has unique needs?  Either way can these needs be met in construction wrapped around the new field house? 

 • What about the vacant car dealership on Mayfield now owned by UHHS?  Is it possible to develop a partnership with UHHS to locate CTE programs in a renovated space 3 stoplights from Heights High?

 • No matter what, we should consolidate this program into one space, ideally out of Taylor freeing up this site for more options.

 • In a 2-phase construction program at Heights, locate the 2nd mechanical room in this wing or in its current location.

 Additional Suggestions |Parking Lot

 • Acquire the ten homes directly behind Heights High on Washington to create a large parking lot.

 •  7 of the 10 homes are duplexes, not a type of housing Cleveland Heights has in short supply.

 • This can be of importance if using a phased approach in renovating Heights

 • The parking lot can be of immense use in the summer as a satellite lot for Cain Park, making parking extremely easy within walking distance, a shuttle bus along Goodnor or an all right-turn bus loop.

Key Take Away Items / Why A Phased Approach @ Heights?

• A reduced Learning Community Concept should translate into construction savings, owing to less demolition and needed structural elements to implement it.

 • Renovating the 1930 and 1949 additions should also translate into construction savings owing to the lower cost of renovation versus new, since new construction was earmarked for these locations.

 • Renovating the South Gym should be cheaper than building all-new (as in Plan C) as well as giving Heights architectural balance which was missing in Plan C.

 • A new Community Pool is a far better sell than a renovated pool with limited public access.

 • Ignoring the specificity of the new wing over the cafeteria, Plan C had new construction in this exact space with very similar massing.  As such this is not that much of a departure spare for renovating the 1949 addition and the details outlined here.

 • Plan C had over 10MM allocated for swing space moving the high school to Monticello and displacing those kids as well.  This could be a huge negative for high school parents as well as middle school ones.  If we can avoid a sea of trailers @ Monticello we can abate this issue and perhaps save money.

 • If we can develop a phased approach at Heights that allows use during construction, although this may take longer it may reduce pushback generated by the bullet above as well as create savings and allow work to begin on the Middle Schools sooner.

 • Lakewood has utilized a phased approach with trailers on-site.  They are more landlocked than we are and their building more “rambling” than ours.

 Conclusion

IF we are not using the “all-in” Learning Community approach at Heights, keeping the 1930 & 1949 additions, keeping the South Gym and building a new pool, these alterations render the assumptions from Plan C as dated and as such we need to examine IF we can phase in work at Heights, IF this can save us money and IF we want to do this. 

 If we can save money we can either apply it to other parts of the project or to elements at Heights we want (i.e. a new pool) while perhaps also reducing the disruptions work at Heights has on the rest of the District. 

 The more community positives our plan has while minimizing system-wide inconveniences the more we improve our chances at the ballot box.

 

Responses(8)

Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Jan 21, 2013

I like the idea of less demolition and more renovation at the high school. Less demolition should save money and require less swing space. I also like the idea of adding a more spaces within the building that could be used by the community, while keeping the rest of the building dark.

I’m not sure about the parking lot idea. Is there a real need for more parking? Will the homeowners in that area and the community in general support it? What will acquisition/demolition costs be?

 
Krissy Dietrich Gallagher
on Jan 22, 2013

I think creating a plan that allows some of the students to stay in the building or at least on-site during construction makes the most sense. It will be hard to shift an entire high school to external swing space, esp as they try to maintain the strength of programs that require both space and access to the full student body, such as sports and musical productions.

 
Sam Bell
on Jan 23, 2013

Career Technical Education

(as usual, my ideas and opinions are my own.  i present this based on a recent tour of our CTE facilities.---Sam Bell)All CTE students complete a course of study in traditional academic areas such as mathematics, ELA, etc.  Juniors typically spend mornings in their chosen lab areas and afternoons in classes with their non-CTE peers. Seniors reverse the time slots, allowing some to be dismissed early to participate in on-the-job work/study programs. The current configuration, with three programs remotely housed at the Delisle (Taylor) site, may lead to feelings of exclusion and alienation from the main campus life on the part of some CTE students. Programs are described below.  Specialized facilities requirements are in boldface.  All areas except possibly those marked with an asterisk * require significant numbers of laboratory computers.

  • Audio Engineering is a skilled tradethat deals with the use of equipment for the recording, mixing and reproduction of sounds.  Acoustically isolated environment, upgraded electrical supply, attached classroom space.
  • Automotive Technology- an A.S.E certified program devoted to developing entry-level auto mechanic skills in maintenance and repair of both domestic and foreign automobiles.   Drive-through capability, associated lifts and specialized repair bays, with built-in exhaust extraction/treatment and stand-alone  heating & ventilation system, upgraded electrical supply; tool cribs, large storage areas.  On HVAC  separate from lab area : Attached classroom, M/F changing rooms.
  • Business Management Technology - prepares students for various occupations in an office setting. In this class, emphasis is placed on business skills, office procedures and computer skills needed to work in today's highly technical office environment.  Upgraded electrical supply; internal phone system; attached classroom space.
  • Clinical Health Careers- introduces students to a variety of health related occupations. Students complete the Ohio Nurse Aide Training Program and are eligible to become State Tested Nursing Assistants (STNAs). Lab space (beds, exam tables, patient transport equipment, mannikins, equipment, etc.,) upgraded electrical supply,   attached classroom, storage space. M/F changing room.
  • Computer Networking Technology - Students design and maintain local area networks and wide area networks. Instruction is project-based. Students are eligible to take the Cisco Certified Networking Associate Exam to receive CCNA certification. Upgraded electrical supply; internal phone/cable/fiber optic systems; attached classroom space.
  • Cosmetology - prepares students to take the Ohio State Board Exam and become licensed cosmetologists.  Client waiting area, procedure chairs & stations with sinks, mirrors, upgraded electrical supply; facial salon space(s); mani/pedi-cure station(s);  attached classroom space. *  M/F changing room.
  • Criminal Justice -prepares students for careers in a broad range of law enforcement/criminal justice disciplines.Upgraded electrical supply; internal phone system, internal “radio” system; attached classroom space.
  • Digital Video Production - prepares students for the field of digital communications and media. The students in this program will be trained to create, design, and produce digitally generated and computer enhanced multimedia products. Upgraded electrical supply; visually and acoustically isolated green-screen studio; attached classroom space.
  • Engineering Technology-  prepares students for careers in engineering related fields and establishes a foundation for university level study. Upgraded electrical supply; attached classroom space; storage areas.
  • Exercise Scienceis the study of human movement and the associated responses and adaptations. Various types of exercise/rehabilitation, and athletic-injury treatment equipment, storage space, attached classroom space. *  M/F changing room.
  • Family and Consumer Sciences- prepares students for success and independence by learning valuable life skills in nutrition and wellness. Upgraded electrical supply; multiple fire exits, quietly effective exhaust extraction/ventilation equipment, stoves, refrigerators, associated equipment; attached classroom space.*
  • Graphic Imaging Technology- offers students the opportunity to develop creative, design, and technical talents and skills.  Upgraded electrical supply; printing and production equipment, attached classroom space. [Note: this program is hosted by Warrensville Heights and is not part of the current CHUH facilites master plan.]
  • Marketing Education- prepares students for employment in retail marketing and similar business careers. Upgraded electrical supply; internal phone system; attached classroom space.
  • Pharmacy Technician - students learn skills necessary to assist a pharmacist in a clinic, hospital, or retail business setting.  Realistically-modeled storage and dispensary area, upgraded electrical supply, 1 computer workstation per student + additional unit for instructor, associated software and peripherals; internal phone system; attached classroom space.

Additional notes re: Delisle (Taylor) site:    This configuration requires a minimum of 18 different  bus/van stops per day due to the staggered class schedules and the need to transport students within three school districts.  There is no longer a cut-off area for buses.      There is no on-site security.  The ‘open classroom’ layout with its large windows creates security concerns.  There is no PA system and no way to announce intruder alerts.

 
Sam Bell
on Jan 23, 2013

The Building Subcommittee has been assured that there is adequate space to meet all of the CTE needs described above on the current High School campus while retaining all necessary facilities for all other grade 9-12 High School activities. 

I di not see adequate space to meet these needs in the former 'Plan C'

 

 

 

 

 
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Jan 24, 2013

The Buildings Subcommittee will present six scenarios for school facilities at the Jan. 29 Lay Facilities Committee meeting, which will be held at 7 p.m. at the Delisle Center, 14780 Superior Road. The meeting is open to the public. Attached is a copy of the presentation showing the six scenarios.

 
Christy Dolan
on Jan 25, 2013

Thanks for posting.  Would this be appropriate to cross post on the CHUH website?  I guess I am not sure why more information isn't cross posted, but there must be a reason.

I feel like the more the information gets out, the more productive the meeting will be on the 29th with regard to community input.  Once everyone sees these options, then opinions can begin to form and I think at least some community input will come your way.  And possibly not at the last minute :-)

 
Christy Dolan
on Jan 25, 2013

And I don't mean to take away from the idea that the committee members need one place to converse in public which is what I take this site to be.  But when some comprehensive information comes together (like the ppt presentations or large sum of information), I think it would reach the general CHUH population more if posted in various places (CHUH website, CHUH facebook, CHUH facilites website, CHUH facebook, Heightsbserver, patch etc).

Just a thought.  This may have been discarded for a valid reason but wanted to put it out there.

Thanks for all the work you are doing.

 
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Jan 29, 2013

Thanks for your suggestion. I post the information to all of the sites I have access to. I'll have to ask for the school district's help in posting it to all of the sites they control. We do need to reach as wide an audience as possible and should look for all means to do so. Thanks!

 
Expand This Thread
Garry Kanter
on Jan 19, 2013 - 11:34 am

I think I'm done trying to engage on this forum.

I now understand that, according to Deanna's 10/31/12 Observer blog, there is a backlog of $40 MILLION in building repairs.

I have no confidence in the BOE's, the admin's, or Reaching Heights's abilities to serve the needs of the district's students.

Peace.

 
Garry Kanter
on Jan 17, 2013 - 1:49 pm

What is the projected full timeline for the community survey?

 

Responses(2)

Krissy Dietrich Gallagher
on Jan 18, 2013

We intend to start the survey after the Jan 29 LFC meeting (not at the State of the Schools as previously thought) because we will be asking people to evaulate several scenarios which should be presented on 1/29. The survey will run through Fri March 8.

 
Garry Kanter
on Jan 18, 2013

Thanks. When, and to whom will the results be presented?To be honest, I understand "Community Outreach" especially in this case, to be much more interactive and timely. I was hoping for a lot more "engagement" and "outreach" with the community than merely an end-of-project survey.

 

 
Expand This Thread
Garry Kanter
on Jan 17, 2013 - 12:55 pm

I'm watching the January 9th LFC meeting video on the district's website.

If Boulevard is such a horrible building, as described above, would the students benefit if that remodel/rebuild project was moved to the beginning, rather than the end of the initiative?

I guess the question applies equally to the other footprint elementary, which is Fairfax, I believe.

 
Garry Kanter
on Jan 17, 2013 - 5:20 am

Sam Bell was gracious enough to spend a good amount of time yesterday afternoon bringing me up to speed on Boulevard - the physical building's limitations, and where I might find existing documentation.

What I thought I heard last year was this:

  • "Boulevard Elementary has to be torn down. From a practical standpoint, the building has too many problems to fix, primarily caused by it being designed for (the fad of) "Open Classrooms".
  • "Boulevard will then be rebuilt as an Elementary, centered around the concept of (the fad of) "Learning Communities".

What I concluded (right or wrong) was, "They're repeating the exact same mistake. And they want $16 MILLION to do it? Good grief! What other obvious mistakes are looming in the rest of the $205 MILLION they want to spend?"

What I learned from Sam yesterday was:

  • Unlike "Open Classrooms", "Learning Communities are *designed* to accommodate multiple configurations of classrooms. That is, to begin with, unlike the execution of CH-UH's Open Classrooms in the 1970s, it's understood that "one size does *not* fit all".

So, while they may both be fads, the Learning Communities concept does not tie the current or future administrations into any single educational paradigm, or require "unnatural" modifications to use differently over time. Conceivable, the community could be configured semi-permanently closely to "traditional" classrooms.

In my opinion, then:

  • *This* is the kind of information that was not available to people like me.
  • Simple explanations like the above would engender greater buy-in from the community at large.

I suppose other citizens had different "hot points". In sales, if you can get the customer to *tell* you why they won't make the purchase today, that gives you a chance to address - and eliminate their discomfort (in our case, hopefully with meaningful data). And make the sale. Which is what this LFC exercise is really all about:

  • Informing the electorate that the facilities initiative has been well thought, and deserves their "Yes" vote in November.
 

Responses(2)

Krissy Dietrich Gallagher
on Jan 17, 2013

The current plan of the LFC will not include learning communities in any of our buildings. We will instead be recommending how many buildings the district needs, where they will sit in our communities and how many students can fit inside each one (now and into the future). The physical design of the classrooms is something that will take place well down the road and is not the purview of this committee.  So "learning communities" are a non-issue.

 
Garry Kanter
on Jan 17, 2013

Perhaps ""learning communities" are a non-issue" to your way of thinking.

The topic certainly took up a great deal of the Buildings subcommittee meeting I attended Tuesday night.

My comment related to the 2012 events, and I believe my narrative is pretty representative of the information floating around at that time.

 
Expand This Thread
Garry Kanter
on Jan 16, 2013 - 12:51 pm

The CH-UH website main page has a link to the old WordPress LFC forum, but not this one.

The video of last Wednesday's committee meeting is not online yet.

The video is not on the district's online channel 22 program schedule yet.

And the channel 22 schedule has days of weeks only. I suggested via an e-mail that *dates* would be useful to the reader/viewer. The response I received was not to my satisfaction.

 
Jewel Moulthrop
on Jan 16, 2013 - 9:52 am

Ladies and Gentlemen,

We have a troll in this conversation--a person who snipes at everything and everyone, but who suggests nothing useful. I urge you to refrain from responding to the troll, and perhaps this person will either go away or begin to contribute in a constructive and meaningful way.

 
Garry Kanter
on Jan 16, 2013 - 6:56 am

At last night's Building Subcommittee meeting, I realized that unless I create such a document, there won't be an Executive Summary that explains to the voter/taxpayer why it's recommended that Boulevard be torn down, just to be rebuilt in the same location.

That item right there was where I began to question the need for this $200 MILLION initiative. If nobody felt it was important enough to (or simply couldn't) explain *that* counter-intuitive, and costly item concisely, then I had to wonder about the rest of the analysis and conclusions that make up the $200 MILLION.

I'm going to try to create that Executive Summary, only without including any conclusion. Rather, I will try to summarize any and all cost and suitability documentation regarding the building that can be found on the BOE/LFC's website.

If anybody would care to provide links to meaningful documents, or has anything else at all to share, that would be much appreciated.

 

Responses(4)

Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Jan 16, 2013

I would recommend you also take a tour of either Boulevard or Fairfax to see firsthand how the buildings function. I was very glad that Krissy Dietrich-Gallagher and Dallas Schubert gave us a tour of Fairfax after our LFC meeting at that building. It was real eye-opener.

I had been in the footprint buildings on numerous occasions for meetings, but had never actually seen the entire space. Classrooms do not have walls or doors. There is little storage space for teachers or students. Most of the classrooms don't have windows. The entire school cannot assemble in the cafeteria/auditorium so they have to use the gym for that purpose. The gym is separated from the cafeteria/auditorium by a flimsy sliding partion, which means that the noise level must be incredibly loud. A ramp in the middle of the building takes up a huge amount of square footage. The building was constructed with low-quality materials.

In summary, my impression of the building was that it is energy-inefficient, ugly, noisy and depressing. It is a tragedy that we have been trying to educate our kids in those buildings for the last 40 years.

We should examine the costs of rennovating, rather than rebuilding, Boulevard, but we'd also need to have an architect show us how/if the building could be redesigned to fix its flaws.

Likewise, the 1970s additions to the historic school buildings are so poor that a comprehensive plan that does not include removing them--such as Plan C-- is a non-starter.

 
Krissy Dietrich Gallagher
on Jan 17, 2013

Thank you for saying this, Deanna.  One other point to make is that the footprint buildings were intended to last 30 years and have now existed for almost 40. They are, simply put, not conducive to teaching or learning.  Our students and teachers certainly do their best, but high quality elementary classrooms are not quiet spaces. Students, especially the very young, should be having conversations, singing, chanting, ... all sorts of things that would be considered disruptive in a space without walls.

Not to mention the heating and cooling issues that plague these buildings where kids in one room need to open the windows (in there are any!) in the middle of winter and in another corner, they're bundled up in sweaters.

Boulevard sits on a very large piece of property that is centrally located, making it accessible by foot, bike or bus for many students. The building, however, is inefficient, loud, ugly, expensive to maintain and so on. Tearing it down and rebuilding on that site is the most sensible thing to do.

And it should be noted that the LFC is currently trying to craft a plan that will fall well below the $200 million price tag.

 
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Jan 16, 2013

Here's a link to the full facilities assessment report that was completed in 2010. All of these documents, by the way, are on www.chuh.org. Look under the Announcements banner in the bottom center of the homepage. There is a link called District Facilities Planning Update.

 
Expand This Thread
Sam Bell
on Jan 14, 2013 - 11:20 pm

Reminder:

 

The building subcommittee will meet at the BOE offices on Miramar Rd. on Tues 1/15/13 at 7pm.

The Sustainability Working Group will meet on Weds 1/16/13 at 7 pm at 1042 Renfield Rd.

 

 

Responses(2)

Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Jan 16, 2013

The Building Sub-Committee will meet again at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, Jan. 22, at a place TBD. It will likely be at the former Coventry Elementary School, but we need confirmation that we can use that space.

 
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Jan 21, 2013

We are confirmed to meet at the former Coventry School Building.

 
Expand This Thread
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Jan 14, 2013 - 9:23 am

Just found this article on ways to engage the community. It's got several good ideas. Give it a look.

 

Responses(5)

Garry Kanter
on Jan 14, 2013

Three months into it, and the executive director of the civic engagement groups FutureHeights/Observer and Sustainable Heights Network, with some relationship to Reaching Heights comes up with a link to an article on "Engaging Diverse Communities". And suggests people "Give it a look", because "It's got several good ideas".

27 people on a committee, and not a one of them knows anything about communicating with the community? Council people, civic group leaders, church leaders...

How can this be? How is this consistent with the mission of the Lay Facilities Committee?

 
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Jan 15, 2013

Stop being a bully. If you have something constructive to contribute to the conversarion, then please do so. If not, then stop criticizing and harassing those of us who are trying to be constructive.

 
Garry Kanter
on Jan 15, 2013

There you go!

Attack the messenger. Continue to ignore/avoid the message.

I would appreciate it if you didn't make personal attacks on me, Deanna.

 

 
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Jan 16, 2013

I would appreciate the same courtesy for me and other members of this forum. You weren't doing so, and that is why I posted my request. If you have something constructive to contribute to the conversation, then please do so.

 
Garry Kanter
on Jan 16, 2013

Please quote me where I attacked anyone, Deanna.

 
Expand This Thread
Sam Bell
on Jan 13, 2013 - 6:30 pm

The following document was shared with several members of the LFC  Sunday night.  It is posted here in the interests of transparency and access.     

Hello Buildings Subcommittee:This is intended to get us started coming up with the building scenarios to take to the LFC and to the School Board. RULES:Please add to this document. You MAY NOT delete anything. Deletions may only happen by vote of the working (building) subcommittee using Robert’s Rules of Order.

CHUH Building Options

High SchoolGeneral consensus is keep the High School at Cedar/Lee. I have heard one person suggest moving the High school to the Boulevard site and have athletics and the auditorium at Cedar/Lee. Let’s vote on this so we have one school chosen. Or we can send the Boulevard possibility to the LFC and School Board for a vote.Deborah S. Delisle Educational Options CenterIs it remaining in use as an educational facility? Will it remain the IT and student services center? Are we putting a solar roof? Can we rename the building? Can we call it Taylor? Should IT and student services be reunited with the administration at Noble? Lets’ make some decisions here and move on.Career Technical Education  This area has been assiduously ignored in all plans to date, but we are mandated to include it if any plan is to be considered truly comprehensive. Operations are currently split between HHS and Delisle sites.  The recent discontinuation of the Auto Body program raises serious questions as to the District’s ongoing commitment to Career Technical Education.Middle SchoolsOne, two and three middle schools as options?One middle school

  • at Boulevard;
  • one lower-mid and one upper-mid both at Boulevard

Two middle schools

  • Monticello and Roxboro (one is upper, one is lower)
  • Rox + Blvd (one is upper, one is lower)
  • Monticello + Blvd (one is upper, one is lower)
  • Canterbury + Blvd (one is upper, one is lower)
  • Canterbury + Monticello (one is upper, one is lower)

Three middle schools

  • Wiley, Monticello and Roxboro;
  • Blvd, Monticello, Canterbury

Elementary SchoolPre-K at all buildings? YesHow many buildings? 3? 4? 5? 6? 7?Which schoolsClose schools immediately that are crossed off? If we do, there will be immediate operational cost savings. In addition, we will create swing space as we renovate HHS.Now that the economy is better, should we restart the discussion of the Music Settlement purchasing Coventry?University HeightsIt is essential to separate the busses from the people due to poor air quality caused by busses. (Short version of medical side: The affinity between hemoglobin and carbon monoxide is approximately 230 times stronger than the affinity between hemoglobin and oxygen so hemoglobin binds to carbon monoxide in preference to oxygen.  This makes carbon monoxide poisoning a cumulative toxic process.  Without medical intervention, the body may take several days to clear the effects of prolonged or repeated CO exposure. Short version of academic effects: CO impairs mental function, especially complex reasoning.  Link: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/345791/description/Elevated_carbon_dioxide_may_impair_reasoning).We request a cost estimate for removing and remediating the mechanicals and moving them and the buses to another site. (Possibly the former Pick-N-Pay, recently condemned by Cleveland Heights.)  Steve has told me this would be “ very expensive”. If  moving the mechanicals is cost prohibitive, that leaves Gearity as the single school in University Heights. The Gearity grounds are very nice, perhaps the best in the District. The school is strangely configured and tight for deliveries.The site of the Admin building and Wiley should be quite valuable as medical, retail or residential development land. Sale of the site could bring money into the equation. Perhaps UH would like to purchase it for Eric’s rec center.AdministrationMove or leave at present site? If it moves, Where? Noble? Delisle? One of the elementaries we close?  The same air-quality issues from the bus operations affect the current site at least as much as they do Wiley.  Noble is most obvious candidate, but income tax considerations if shifting from UH to CH may make it politically impossible.  Scenario 1.HHS, Boulevard Middle School (6-8), RoxEl, New Coventry, Oxford, Canterbury, Gearity, (Deslisle?)Pros:

  • Boulevard as central middle school with ~1400 students allows class sizes large enough to fill out special interest classes, sports and clubs
  • Boulevard is central in District thereby reducing transportation
  • Boulevard is near HHS, Cumberland, CH recreation center, Lee Rd. library, Forest Hills Park …
  • The scatter plot of these schools is well distributed around District
  • Two new buildings could generate operational savings if designed and built with sustainability in mind.
  • Two new buildings would erase two Footprint buildings from our community.  Except for some career-tech programs at the Delisle Center, none of the students would be subjected to them.

 

  • Coventry site more aligned with student demographics, eases transportation

Cons:

  • Two new buildings would be expensive up front.  

 

  • Ignores current synergies between Noble El and Noble Library
  • Shifts Wiley payroll income tax to Cleveland Heights.
  • Abandonment of two North end schools (Noble, Monticello) may be taken as sign of disinvestment or lack of concern for area with arguably greatest needs.

What to do with vacated buildings?    Wiley    Monticello:  possible career tech site    RoxMid    Fairfax

Noble: possible new BOE site including IT operations and student services

Delisle(?)

Scenario 2.HHS, Boulevard Middle School (6-8), New Fairfax, New Coventry, Oxford, Canterbury, GearityPros:

  • Best fit of student density demographics

 

  • Boulevard as central middle school with ~1400 students allows class size large enough to fill out special interest classes, sports and clubs
  • Boulevard is central in District thereby reducing transportation
  • Boulevard is near HHS, Cumberland, CH recreation center, Lee Rd. library …
  • The scatter plot of these schools is well distributed around District
  • Three new buildings could generate operational savings if designed and built well.
  • Three new buildings would erase three Footprint buildings from our community.

 

  • Coventry site more aligned with student demographics, eases transportation

Cons:

  • Three new buildings would be expensive up front
  • Leaves no school in the west end where student density is low
  • Loses two historic buildings

 

  • Ignores current synergies between Noble El and Noble Library
  • Shifts Wiley payroll  income tax to Cleveland Heights.
  • Abandonment of two North end schools (Noble, Monticello)  may be taken as sign of disinvestment or lack of concern for area with arguably greatest needs.

What to do with vacated buildings?

Wiley

    Monticello    RoxMid    RoxEl

Noble

Delisle?

Scenario 3.HHS, Monticello and Roxboro Middle School, RoxEl, New Boulevard, Oxford, Canterbury, GearityPros:

  • Preserves historic buildings
  • Blvd able to accept population surge  from any adjacent elementary in event of demographic spikes

 

  • Monticello in North end indicates continuing community investment in area

Cons:

  • All custodians and tradesmen recommend abandoning RoxMid.
  • Ignores student density demographics in West end
  • Ignores current synergies between Noble  El and Noble Library
  • Shifts Wiley payroll  income tax to Cleveland Heights.

What to do with vacated buildings?Scenario 4.HHS, Monticello and Canterbury Middle School, RoxEl,  New Boulevard, Oxford, GearityPros:

  • Monticello in North end indicates continuing community investment in area

 

  • Aligns relatively well with actual student population densities
  • Increases overall enrollment at each elementary school site, allowing for greater range of services

Cons:

  • Canterbury is popular well-performing Elementary; many families choose this area due to its proximity and affordable housing.

Scenario 5.HHS, Monticello and Roxboro Middle School, RoxEl, New Coventry, Oxford, Canterbury, Gearity, Boulevard as playing and/or practice fields [alt: Career tech building + fields at Blvd]Pros:

  • Monticello in North end indicates continuing community investment in area
  • Coventry site more aligned with student demographics, eases transportation
  • Centralized field space on current Blvd site relatively convenient to HHS
  • [Alt: solves the Career tech siting problem]

Cons:

  • All custodians and tradesmen recommend abandoning RoxMid.
  • Shifts Wiley payroll  income tax to Cleveland Heights.

 

  • Ignores current synergies between Noble  El and Noble Library
  • Ignores student density demographics in West end

What to do with vacated buildings?Scenario 6.(Plan C+) HHS, Monticello and Roxboro middle schools, RoxEl, New Boulevard, Oxford, Canterbury, Gearity Pros:

  • Preserves historic buildings

 

  • Monticello in North end indicates continuing community investment in area

Cons:

  • All custodians and tradesmen recommend abandoning RoxMid.
  • Ignores current synergies between Noble  El and Noble Library

 

  • Ignores student density demographics in West end

 

  • Shifts Wiley payroll  income tax to Cleveland Heights.

What to do with vacated buildings?

 

 

Responses(15)

Sam Bell
on Jan 13, 2013

This is an evolving document.  Future iterations will be released.  Please feel free to comment here for potential inclusion.  As usual, my views are my own, and any opinions expressed are not necessarily shared by anyone else.

 
Garry Kanter
on Jan 13, 2013

Sam, I appreciate all your efforts.

Speaking for myself, but thinking that others share this view, I'm more interested in understanding the processes being undertaken than in the "answers" or "alternatives".

And rather than being given a fire hose from which to drink, I'd like to engage in *conversations* where I can ask questions, and based on the responses, ask *other* questions.

But I don't seem to be speaking the same language of "engagement" that the BOE/LFC does.

 

 

 

 

 
Nancy Reeves
on Jan 14, 2013

Garry - I have no dog in this particular show**, and I understand your frustration with imperfect tools.  I have been frustrated with a number of community conversation sites (including, at times, this one).

I just got scolded on another site for being cranky about having to spend 9 hours looking for technical assistance that didn't exist - and for expecting the staff to be reviewing requests for technical assistance.  Ultimately a staff member created and pinned a mostly blank tech FAQ thread and said, "More to come - in the mean time, post any answers you've found here."  Not exactly what I had in mind since I'd been floundering around and hadn't really found any solutions.  But I got busy adding every possible solution I had found to anything to the thread, and directing my similarly floundering peers to the thread.  Taking steps to fix the problem made me considerably less crabby.  It isn't perfect - I still think they ought to have staff assigned to respond to technical questions - but it is a start, and I'm a lot happier camper now that people are seeking me out rather than shutting the thread once they see my name.

You've been invited to start the conversations you want to have.  I know it isn't a perfect solution since you want to engage a limited audience.  It is clear you also think others are falling down on the job.  But even in this thread the audience is wide open...Just start the conversation you want in a new thread, label it CH-UH School Facilities and be part of the solution by making the imperfect tools work for you - and if you have suggestions to improve the Civic Commons, feel free to add them here and help refine one of the tools the CH-UH is using to carry on this conversation!

**I am friends with Eric Coble (CH-UH School Board Member) - I don't talk with him about the CH-UH system other than to encourage him to come here periodically when there is a conversation I think he should see.  I have no formal connection to the Civic Commons other than as an active community member, and occasional gadfly and blogger, (And I suspect some of the team might disagree with the adjective "occasional" being used to modify gadfly.)

 
Garry Kanter
on Jan 14, 2013

I asked about Boulevard last week. There were no responses.

I'd asked about some report a few weeks ago. No responses.

Like I said last week, this is *not* about Garry Kanter.

Patrick has acknowledged some disappointment about the activity on this forum. Ms. Molthroup suggested a solution for me to implement. Deanna posted a link for people to read, because it has good ideas about engaging a diverse community..

I dunno, maybe they agree with me? But nobody's doing nothin' about it.

I thought the whole point of the year delay and the LFC was to exchange info with the voters.

Well, I don't see it. So how will this year be different than last year?

They can address these issues right now. Or, they can act like it's all about Garry. The path they are on seems like a bad strategy to me, if I was trying to pass a levy.

Thanks for weighing in!

 
Garry Kanter
on Jan 14, 2013

As for the utility of this forum, the less said the better.I find the *decision* to use this forum much more problemmatic than the forum itself.

Such a decision is consistant with the other bad decisions I've seen the BOE make. They don't seem to make a formal needs analysis, and compare solutions.Rather, imho, they rubber stamp what some perceived expert recommends. I experienced it at work regarding the $5 MILLION Lee-Meadowbrook tax abatement and side deal. I presume that's what happened with that new principal that already washed out.I have no idea how they managed to find and choose this forum. But I was personnally assured that it had nothing to do with neopotism. So it couldn't be that.But I'd like to see the end-user testing and acceptence report that supports the decision to use The Civic Commons, wouldn't you?Of course, my biggest fear is this same flawed, or non-existant, analysis process will be employed when making this $200 MILLION decision. With the same bloated PR telling me how thoroughly they analyzed things and how amazingly well the community has been engaged. Except I don't see any of it, and I'm looking *really* closely.

 

 

 
Nancy Reeves
on Jan 14, 2013

I usually prefer to jump into the conversation that is going on and help turn it into one that will benefit the community, rather than spending a lot of time asking why a particular conversation forum was chosen, or whether there might have been a better one.  That is why I'm an active participant in the Civic Commons - not because I find it the easiest forum to use (I don't), but because it provides a valuable space for conversations which benefit the Northeast Ohio community.  The selection of a particular forum is a lot less important to me than having the conversations.

But if why this forum was chosen, or whether there might be a better one out there, is a big concern for you, you might want to direct those questions to the folks here.

 

 
Garry Kanter
on Jan 15, 2013

Thanks. I do what I do, you may do what you do.

 
Garry Kanter
on Jan 16, 2013

This paragraph is at the bottom of the link you suggested, Nancy:

"Subcommittee and Working Group membership is open to everyone in our district. All members of the full committee are urged to encourage broad and representative participation."

I attended last night's Buildings Subcommittee meeting.

Which got me to thinking, the number of non-LFC-committee members in attendance at such Subcommittee meetings could be a metric that indicates how well the BOE/LFC is attaining community engagement.

So, I'll throw it out there to Patrick, or whomever:

  • How many people from the community-at-large have been participating in the subcommittees and workgroups?
  • In what ways (beyond publishing the date, time, and place of a meeting) has "All members of the full committee are urged to encourage broad and representative participation." been accomplished?

I see the Sustainability work group has tons of civilians on it's roster, the other groups, not so much. And it's *possible* I was the only (first?) civilian at the Buildings Subcommittee meeting last night.

 
Nancy Reeves
on Jan 16, 2013

I'm glad you found the link was helpful!

I think one of the best things for any school district is citizens who care enough to get involved - and figuring out how to make that happen isn't always obvious.  Are there things the Subcommittee might have done to make you feel invited in at an earlier stage (or by extension might invite more people in to the process now)?

 
Garry Kanter
on Jan 16, 2013

I keep trying to point out, this isn't about Garry Kanter.

What has the committee done to engage people? The more I look, the more I see "not much of anything".

 
Nancy Reeves
on Jan 16, 2013

Sorry, I wasn't intending to make it about you - just trying to expand on the question you asked by als asking the flip side.

If whatever efforts the Subcommittee has been making haven't been effective to get citizens involved, your insights, as someone who has now been to a Subcommittee meeting about what might have made you feel invited earlier, might be information the committee could use to figure out how to engage others.

 
Garry Kanter
on Jan 16, 2013

Well, Nancy, that's exactly what I have been trying to do here.

But if you'll read the entire thread, you'll see that I volunteered for the LFC, and was turned down.

I attended the first Sustainability Subcommittee/Work Group session, and decided that wasn't a place I could make a contribution to.

And I attended the Buildings Subcommittee meeting last night. And I decided to write a concise report on Boulevard's build/renovate decision.

But where are all the *other* citizens? Isn't that what the LFC was created for? To engage, and inform, and draw out the best from the whole community?

Based on the committee leadership's 'postings here, my understanding is a very foreign way of looking at things. I've been called a "bully" and a "troll", already, for posting my concerns, and for being involved.

 
Garry Kanter
on Jan 16, 2013

"If whatever efforts the Subcommittee has been making..."

I'm not aware such outreach efforts exist to the extent I expected from this group.

 
Krissy Dietrich Gallagher
on Jan 14, 2013

Sam,

Thanks for getting the ball rolling on actual scenarios. 

A few thoughts: It doesn't seem realistic to me that the district would reopen Coventry as a school. As much as one may wish that it had never closed, it did close and has since been renovated and filled with organizations that bring enormous benefit to the immediate neighborhood and the community at large. Instead, I think the BOE and LFC can use Coventry's transformation as an excellent example of how best to use empty school buildings.

Re Roxboro(s): I think that regardless of the condition those buidlings are in and their outlying location, we simply cannot expect broad community support of any plan that doesn't keep them open. That may not be the wisest decision based on various criteria, but it is nonetheless a political reality that we'd be fools to ignore.

Another potential scenario: Keep CHHS 9-12, create one 7-8 at Blvd for the entire district, and three (or four?) campuses with two buidlings each, one housing preK-3 and one 4-6. These could be located at the Wiley and BOE site (move BOE to Noble?), RoxEl and Rox Mid site, and another in the northern end, either at Monticello or Oxford (or perhaps, due to the large enrollment in that area, one PreK-3 at Oxford and one 4-6 at Mont).

Pros: Keeps students in Univ Hts all the way through 6th; uses 8 bldgs total; separates 4th from older middle school kids; takes advantage of Blvd as central location; consolidates 7th and 8th graders for sports, music, foreign languages etc; keeps 4-6 graders together for gifted services, instrumental music etc. It DOES create one extra transition but b/c it would be on the same campus and b/c the cohort size woudn't change, a lot of the problems associated with transitions would disappear.

Cons: Rebuilding Blvd as a 7-8 w athletic facilities would be expensive; adds another transition (although see above); BOE moves out of UH; still closes 3 (or even 4) schools.

Other thoughts??

 

 
Krissy Dietrich Gallagher
on Jan 14, 2013

Another con to my suggestion is that it would also close Canterbury, which would leave a huge gap in the southern end of the district, forcing large numbers of students from both the Fairfax and Canterbury neighborhoods to travel to buildings on the outskirts of our community.  

 
Expand This Thread
Sam Bell
on Jan 13, 2013 - 9:35 am

The building subcommittee will meet at the BOE offices on Miramar Rd. on Tues 1/15/13 at 7pm.

The Sustainability Working Group will meet on Weds 1/16/13 at 7 pm at 1042 Renfield Rd.

 
Garry Kanter
on Jan 10, 2013 - 6:13 am

I imagine all you committee members will have lots to talk about here this morning, following last night's meeting.

 

Responses(1)

Garry Kanter
on Jan 10, 2013

That's strange... I don't see a single posting.

Must be a server overload due to so many of y'all enthusiastically posting comments at the same time.

I bid you all adieu. Thanks to each and every one of you - excluding Sam -for absolutely nothing.

 

 

 
Expand This Thread
Garry Kanter
on Jan 09, 2013 - 12:05 pm

I'd like to start a new topic, but I don't see a "Subject" area. What am I overlooking?

----------------

Anyways, the first 10 questions I have, have had, and will have, relate to Boulevard. What's going on with that tear-down/rebuild plan? Is there an Executive Summary, or a Status Report available, specificaly relating to Boulevard?

 

Responses(4)

Dan Moulthrop
on Jan 09, 2013

Garry, you can always start a new conversation, if you want. Otherwise, the way you're using the tools is correct (top level contributions for new topics, "respond to" to respond to a top level contribution).

(btw, in the interest of transparency, I'm a co-founder of the Commons, and, Cleveland being a small community, Ms. Moulthrop is my mother.)

 
Garry Kanter
on Jan 09, 2013

Not as I traditionally think of an online conversation, I don't think so.

I want to speak to *this* audience only, with "Boulevard" as the topic.

And it would be at the top, not the bottom.

Please advise.

 
Dan Moulthrop
on Jan 09, 2013

So as not to hijack this conversation, I'll email you. 

 
Garry Kanter
on Jan 09, 2013

I see. As I interpret your e-mail, this on-line forum being used by the BOE/LFC to engage the citizens in conversation is ill-equipped for that task.

But might be just the ticket, someday.

Typical.

 
Expand This Thread
Garry Kanter
on Jan 09, 2013 - 8:10 am

And once Ms. Moulthrop stops believeing that an uninformed transcriber can accomplish the committee's duties, I'll be happy to explain that, much like "quality control", "information exchange" is not something that happens *after* a process is complete.

Ya gots to build it into the product.

Peace.

 
Patrick Mullen
on Jan 08, 2013 - 1:37 pm

Here's the agenda for tomorrow evening's meeting of the CH-UH Lay Facilities Committee at Boulevard Elementary School, 1749 Lee Rd. in Cleveland Heights. The meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m., following a meeting of the Boulevard PTA.

 

CH-UH Lay Facilities Committee Meeting #5Jan. 9, 2013, 7:30 pmBoulevard Elementary School

 

Agenda

 

Welcome - Patrick Mullen

- Follow-up on Sustainability subcommittee requests

- Proposal to add a committee meeting on Jan 29

 

Money Subcommittee - Dave Tabor

- Report on funding sources and project cost estimates, based on meetings held with district's bond counsel, and with OSFC representatives and Regency Construction.

 

Community Subcommittee - Krissy Gallagher and Chyrel Oates

- Report on survey instrument, community engagement plans

 

Buildings Subcommittee 

- Report on survey of teachers regarding grade configuration - Brian Schaner

- Overview of condition of high school - Eric Silverman

 

Adjourn

 

Future meeting venues:

Wed., Feb. 13, Roxboro ElementaryWed., March 20, Oxford ElementaryWed., April 10, CH-UH Main LibraryTues., April 30, Cleveland Heights HS

 

Responses(5)

Garry Kanter
on Jan 08, 2013

Thank you for that info, Patrick.

I will be attending a "Save The Telling Mansion Library In South Euclid" committee meeting at the same time as tomorrow's meeting.

What methods will be used to communicate what took place for those of us that couldn't attend?

By the way, will I need to produce a note in order to be excused from criticism for not attending?

 

 

 
Sam Bell
on Jan 09, 2013
Wednesday, January 9Lay Facilities Committee Meeting7:30 PMThe 5th full meeting of the Lay Facilities Committee will be on Wednesday, Jan. 9, 2013, at Boulevard Elementary School, 1749 Lee Rd., Cleveland Heights. The meeting will start at 7:30 pm, following a meeting of the Boulevard PTA. Open to the public. TheCivicCommons.com and http://chuhfacilities.org/  This meeting will be video taped by Ch. 22 and can be viewed here: http://www.chuh.org/multimedia/videos  
Garry Kanter
on Jan 09, 2013

So, one part of a solution - to the problem that I see, anyways - might be to promote/announce the new meetings videos each time one hits cable rotation, or gets uploaded online.

Perhaps the same media outlets that announce the *meetings*, could also announce the availability of *replays*? Maybe with the cable schedule of broadcasts?

 
Garry Kanter
on Jan 09, 2013

But please note, this does *not* address the openness and exchanging of information that is supposed to be happening at this official site.

 
Krissy Dietrich Gallagher
on Jan 12, 2013

Please note that there are two additional full Lay Facilities Committee meetings: Tuesday, January 29 at the Deb Delisle Center (NOT at Heights High as previously announced, due to an 8th grade parents meeting there that night) and Wednesday, March 6 at Canterbury.  Both will begin at 7pm.

 

There is also a meeting of the Community Subcommittee on Wed Jan 16 at 7pm at The Wine Spot.

 
Expand This Thread
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Jan 08, 2013 - 12:16 pm

The next meeting of the Lay Facilities Committee is at 7:30 p.m., tomorrow, Jan. 9, at Boulevard Elementary School. Attached is a Heights Observer article with the agenda.

 
Garry Kanter
on Jan 08, 2013 - 10:10 am

Hypothetical conversation come the fall:

CH-UH Voter: "I don't know any more about why they want to tear down perfectly good schools, or how they made those determinations, or what I'm getting for $200 MILLION than I knew a year ago!"

BOE/LFC Member: "Yes. Garry Kanter was unwilling to attend all the meetings, take notes, and post them on the Civic Commons. He wasn't selected to be a member of the Lay Facilities Committe, but he *was* asked to do that. Blame him. Not the 27 people who *were* on the committe, but couldn't be bothered to keep the public informed."

 

 

Responses(2)

Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Jan 08, 2013

Here's a link to one of the articles I have written on the Lay Facilities Committee's work for the Heights Observer. It appeared in print in the same issue (December) that you referenced above.

 
Garry Kanter
on Jan 08, 2013

Is the Observer the "Official website" of the LFC, or is the Civic Commons?

Am I supposed to have a different viewpoint becuase you wrote one article five weeks ago?

Because I do not.

And your link links to the other facilitiues "Official" site: http://chuhfacilities.org/ .

So I'm supposed to monitor at tleast three different sites for the extremely rare postiongs?

No. This is not good communications. And it doesn't seem like anyone is really trying.

 

 

 

 

 
Expand This Thread
Garry Kanter
on Jan 06, 2013 - 5:55 am

So, I'm at Irv's Sandwich Shop the other morning, and I while away the time with a copy of the Observer. I guess it was the January issue.

And right there on page 2 is a column exhorting me to keep up with all things "Facicilities", right here at the Civic Commons.

It goes on at some length to explain what a great solution this is, and how this tool will keep everybody informed, and give them a chance to participate.

Yeah. Not so much.

And nobody seems to care.

 

 

 

 

 

Responses(8)

Garry Kanter
on Jan 06, 2013

You got over two dozen people on that committee.

Most of them have never shared a thought on this page.

Is there a committee member tasked with "communications" or "outreach"?

When the inevitable complaints about "not being informed" come about during the levy campaign, I assure you, I will support those complaints, using the over-hyping and under-utilization of this page as Exhibit A.

Please, prove me wrong.

 

 

 

 
Patrick Mullen
on Jan 07, 2013

Garry,

I appreciate and share your frustration at the fairly low level of participation in this online conversation. I hope that changes in the coming months as more members of the committee and community become aware of this tool and comfortable using it. Part of the frustration of trying to engage the community is timeless (it mostly works on a one-to-one basis, coming from a person you trust) and some is particular to this transitional phase of communications we're in. I know people who hate email and some who swear by it. Same with voicemail, texting, Facebook, Twitter, and whatever will replace them. Also, the daily duties of life leave little time for most people to devote much attention to things like school facilities, particularly over the holidays. There has been work going on, such as a survey of teachers on grade configuration, which can be found at the Cleveland Heights Teachers Union website (I put a link below). At our next meeting Wednesday, Jan 9 at 7:30pm at Boulevard School, we'll get updates from our working groups. 

I know I can count on you to hold our feet to the fire. I'll do what I can to keep spreading the word.

 
Garry Kanter
on Jan 07, 2013

That's a funny thing, Patrick.

I was very briefly of the Sustainability not-an-official-subcommittee.

Right away, an e-mail thread became unmanagable. I suggested a solution, using a private facebook group.

Some guy who didn't attend the first meeting blasted me for suggesting such a durn fool thing, and countered with the suggestion that we each limit ourselves to one e-mail per day.

I don't need that BS when I'm volunteering my time.

 

 

 

 

 
Garry Kanter
on Jan 07, 2013

Here's the relavent portion of that e-mail:

--------

 

The current social media fad is over hyped, unsafe (my e-mail was hacked because of Linked-In) and besides, in terms of Farcebook, everything that you post there belongs to them. I would suggest that, if we all are currently copying everyone else in this early conversational phase of the process, we try to personally restrict our individual postings to once a day. I realize that those used to Tweeting their dinner plans might find that rather restrictive, but as we are wanting to recommend practices that will shape children's lives, and encourage building structures that will last for 100 years or more (The Bullitt Center planned for a 250 year life for their building), we might want to take our time and be thoughtful and porpoisful in our thinking, thoughts, conversations, and discussions. (Rant off)-----------I don't care to be pre-judged in such an ignorant manner. 
Jewel Moulthrop
on Jan 07, 2013

Gary, Here's your chance to put some skin in the game by attending Lay Facilities Committee meetings and reporting on them in an informed and constructive way. You seem to really care about the school issue, so encourage your family, friends and neighbors to also participate.

The members of the LFC have been working long and hard to make recommendation that benefit the entire CH-UH community. If you have some ideas for how to involve more people in the discussion, we're listening.

 
Garry Kanter
on Jan 07, 2013

No. I begged to be on the comittee.My services weren't deemed necessary.

I don't care for that reverse-psychology-put-it-back-on-me tactic.

Get some of those city council members, or FutureHeights/Reaching Heights or city employees to do something.

They agreed to participate in a huge project with crushing deadlines. Put the prima donnas to work, or replace them.

Thank you and Patrick for responding.

 

 

 
Jewel Moulthrop
on Jan 08, 2013

Gary,

As far as I can tell, there's nothing to prevent you from reporting on LFC meetings independently--you don't have to be a member of a committee to attend meeting and write about them.

If you're disappointed in the sparse participation in the conversation, as I am, I encourage you again to get your family and friends involved.

 

 
Garry Kanter
on Jan 08, 2013

Let me be clear and unambiguous: This is not about Garry Kanter.

This is about empty promises made by the BOE and the LFC. And a refusal to address this in a meaningful way.

You can dissemble, and try to pull the old "Tom Sawyer fence painting" scam on me, but it's pointless.

Your repeated suggestion is quite frankly, laughable. Except it's the best and only idea cominjg from you people.

Hey, you're the guys that wanna pass a record-sized school levy. You can blow off my *valid* input, but I would suggest that tactic is counter-productive to your goal.

If this doesn't improve, I'll mention it again. Once. After that, the heck with y'all and your levy.

 
Expand This Thread
Garry Kanter
on Dec 31, 2012 - 5:52 pm

Here's wishing The Official Site Of The Lay Facilities Committee provides more interaction and information in 2013 than in 2012. The project deadlines loom, and this is all we get?

 
Brian Schaner
on Dec 19, 2012 - 4:15 pm

196 teachers of the CHUH district responded to a survey regarding district grade configuration possibilities.  The link to the results can be found at the Cleveland Heights Teachers Union website at 

http://chtu.oh.aft.org/

under the Membership/Our Issues tabs.

None of the survey questions was required so not all responders answered every question.  There are 19 pages of (mostly short) comments.  There is probably something for everyone in terms of supporting your opinions but you might notice some themes.

 

Responses(4)

Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Jan 08, 2013

There have been a number of building sub-committee and sustainability working group members who have commented via e-mail on the topic of grade configuration. In an e-mail on 1/2/2013, Laura Marks said:

Brian reaped a lot of useful information in the teachers' survey. I took advantage of some of my connections in the Shaker City School District to find out how their grade configuration works and what they would recommend. Here is what I found and concluded from my conversations.

In recent work for the Lay Facilities Process, Eric Silverman created a graph of different grade configurations used by various school districts in the region. This presentation makes evident there is not much difference among districts by what grade children are grouped. However, it is also evident the Shaker Heights City School District’s grade configuration is different from others and therefore worth investigating to find the advantages and disadvantages of it. To learn the advantages and disadvantages of the Shaker Schools District’s grade configuration I spoke with five people with various perspectives: Danny Young, principal of the Shaker Middle School; Randy Yates principal of Woodbury Elementary School and former principal of the Middle School, Janell Parsons, administrative secretary at the Middle School, former secretary at the High School and mother of children who went through the Shaker system; Mary Hundert a former teacher and guidance councilor in England and Massachusetts and mother of three children who have gone through the school system; and Larry Marks who taught at Byron Junior High and then, as it became the Middle School, for thirty-three years and, following retirement from Shaker, worked as a University Supervisor of student teachers at John Carroll University for over twenty years. The grade configuration in Shaker is currently K - 4 in five, lower elementary buildings, 5 - 6 upper elementary at Woodbury, 7 - 8 at the Middle School, and 9 - 12 at Shaker High. By having the lower and upper elementaries split there is one more transition for students among buildings than in most school districts. However, by grouping children together as early as fifth grade when they move into Woodbury, a cohort is created; all children get to know all the other children in their grade when they are eleven years old and they move together through twelfth grade. The Shaker administration implemented this configuration in 1982 in order to create cohesion among students who had had rivalries between the two junior high schools and to create racial balance within each class. All five people with whom I spoke agreed with Cleveland Heights/University Heights assistant superintendent Jeff Talbert’s assertion that kids regress academically at each transition. Part of this in Shaker is that there are multiple types of transitions for the children as they move from Woodbury to the Middle School. In addition to changing school buildings and the staff within those buildings, children go from being in two core classes (English/Social Studies and Math/Science) to moving from room to room for the various subjects. One consequence of this is that at this transition children must learn time management skills without a single teacher guiding them. Another change in the school day of each student is at Woodbury children may share class time with any of the students within their grade, while the Middle School has team teaching that may separate friends except for classes such as band; students on different teams don’t even share time at lunch. Lastly, there are some curriculum differences between Woodbury and the Middle School. Students “build momentum” in the curriculum of one school and then lose the momentum at the transition. The principals of the two schools are working to improve communication between them and unifying the curriculum to make this transition smoother for the students. It may also help to stagger some of these various transitions rather than having them all concurrent with the change of building. In addition to the academic regression, Hundert and Marks noted there is a parallel emotional/social regression. As students move from being the eldest in one building to being the youngest in the next, they struggle for identity. They occupy older bodies while becoming emotionally younger by being at the bottom of the rung in the new building. However, Hundert believes this is eased in the Shaker model by the cohort moving together as they advance through school. More troublesome in her mind is that peer-to-peer interactions between older students and younger ones, such as eighth graders bullying seventh graders at the Middle School, interfere with academics. Yates says several things have been done to limit seventh and eighth graders mingling, including separating the grades into different wings of the building and having them on slightly different bell schedules to reduce interaction in the hallways. Marks believes the best way to prevent the academic and emotional regression that accompany transitions from one school to another is to minimize transitions with a grade configuration of pre-K - 8 and 9 - 12 (Remember plan A?). These people also shared their opinions about the CHUH administration’s proposal to have 4 - 8 buildings. Some physically cringed at the idea of having fourth graders on the same campus as the eighth graders (which, by the way, is my sentiment also). Yates simply said, “That would be tough.” Young elaborated saying you would need to work diligently to allow the younger students to keep their innocence by physically and temporally segregating them.” I wonder, however, if all such effort is made for segregation, what is the advantage of having them together in one building? Marks said fourth grade is a tough year developmentally and academically for students and therefore a bad time to make a building change. Both principals commented on Shaker’s configuration of two years in one school followed by only two years at the next. It is quick, not quite enough time for the students to come fully into their stride before the next transition. On the other hand, it allows the “problem kids” to leave their reputation behind and begin fresh as they move onto the next school. At the same time, it allows the most advanced and mature students the opportunity to begin to associate with older students. Yates believes three years spent in a building before moving would be better. The people I interviewed differed in their opinions of the grade configuration they would chose if it were up to them. Parsons likes the Shaker grade configuration as it is now. Hundert see the grade configuration as insignificant; the cohesion of having a cohort and progressing with your friends and peers is critical. Yates says grade configuration is much less important than the number of students per building. Research show 600 to 900 students per building to be ideal. However, in his experience, he finds the diversity of socio-economics within the Shaker system creates a need for building size to be at the smaller end of that range. He recommends to us in CHUH to begin by figuring the number of students in each class then figuring how many grades should be in each building to reach an ideal number of 600 - 700 students. He would, however, consider pre-K - 4; 5 - 7; 8 - 9; 10 - 12. Marks is of the opinion, as already stated, that it would be best to limit the transitions by having pre-K - 8 buildings and one 9 - 12 high school. He says that while the idea of “walkability” of neighborhood elementaries is nice, in practicality it is “hogwash” because most students are either bussed or driven to school by a family member. One advantage to Shaker’s grade configuration that I notice, as the school district’s piano technician, is by having all the students of each grade together so early there are enough students to have decent size string and band classes. I assume this would also hold true for other specialized activities, such as sports teams and after-school clubs. In conclusion, everyone acknowledges transitions set students back academically and socially. They see advantages to different grade configurations. However, there is are several strong suggestions:

  • Limit transitions
  • Students should spend at least three years in each building
  • Target 600 - 700 students in each building
  • Stagger academic and building transitions to prevent overwhelming change all at once
  • 4th grade is a bad time for a building transition
  • 4th graders and 8th graders do not belong together
  • There are strong advantages, both academically and socially, to bringing students of one grade from across the district together early to form a cohort

What would the building numbers be if CHUH had

  • pre-K - 4 at the appropriate number of buildings to house the students
  • 5 - 8 at one middle school
  • 9 - 12 at HHS
 
Dan Moulthrop
on Jan 09, 2013

(The following was orginially posted by Deanna Bremer Fisher, adding an email received to the conversation. I'm reposting to remove the strange formatting or her post.) 

Dallas Schubert responded to Laura Marks on 1.5.2013 via e-mail:

This discussion is always going to be fraught with subjectivity and different priorities and perspectives. Intelligent, good meaning people will have different, and sometimes conflicting opinions. While we need to have this discussion, I think we shouldn't bog ourselves down too much trying to come up with THE prefect grade configuration. It is my opinion that if we present two or three different scenarios to the board they should probably contain different configurations. I think the better issue for us to focus on is building size. Grade configurations are likely to change in the future, our job is to create buildings that can accommodate the configuration that we desire today and the one that will be implemented 20 years from now. How many students make a meaningful cohort, how many students in a building are conducive to effective community building? How does this differ at different age/developmental levels? If we can define those standards (Laura has presented the 600-700 number) along with a few different options for how to best break students apart developmentally and in terms of delivery of our current programs (ie, 3rd grade reading guarantee, start of gifted services at 4th grade, start of instrumental music programming at 4th grade, interscholastic sports starting in 7th grade etc etc etc) i think the number of buildings we need will start to take shape.

From reading the teacher input and the input Laura got from Shaker educators I wonder about:

PK-3, 4-6, 7-8, 9-12

PK-4, 5-8, 9-12

PK-4, 5-6, 7-8, 9-12

PK-3, 4-6, 7-9, 10-12

I like the idea of 1 central middle school, I think it offers some beneficial efficiencies of scale.

 
Dan Moulthrop
on Jan 09, 2013

(And here is another similar post from Deanna--we're working on the bug, btw.)

On Jan. 7, 2013, Eric Silverman responded:

While one central middle school is interesting, it creates more problems than it solves.  Even if you keep it to just the current grade configuration (6-8) you are looking at building all new construction for a school nearly as large as Heights High (in Plan C).  Going from three middle schools sites to two is relatively easy politically and also gives you the flexibility of adding another grade to the buildings or splitting up the middle school cohort, an option you don't really have in one building.   

While the Boulevard site is large, once home to three buildings, two of those buildings were small, parking was next to nothing, and Roosevelt did not have a field until 1964 when the former Board Building/Lee Road School was demolished.  The Boulevard site is large for one elementary school, but if you place on it a school large enough for 1200+ students, a track & field and parking you end up with a cramped lot.   

One of the key attributes of the Boulevard site as an elementary school is that it allows you flexibility if you see any growth in elementary enrollment.  Its central site allows you the ability to operate it as a relief valve if numbers swell in any one section of the city.  Its close proximity to large enrollment areas along the Superior Road corridor is hard to replicate in the K-5 cohort as the other school sites in close proximity are Coventry, Taylor (& Millikin?) two schools whose properties are less than ideal and the third is earmarked for a private school. 

While a central middle school is worth exploring and I am open to the idea of consolidating 5/6 and 7/8 into their own buildings of 800 each, or two middle schools of 600 (or 800) each, eliminating Boulevard as an elementary school leaves you with no good site for an elementary between Mayfield and Cedar the length of the city and your only alternate sites are far from ideal and at either end of this corridor.  The Taylor property can have high value as a property to work with the two cities with as a catalyst for redeveloping the Cedar/Taylor business district and Coventry has the potential to become even more of a non-profit magnet or home to back room functions currently at Taylor.  This leaves Taylor as the only good site for an elementary school in the middle of the city, one that little kids can walk to.

 
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Jan 14, 2013

This is very helpful. Thank you, Brian, for putting this together. I encourage everyone to look at the results of the teacher survey.

A couple of things stood out:

  • there is no agreement on an optimal grade configuration, but lots of suggestions for different ways to do it.
  • There seems to be a lot of concern with putting fourth graders grouped with eighth graders.
  • Currently, we have the fourth and fifth graders grouped with the elementary school grades. If we move the fifth grade to a middle-school setting, that would leave the fourth grade at the elementary buildings, where the emphasis is on "learning to read." This might be good, as one teacher pointed out, the new Third Grade Reading Guarantee would hold back any third grader who didn't pass. Having the fourth grade remain in the building would give those children a peer group and enable them to take other grade-appropriate classes. On the other hand, it would be more difficult for fourth grade teachers to team. District administration tells us that cross-grade teams are prefered, but fourth grade has an emphasis on "reading to learn."
  • The more grades we remove from neighborhood-based elementary buildings and place in centralized middleschool buildings, the more our transportation costs will increase.
  • There is a concern about open classrooms. The concept of the "Learning Communities" is not understood by either teachers of members of the LFC. We need more information on this aspect of Plan C.
  • It's great to have this information from the teachers. Are there more ways that we can involved teachers in the process? Participation in LFC subcommittees is open to the public, and that includes teachers.
 
Expand This Thread
Sam Bell
on Dec 09, 2012 - 3:25 pm

Next Sustainability Working Group meeting is 7pm, 12/12/12 at  Bill MacDermott's house, 1042 Renfield, CH.  The public is invited.

 
Sam Bell
on Dec 06, 2012 - 9:54 pm

Note: This is a preliminary assessment of the state of the CHUH school facilities prepared by Sam Bell and Laura Marks, members of the Sustainability Working Group, in consultation with members of the District Custodial staff who shared their views on the condition of anonymity.    It is very much a work in progress and is being shared here to amplify last night’s (12/05/12) “LFC Buildings Update.”  The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the LFC Building Subcommittee.General Considerations

  • Footprints not built for northern climates, have inadequate light, difficulty heating, past 30 year life expectancy, and are “soulless”
  • Older buildings will be difficult and expensive to update due to thick, tapering brick walls. To adequately insulate and update utilities, walls will need to be built interior to the existing walls. All mechanicals need to be updated.
  • Wiley is the only building in the District built to be rebuilt. However, it is “architecturally insignificant”
  • Build new is most expensive option, however, it could generate the most operational savings. This might be the best option for the sites that meet our needs with buildings we dislike (footprints).
  • What to do with buildings we close?

Board of Education• Likes - UH?• Dislikes - bus garage fumes; inadequate space in board room; too few windows in office spaces; inadequate parking• Needs - better interior flow• Assets - It exists. Potentially valuable retail site if we choose to sell it*Optional uses - could add UH Community Ctr/ Sr. Ctr/ UH Branch LibraryMechanical/buses

  • Like - proximity to Wiley shop space that has been taken over by Trades
  • Dislikes - tight space for buses and parking; fumes engulf people
  • Needs - Mechanicals, Buses,Trades and Grounds need to remain together if the site is moved; remove this use from people
  • Assets - It exists with much expensive, specialized equipment
  • Optional uses-  could convert to use by/for vocational/technical ed?

Deborah S. Delisle Educational Options Center

  • Likes - Central; proximity to HHS; proximity to Dugway brook; proximity to Cain Park; adequate and separate parking for employees and users of student services;
  • Dislikes - Footprint; main sewer has cracks that are chemically treated regularly
  • Needs - Insulation in ceiling with solar tube lighting;
  • Assets - Solar potential; recent renovation; CWRU plans for rain garden and bioswales; site for learning gardens; adjacent to failed UH community garden
  • Optional uses

Boulevard• Likes - location, location, location (specifically proximity to HHS, Cain Park, Cumberland, CH rec center, Lee Rd. Library). Several large trees • Dislikes -  footprint bldg very inefficient, little natural light• Needs - teardown, rebuild as new central Middle School. Landscape to include stormwater management, trees, learning and community gardens.• Assets - centrally located (reduces travel); large grounds with plenty of room for outdoor activities, athletic fields*Optional uses - The best use of this site is to build a single, 6-8 middle school. The central location, bus service, proximity to HHS, etc., all make this the ideal location to house all our middle school students. By so doing, we can ensure all middle school students have access to the same quality education. In addition, there will be enough students to have quality music and sports programs, after-school clubs.Canterbury• Likes - original architecture; student density; “excellent rating” (keep community together); synergies with community gardens; very bikeable area• Dislikes - poor drainage; too much asphalt; usually over heated by steam heat and poor controls• Needs -  remove additions; new mechanicals and insulation including windows. Landscape to include stormwater management with bioswales and trees and learning garden.• Assets -  large lot; soccer fields; walking path*Optional usesCoventry• Likes - great location; potential synergies with community gardens (at Peace Park), very bikeable area. Former school was the top ranked academically and had very supportive parents.• Dislikes -footprint bldg. with insufficient natural light, inefficient heat• Needs - better stormwater management; nearby Peace Park is deteriorating. Landscape to include stormwater management, trees, learning and community garden.• Assets - Washington Blvd. closed to through traffic; synergy with existing [but non ADA compliant] Library; near creek for nature studies*Optional uses - already leased (Are we making money? Should District be in the landlord business?)Fairfax• Likes - location near library and on Lee Rd. corridor; student density; wildflower garden; community garden; outdoor amphitheater; bioswales in parking lot; lower playing field• Dislikes - same as other footprint bldgs    • Needs - Landscape to include stormwater management, trees, learning gardens  • Assets - Fairfax closed to through traffic; moderately high degree of parental involvement.*Optional uses - natatorium, Gearity• Likes - semi-secluded, large lot with playground, softball field and trees; well-controlled access; UH east of Warrensville; new office• Dislikes - worn, inefficient layout; very tight for delivery and repair trucks• Needs - thorough renovation including insulating, HVAC and controls, lighting, plumbing• Assets - proximity to JCU; moderately high degree of parental involvement.*Optional uses - UH community park; guest housing/hostel for JCU visitors; sell to JCU; private school campusMillikin (To Be Leased)• Likes - ecologically sensitive and varied surroundings, especially near stables, very elementary child friendly layout; each classroom has access to outdoors• Dislikes - difficult for busses to drop off and pick up• Needs - very run-down• Assets - extremely secluded location*Optional uses - sell to Mos DosNoble• Likes - architecture; student density; large trees on West side• Dislikes - small with no space to expand; east wing terrible, low ceilings, uninviting; media center is an energy hog and very humid; too much pavement; traffic on Noble Rd.; traffic congestion before and after school;• Needs - HVAC, lighting;*Assets- high parental involvement; strong synergies with adjacent Library and after school programs, new playground*Optional uses - Administration/Board of Ed.; Sell to developer for apartment building;Oxford• Likes - student density; architecture;  community garden;• Dislikes - heat cannot be controlled in basement rooms with steam returns through them; heat control issues in library and computer room; too much asphalt and grass over headwaters• Needs - Landscaping to include stormwater management, trees, learning gardens.• Assets - large site, several large shade trees; WPA murals; headwaters of 9-mile creek; first-grade redesigned wing.*Optional uses - Sell to developer for apartment building;Roxboro Elementary• Likes - architecture outside and auditorium; synergy with middle school and larger lot;• Dislikes - very small lot with inadequate room for parking; busy traffic on N. Park; very low student population density in area; library wing detracts from architecture• Needs - new mechanical systems and insulation, including windows; reduce asphalt on SE corner; community garden (where?)• Assets - proximity to ravine*Optional uses -  branch library?; Music School Settlement;Monticello• Likes - architecture; student density NE; auditorium; media center; band room is large and has (dysfunctional) humidity control in instrument storage room;• Dislikes - busy traffic; additions;• Needs - Major rework of all interior systems; larger elevator; relocate safer and more bike racks; renovate auditorium;• Assets - playing field and community access to walking track;*Optional uses -  library branch?;  potential campus for administrative work for UH or cleveland clinic (gut and renovate)Roxboro Middle• Likes - architecture; pretty, campus-like setting; plenty of secured bike racks;• Dislikes - busy traffic on N. Park; very low student population density in area; most expensive building to renovate; inability to properly vent sixth grade space;• Needs - major rework of all interior systems, larger freight elevator. note:  it is the consensus of the building custodians that this building should be closed.• Assets -  Elementary-Middle school campus; Rocket Zone; tennis courts, athletic fields, proximity to ravine; sixth-grade wing redesign (has mixed reviews)*Optional uses - Hotel!; Judson senior center; Biomedical research or startupWiley• Likes - building built to be rebuildable; in UH; proximity to Purvis Park.• Dislikes -  bus garage fumes; flooding/stormwater management; “architecturally insignificant”; dysfunctional school community leads to high damage rate; badly neglected repair regime; poor lighting; heat loss by conduction of aluminum framed windows;• Needs - bus garages relocated away from students/administration; elevator; energy-efficient fenestration; music classrooms closer to auditorium; Landscaping to include stormwater management, trees, learning and community gardens.• Assets - auditorium; more space than necessary for an elementary school; could be designed to house the UH library branch.*Optional uses - could add UH Community Ctr/ Sr. Ctr/ UH Branch Library/ community theater or performance spacesHeights High

  • Likes - central location on Lee Rd. corridor; large site; original architecture; auditorium; athletic fields; clock tower
  • Dislikes - High traffic area; poor access control; daily influx of student autos disrupts commercial activities in area; disruptive student behavior except on coldest/wettest days; HVAC out of control; science wing is ugly and outdated; many, many additions are convoluted; dirt space cannot be sealed from insects, rodents, and mold;
  • Needs - new mechanical and electrical systems; consolidation of space; repair sewage lines and systems; insulation in western wall and throughout; trees on tree lawn; landscape courtyard to be inviting green space; student drop-off area; refurbish clock tower; VoTech (Career Technical Education) hands-on learning space; better access to natural features (trees, greenspaces, etc); parking garage to reduce footprint, perhaps off site; consider closing Washington Blvd from Goodnor to Lee except for buses, at least during certain hours, and make one-way (East) at all times; Sheltered bike racks;
  • Assets - strong musical program; sufficient student body size to allow for meeting diverse academic needs; on two bus routes; Cedar/Lee merchants support; (with some reservations)
  • Optional uses -

All “Footprint” Bldgs:These bldgs were originally designed for a warm, sunny climate, such as California or Florida. They had an initial projected lifespan of 30 years and are now approximately 40 years old.  They intentionally minimize natural light to keep the buildings cool, and HVAC units are at the top of the buildings. These allow the buildings to be cooled easily, but are difficult, inefficient and noisy to heat.  The roofs have a current insulation value of R=3.  More effective insulation cannot be accomplished without removing and reconfiguring the upper windows which are very close to the roofline.  Effective building insulation would require removal of the existing inside facings of all exterior walls, construction of an insulation cavity, and rebuilding interior wall facings thereafter.  All windows are currently single pane, allowing significant heat loss. The basic slabs are structurally sound (even at Coventry) as are the outer walls.  Interior walls were built on 24 inch centers, opposed to the standard 16 inch center, with ⅜” drywall, leading to early wear.  The current  open interior design is notoriously noisy and would require major redesign of HVAC in conjunction with any attempt to close off areas from one another.  The interior ramps are also noisy and bouncy, and may be underbuilt.  It is unclear whether they meet current ADA guidelines. It may be possible to capture the light from the top windows and send it into the living space through solar light tubes. This would allow the roof to be insulated to R=30. To heat effectively, the HVAC would need to be redesigned for heat rising, by putting the units in the lower level. HVAC ducts amplify loud white noise. People living , studying, and working in these buildings with inadequate lighting and constant noise are distracted from academics and subject to vision difficulties and headaches.It is not clear that these buildings should be salvaged.  (Unable to find justification for last year’s $1.3M renovation at Delisle Center.) However, if this building is retained, it would make an ideal site for a demonstration solar project, and one is being considered.All sites: need sheltered bike racks.  Preferred: solar-powered lighting, air compressor at least one per site.  Well drained concrete/asphalt /pervious hard surface with proper paths and markings to avoid car traffic where possible.To encourage bike use, bike parking should be the most convenient and accessible (except for handicap spaces).  [Visitor parking should be second most convenient.  Staff parking next, student parking, if provided, should be made as inconvenient as possible.]

 

Responses(8)

Garry Kanter
on Dec 07, 2012

Outstanding work, Sustainability Subcommittee!!

But...

In the spirit of "Internet Memes", here's "An answer to a question that you will never hear":

Q: Why does the CH-UH SD receive the state report card scores that they do?

A: Many of the schools have insufficient natural light and are soulless.

 

The statement may be true, and it comes up in *every* discussion I've ever had regarding the facilities levy- in person, on-line, in e-mails, and it's (essentially) in your opening paragraph - but I just can't wrap my head around it as a meaningful causal factor for why our scores are different than Solon's.

Peace.

 
Sam Bell
on Dec 07, 2012

While there is some merit to the proposed Q & A, I think it's a gross oversimplification which does little to advance the process because it ignores far too many differentiating factors between the two systems.  Issues of family income, transience, parental involvement, early exposure to books, reading, art, and culture, etc are among the mostly widely recognized and publicized of these, but there are numerous others ranging from health, nutrition, and exposure to environmental pollutants to family stress levels. 

 
Sam Bell
on Dec 07, 2012

I should also point out that my previous post was made in my capacity as a citizen and resident.  Ms Marks' and my affiliation with the Sustainability Working Group was mentioned for purposes of identification rather than implying any official sanction of our work product by the SWG, the Building Subcommittee (which has, as of yet, taken no stance on any of this, but is gathering information at this stage), or any other body.

 
Garry Kanter
on Dec 07, 2012

The "proposed Q & A" is nothing of the sort, Sam.It's merely a tool to demonstrate, via a pithy example, that, exactly as you enumrerated at length, the two items I referenced are wayyyy down the list of education influencers.Yet, they always get mentioned, and, just as you did, they get mentioned pretty early in every discussion I've ever participated in, or read.My posting is in no way intended to bring negative attention to any aspect of your grou[p's outstanding efforts.Peace.

 

 

 
Christy Dolan
on May 23, 2013

I am going back through these posts now for a few reasons.  I realize this is an older post.  I didn't notice this then, but wanted to ask for clarification now...if you have it.  Since it was so long ago, I realize you may not remember the context.  But I'd like to know more about the thoughts behind these comments in regards to Wiley:

 

"dysfunctional school community leads to high damage rate; badly neglected repair regime"

Do you have any more detaily or insight into what was meant by these comments.  Specifically, what is the "dysfunctional school community" that "leads to high damage rate"...especially compared to other middle schools.  Also I am not clear on what is meant by the "badly neglected repair regime".

 

Thanks and I apologize for the late clarification request.

Christy

 
Sam Bell
on May 24, 2013

Christy,

As a snap-shot indicator, consider this: the incidence of intentional vandalism of school pianos is approximately twice as frequent and severe at Wiley as at either of the two other middle schools. (I distinguish this more destructive behavior, such as ripping off the music stand, from simple vandalism such as marking one's intials.)  While middle school is widely known as a time for trying out new new ideas and trying on new self-identities, the pervasiveness of more thuggish and destructive behavior at Wiley suggests that the school culture is correctly characterized as "dysfunctional." 

Every school has a repair regime, a set of items which must be regularly inspected, maintained, repaired, or replaced.  It appears that this is not being as consistently applied at Wiley as at most other schools in the district.

 
Christy Dolan
on May 24, 2013

Ok.  Thanks for that clarification.  So would you say that the problem with the repair regime (again, thanks for definition because I hadn't heard that term before) at Wiley is an issue with the administration at Wiley or custodial staff?  It cannot be caused by the students, right?  or perhaps I am misunderstanding.

I am also surprised re: the Wiley characterization as I was under the impression that things regarding behavior were improving.  I am surprised by the descirption of "the pervasiveness of more thuggish and destructive behavior at Wiley "

So if the Wiley students show more thuggish and destructive behavior, when they are mixed into Rox and Monti will those problems start occurring there too, do you think?  Or are the problems perceived to be with administration/behavior management?  It cannot be the building itself....must be the students or staff/administration...right?  Or am I missing something?

 

thanks again for your insight/explanation.

 

Christy

 
Christy Dolan
on May 24, 2013

I guess I have to add:

I do not think it serves the districts' purpose to negatively describe any group of our students.  I do take offense to the description of one schools' students as thuggish and destructive.  These are middle school kids in our district...they shouldn't be characterized like that in a facilities discussion.  They are going to be going to school somewhere in our district with some mix of students.

If the issue is one of poor behavior management at the school, that is still not a facilities issue.  If this discussion is about facilities and those questions around building closings...then the discussion shoudl be about size of buildings, size of site, flexibiity of space, re-saleability etc.  

The behavior, academic ability, achievement or "thuggishness" of any particular group of students sholdn't be in question or discussion...from a facilities standpoint.  The same kids are going to be somewhere in our shcool district/system.

I am not privy to all the details that you who are more entrenched in the system are privy to.  But personally I have heard very positive things about Wiley in the last few years. I have seen negative headlines regarding the other middle schools.  And I do not think we should be basing facilities discussion on the anectodal behavior of our students at any school.  It doesn't belong in a facilities discussion.  Another type of discussion maybe. but not facilities.

 
Expand This Thread
Patrick Mullen
on Dec 04, 2012 - 8:18 pm

Here are the agenda and two documents for the 4th meeting of the CH-UH Lay Facilities Committee, meeting Wednesday, Dec. 5, 2012, 7:00 to 8:30 pm at Fairfax Elementary School, 3150 Fairfax Rd. in Cleveland Heights. Thanks go out to Principal Andrett Calloway and the Fairfax community for hosting.

Agenda

Sustainability Update (Green Schools)

Building Update

 

The 5th full meeting of the Lay Facilities Committee will be on Wednesday, Jan. 9, 2013, at Boulevard Elementary School, 1749 Lee Rd., Cleveland Heights. The meeting will start at 7:30 pm, following a meeting of the Boulevard PTA.

 

Responses(3)

Garry Kanter
on Dec 06, 2012

I read the "Building Update document", and got as far as Boulevard.

It reads like The Silverman Plan from the summer. Is that correct?

 
Sam Bell
on Dec 16, 2012
An after-meeting school tour of Fairfax revealed that virtually every computer in the building had been left ON. C'mon, we can do better than that!  And if you doubt that we need a "grand Poohbah" of Sustainability, please tell me precisely who is responsible for making sure that isn't a daily occurence.  If sustainability is left to be everyone's  responsibility, there will be no one to be held accountable. 
Garry Kanter
on Dec 17, 2012

My first hand experience with Reaching Heights and FutureHeights/Observer is that they are unofficial, and undeclared, extensions of the governmental agencies they interact with, the BOE & city council, respectively.

These are advocacy/support groups, not citizen watchdogs. Which is different than how they present themselves.

I would not expect Patrick Mullen, or any officer with either group to ruffle any feathers. That's not how they see their roles as Executive Directors or Board Members.

 
Expand This Thread
Jason Russell
on Dec 04, 2012 - 2:45 pm

The Promise of Sustainable Schools

            The financial benefits of building greener, more sustainable schools are clear: for just two percent more additional outlay, green, efficient buildings keep energy and operational costs in check for years into the future, saving long-term money that can be spent on academic programs and services.  However,  perhaps even more compelling than the savings is the mounting evidence indicating that greener schools are simply better for our children. We assert that, in addition to the substantial energy savings over the lifetime of a school building, creating green schools is a promising route to higher test scores, better academic performance, and happier, healthier students.

Healthy Buildings, Healthy Students

            In recent years, the U.S. Government Accountability Office revealed that indoor air quality in about 15,000 schools was nearly unfit to breathe; students were breathing air tainted with mold spores, volatile organic compounds, and other chemical emissions that cause allergic reactions and asthma. Asthma is the most common chronic illness in children under the age of 15, and is the leading cause of student absenteeism. Schools designed and built with sustainability in mind have drastically fewer indoor air pollutants, as well as better ventilation, reducing the potential for allergens and the spread of viruses. Data compiled by the American Federation of Teachers reveals:

Improved air quality translates into an estimated 25 percent drop in asthma, and as much as a 20 percent decline in viral illnesses...Students and faculty have fewer sick days, lower rates of absenteeism, and decreased medical costs. There is also evidence that better air quality improves student productivity and test scores, and by providing a better working environment, increases teacher retention rates.

Seeing Better, Breathing Better, Learning Better

            It is obvious that students who are out sick because of irritants and pathogens circulated in their school buildings are not going to be learning well, but what about the students that remain in the classroom? A growing body of research indicates that greener buildings are of benefit to all students, and the results come through in their test scores. A 2006 study of fifth-grade classrooms in 54 elementary schools revealed a strong correlation between indoor air quality (specifically, CO2 concentrations) and reading and math test scores. A similar study in Denmark found that fourth-grade students taught in rooms with better air quality showed about 15 percent improvement in math test scores. Data compiled by Gregory Katz of Capital E building firm indicates that, “based on actual improvements in design in green schools and based on a very substantial data set...on productivity and test performance of healthier, more comfortable study and learning environments, a 3-5% improvement in learning ability and test scores in green schools appears reasonable and conservative.” A 2005 survey indicated that green schools showed notable improvements in student performance and school image (fig. 1).

            Air quality is not the only green building element contributing to student success. A number of schools across the country have incorporated “daylighting”--access to full-spectrum natural light—into their designs, with good results. While southern exposures, large windows, skylights, and other natural light elements add little to the initial building cost, the benefits of these features are considerable: reduced cooling and lighting demands, reduced maintenance, and improved student performance. A study of 21,000 students across three school districts showed test score improvements of up to 18% in daylight schools. Researchers believe that a lack of full-spectrum light interferes with students' hormone patterns and biorhythms, thereby reducing their ability to concentrate and cooperate. With these factors in mind, it becomes clear that if our schools are to foster good educations, we must get back to the basics of life: clean air and plenty of light.   

Case Studies

            The Maryland Green Schools Program

            The Maryland Green Schools Program began in 1999 and, since that time, has certified 398 schools that meet several criteria in the categories of Community Partnerships, Curriculum and Instruction, and Best Management Practices. Figures from 2010 track the performance of schools before and after becoming Maryland Green Schools, and their results in both elementary/middle schools (fig. 2) and high schools (fig. 3) are startling. High school math scores in particular showed considerable improvement. Note that the Maryland Green Schools program is holistic in approach, with an eye towards teaching sustainability practices to future generations; thus students are made to feel directly involved in their school's success in the program.

            Tarkington School of Excellence

            Tarkington School of Excellence in Chicago has many factors working against it: built for the purpose of relieving overcrowding in two other schools, its student body is 90 percent minority and 90 percent of the students come from families with incomes below the poverty level. Yet Tarkington was built as the first LEED-certified school in the district, with a “green roof”, enormous windows, and tile floors made from recycled materials. When school is not in session, Tarkington is open to the public for yoga, fitness, and dance classes, fostering a spirit of community involvement. When Tarkington opened, neighboring schools had 50 percent or fewer students meeting or exceeding state standards; in Tarkington's first year, 59.4 percent of its students met or exceeded state standards, and in the following year that number jumped to 66 percent. Teachers report that students at Tarkington are absent less frequently and show greater interest and involvement in their studies.

            Third Creek Elementary

            Third Creek Elementary School in Statesville, North Carolina was built to replace two failing schools in the district, ADR and Wayside Elementary. Bearing a LEED Gold Certification, the school boasts an annual savings of over $26,000 on gas and electric bills. Just as compelling as the energy savings is the dramatic improvement in student scores; Third Creek presents a unique case in that the same students and teachers from the failing schools were brought into a sustainable building and their performance was tracked both before and after. Third Creek was opened in 2002, and test scores jumped over 15 percent.

Conclusions

            While there may be some initial cost savings in building a new school without sustainability in mind, sustainable school buildings pay tremendous dividends in terms of both future energy savings and nearly immediate improvement in student test scores. When planning for new facilities, we must avoid becoming short-sighted, and we must consider our true purpose: furthering the education, health, and happiness of our children.

 
Green%20schools
FutureHeights
on Nov 14, 2012 - 11:39 am

After members of the community rejected the three school facilities plans presented by the CH-UH City School District last spring, a new Lay Facilities Committee (LFC) was formed and charged with shaping a plan that would have the support of local voters in Nov. 2013.The new LFC is grappling with several issues: Buildings (how many? grade configuration? where should they be?); Community (what community-based partnerships are feasible and in the best interest of all residents?); Money (price tag? how to pay for it?); Sustainability (will the renovations, repairs, or new buildings serve the community for many decades? or will they go out of style in a few years as new education buzzwords come in to play?).Engaging the community in the planning process is a key goal of the LFC, and here is a place to do that. Whichever aspect of the LFC’s task concerns you the most, we want and need to hear your thoughts. We invite participation from all residents of the CH-UH community and members of the Lay Facilities Committee, as well as from the school board and administration. Join the conversation now; don’t wait until it’s decided for you.

 

Responses(23)

Patrick Mullen
on Nov 14, 2012

Thanks to Deanna Bremer Fisher of FutureHeights and Jewel Molthrop of Civic Commons for setting up this conversation. 

Thanks also to the CH-UH school district, which videotape meetings of the Lay Facilities Committee, starting with tonight's meeting at Noble Elementary School, for online posting and broadcast on Channel 22 in the Heights.

The Lay Facilities Committee blog is at http://www.chuhfacilities.org

 

 
FutureHeights
on Nov 14, 2012

Thanks, Patrick, for your immediate response to the announcement that FutureHeights is alive--and conversing--on the Civic Commons website. Just to clarify, I'm affiliated with FutureHeights and the Heights Observer, but I (Jewel Moulthrop) love the Civic Commons and all the help they've given us to engage the residents of Cleveland Heights and University Heights on this important issue.

 
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Nov 14, 2012

The Lay Facilities Committee is meeting tonight and the public is invited! The meeting will take place at 7:15 p.m. at Noble Elementary School.

 
Stephanie Wahome
on Nov 14, 2012

Great convo on this space.  What are the updates from the meeting?

 
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Nov 15, 2012

Kal Zucker, board of education member, opened the meeting with a confirmation of the committee's charge. He said that the board was walking a fine line between wanting to provide guidance, but not wanting to manipulate the committee in any way. He said that the board would like us to use the information that had been generated by the previous process, but that it didn't expect us to reach the same conclusions. He encouraged the committee to bring ideas to the board when we needed clarification, and that they see this process as a dialogue.

 
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Nov 14, 2012

I was asked today what the biggest issues were in regards to Plan C, the plan that the CHUH Board of Education had approved and would have placed on the Nov. 2012 ballot. I said that many people have expressed a concern that the cost was too high. Many are concerned about school building closures. University Heights was concerned that Plan C would have closed the only elementary school in that city. People were concerned that Learning Communities was a 21st century version of the failed open classroom concept that we built new school buildings around in the 1970s. And people remain confused about what Pathways are.

That's my take after talking with lots of people. Are there other issues?

 
Sam Bell
on Nov 14, 2012

Deanna,

Indeed, there are other issues. 

Both "Pathways" and "Learning Communities" are regarded by many as passing pedagogical fads, so our real focus must be on developing spaces which can be used flexibly, no matter what new teaching styles arise during the next 50+ years. 

There is also a growing group supporting the idea of establishing one centrally located Middle/Jr High School to allow for greater efficiencies in delivering a wide range of classes at all needed levels for this critical age group.  This would also foster development of a broader self-identification with the larger community at an earlier age.  (One likely outcome would be the creation of an even stronger instrumental music program.  How wonderful it could be if our youngsters got used to playing together at an earlier age.  Our program could easily come to rival Interlochen.)

Many folks also want to see designs that invite public access and use, or that coordinate the works of other cultural institutions, such as the Library, or perhaps a new UH Senior Center, for example.

Additionally, as you know, there is a strong constiuency for incorporating sustainability into our new facilities designs and operations.  A great deal more on that subject can be found here: http://theciviccommons.com/conversations/school-facilities-planning-true-sustainability-or-lip-service--2       ; Also, indoor air quality remains a significant concern (http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/345791/description/Elevated_carbon_dioxide_may_impair_reasoning ; ) especially at the Wiley site because of the proximity of the bus garage. 

 

 
Sam Bell
on Nov 14, 2012

Additionally, the former Plan C failed to make adequate provision for career technical education (formerly vocational-technical education).  This is a must as the CHUH District is the lead school in a consotium with two neighboring districts.

  
Jewel Moulthrop
on Nov 15, 2012

As someone who has always been suspicious of education buzzwords, I was glad to read in your comments that there are others who regard Learning Communities and Pathways as pedagogical fads. So far, I haven't heard them described in any ways that differ from the failed "open classrooms" of the 70s.

 
Sam Bell
on Nov 22, 2012

I think there are some differences between these, though certainly they have not yet been clearly articulated in a compelling manner. (The current ideas focus around team teaching, using teachers more as resources and guides, less as purveyors of facts; more emphasis on small group projects*, research-based learning, etc.)

The real issue before us, however, is not so much one of pedagogy per se, but one of ensuring sufficient facility flexibility in meeting the ever-evolving demands of whatever forms of instruction arise over the next decades. 

 

*IMHO, a very a real burden for the smartest and most highly motivated group members, whose grades may well be jeopardized by their lower-achieving fellow group members, in spite of faculty protestations to the contrary.  Conversations with current high-achieving students confirm that this is a real fear on their part, leading them to do more and more on each project out of concern for their own academic futures.

 
Jodi Sourini
on Nov 17, 2012

There was also much concern from the community about overall total cost of the project, particularly in an uncertain economy.

 
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Nov 19, 2012

Grade configuration is another concern. The current configuration is 7 elementary schools containing kindergarten through fifth grade, 3 middle schools containing graces six through eight and 1 high school with grades nine through twelve.

Plan C would reduce the number of elementaries to 4 pre-k through third grades, three middle schools containing grades four through eight and one high school. The rationale behind this is that kids "learn to read" in grades k-3, and then they "read to learn." The new Ohio teacher licensure reflects this so teachers are licensed to teach in grades k-3 or 4-8.

What are the pros and cons of the current configuration versus the proposed one?

 

 

 
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Nov 19, 2012

Grade configuration is another concern. The current configuration is 7 elementary schools containing kindergarten through fifth grade, 3 middle schools containing graces six through eight and 1 high school with grades nine through twelve.

Plan C would reduce the number of elementaries to 4 pre-k through third grades, three middle schools containing grades four through eight and one high school. The rationale behind this is that kids "learn to read" in grades k-3, and then they "read to learn." The new Ohio teacher licensure reflects this so teachers are licensed to teach in grades k-3 or 4-8.

What are the pros and cons of the current configuration versus the proposed one?

 

 

 
Greg Schmid
on Nov 23, 2012

Personally, I think it is not proper to have fourth through eighth graders in the same school.  Fourth graders are still, in my mind, children and are vulnerable to teenagers (meaning 7th and 8th graders).  This is putting nine and ten year olds up against 13 and 14 year olds (and perhaps 15 year olds).  I think it is better to keep fourth and 5th graders in the same school with first through third grades, despite the teaching certificate issue. 

 
Greg Schmid
on Nov 18, 2012

It appears to me that CH-UH is losing its way.  Problems with principals, students (didn't the students used to have laptops before someone decided to go with the ipads which the school was not ready to utllize?), and facilities.  It appears as if there is no leadership in the school district.  Can I go swimming in the North pool?

 

 
Sam Bell
on Nov 22, 2012

Pleased as I am to see yet another channel for public dialog on these issues, I am not sure whether we are better off being spread out over so many sites.  (My own preference, based solely on ease of navigation leans towards the Civic Commons site [this one], and away from the Word Press site [http://chuhfacilities.org/].)

 
Garry Kanter
on Nov 30, 2012

You raise a good point, Sam.

At some point, the claim will be made that all citizens were invited to participate in the discussions.

Which is true, only if all citizens somehow know to come to this "Official" site of the Lay Facilities Committee.

Except it's not, and they don't.

 

 

 

 
Deanna Bremer Fisher
on Nov 30, 2012

You know what they say, "If you're not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem."

 
Dan Moulthrop
on Nov 30, 2012

Sam--perhaps this conversation could be embedded at the "official" site, to allow for some connectivity. 

 
Jewel Moulthrop
on Dec 01, 2012

Seems to me that the more sites on which this conversation is happening, the more people may become engaged.

 
Garry Kanter
on Jan 06, 2013

How's that working out?

 
Sam Bell
on Dec 02, 2012

Dan, I understand that is underway.

 
Sam Bell
on Dec 07, 2012

This is now the "official home site" of the Lay Facilities Committee.  Thanks for your hospitality!

 
Expand This Thread