Vision 20/20
10/23/14 Committee Meeting Notes
Welcome: Geoff Palmer . We’ll be reviewing where we are, where we’ve been
HISTORICAL REVIEW
Mission laid out to 20/20 and planning committee to continue the clear, well-planned vision for
providing and maintaining Westlake’s vision for excellence. The committee narrowed down 18 options
down to 2 and recommended those to the BOE for further study and consideration to be revisited.


Option 1: 6 building neighborhood elementary configuration
Option 2: Grade-level configuration – five building clustering of grade levels.
Both moved 4th grade to intermediate school.
Original neighborhood configured option moved from 7 to 6 buildings included Parkside renovation to
PK-3, new PK-3 building at Holly Lane and PK building on west side at Bradley Road property or Bassett.
Cost estimates of just under $12 million to renovate Parkside, new K-4 building at Holly Lane and Bassett
or Bradley is around $33 million. As the transition happened from early plans, original plans talked about
moving 4th grade to intermediate. As renovated middle school to move intermediate, determined it was
not cost effective to move 4th grade.
Moving from 7 to 5 building in grade-level configuration meant renovating Parkside, new building at
Bradley or Bassett. 20/20 committee, one of their real targets and beliefs was by decreasing the number
of buildings, we’ll generate operational savings, economies of scale (fewer cafeterias, bus stops). A lot of
work put into concepts to get to this point.
Cost estimates for grade-level configuration is around the same price, but a different layout.
Into spring 2014, there was some belief we could get to 4 buildings with a renovation on one property
and make other assets available. Lower overall expenses. Concern of original planning process, you see
transitions from neighborhood buildings into a common grade there are impacts on education.
Challenges of bringing various students, consistency in curriculum and different cultures and climates.
One thought was to address transitions, provide for most efficient operations, eliminate the need to add
onto the intermediate, keep a small school feel and allow our assets to be considered for other options.
In 4 building, 3-site concept, have the high school, Dover campus, Parkside building called for keeping
this building as is and adding on to serve PK-4 at this site. Estimates projected at around the same dollar
amounts in construction end, but realizing savings in operations.
Going back to 2009, what we heard was do something with significance, segment to keep the millage
low, maintain a relative position of our district and community taxpayers in relation to other
communities, consider debt drop in 2017 to keep tax payments level, look at a permanent improvement
project for maintenance and repair of buildings in an ongoing manner. Back in 2009 our community did
not qualify for state funding. We need to address that PI component to maintain and address facilities.
The low or no new millage option concept: A ballot or bond issue could be structured to take full
advantage of 2017 debt drop off.
Some key decisions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
What does Phase II look like?
What are we willing to take on?
Determine recommended funding sources (income tax, property tax , combination)
Determine recommended ballot strategy (combined ballot issue v. single ballot issue, pros and
cons)
5. Incorporation of 2017 millage drop off
6. Incorporation of PI component
There are no decisions. We are in a very preliminary phase, seeking input.
In August we started looking at the completion of Phase I and started discussion of where we go from
here. We have data a few years old. We contacted Lesko Architects who did the feasibility study five
years ago and asked them to update their data.
ROB/LESKO ARCHITECTS
We updated numbers to today’s costs. All costs have increased since 2008. Looking at systems, finishes,
accessibility and you come up with a cost to renovate the building so it is equal to today’s standards.
Then looked at each of the elementary schools and looked at the renovation costs v. the cost of doing
new building. Used state standard numbers for square footage.




To get Bassett to house 430 students, you need to renovate and put an addition on = $10
million. New building is $12.9 million. We look at the ratio of that, doing renovation and
addition as well l as the new building and we get that 79% ratio. State uses 2/3 standard to
recommend new v. renovation.
Dover Elementary with 238 students, need to add onto building to house students. New building
$10.7 million. Renovation and addition $9 million.
Hilliard – renovation and addition costs $8.5 million, new $10.4 million. Ration 81%. Well over
2/3 ration.
Holly Lane = renovation $8 million, new $9.4 million. Ratio up to 84%.

Parkside = 600 students with renovation and update is $13.1 million, new $13.6 million. Ratio is
70%.
Ratios similar to first feasibility study.
Tested each site for size of a building to fit on it. We take square footage of required building and place
on site. We haven’t met with staff or gone through engagement, but this gives a good idea of the size of
a building and the elements needed to build on the site.




Bassett site could hold PK-2 or 3-4, or PK-4 building. Could build while old building is still in
operation. At Bassett this is the only sized building you can get.
Bradley Road site have wetlands. Study marked out existing wetlands = 15.5 acres. If use site,
need environmental studies done to mitigate some of wetlands. A lot of the space is taken up. If
able to mitigate center area of wetlands, would be able to get a building that could be PK-2 or 34, or PK-4 building.
Dover site: PK-2 or 3-4 buildings, or PK-4 building. Both buildings fit, but need to work out
circulation. Could have all students on this site.
Parkside site: PK-2 or 3-4 buildings, or PK-4 building. Tight site, but still workable. We know
there are issues with drop-off and lining up into the street. This would help with that.
Some of the options: Build 2 new elementary grade-level schools PK-2 and 3-4. Costs together about
$38.5 million.
Neighborhood option: $38 million.
Holly Lane, because of renovations and lot sizes, Holly Lane and Hilliard are not part of the discussion in
case we renovate all sites.
Option 3: one new elementary school for all elementary, just over $34 million, only 3 sites would be able
to accommodate that size building.
Building one larger building is always cheaper than building two smaller.
Geoff Palmer:
To get this ball rolling, we decided to engage Lesko and keep it reasonable making assumptions. It did
not appear sites and renovations needed in Holly Lane and Hilliard sites were realistic options. That
becomes a real issue we need to step back and look at.
Comment: if you take away Holly Lane, you take away south presence. Did you consider new
construction at Holly?
To utilize Holly Lane, you would have to demolish the site, meaning you would have to move students
for 18 months to 2 years. Is it possible? Yes. Is it something that looks reasonable? Assumptions were
made and not all were made a part of this presentation. If we need to step back.
As we move forward, your inut will be needed. We’ll be conducting an online survey asking comments
or thoughts about neighborhood v. grade level, revised grade level condcept, other assets. All things
need to come into play as we look at the long-range sustainability.
Earlier this week the Recreation Department Planning meeting and overview. We want to partner with
the city in the use of assets. As you look at Westlake as a city, Westlake City Schools is probably the
biggest property owner in the city. Assets we have could be assets to the city, and we can partner to
better serve our community.
We asked for email addresses. If you put your email address on, we will email that to you in a complete
survey form to complete and provide that information. We’ll also put a link on our website for people
who weren’t here to provide input. We’ll ask them to give an email address and we’ll send the link to
them.
Q&A:
1. How much acreage do you need?
a. 15 acres is the average
2. When you engage in an assumption like a 15 acre allotment, are you considering trailers there
now? There are a lot of specifics to that site that require thought.
a. When we looked at total site size compared to the needs for a building, if we were to
use the Holly Lane site, it would require demolishing the building, moving students, and
bringing them back. We’re open to discussing and looking at these.
3. As someone who has lived through building process, carrying on classes on a site that is
extremely tight during construction is not something you want to do. It’s disruptive to children
and parents, incredibly muddy safety concern. I built on a site fully occupied entirely too small
and things impacted by the construction for 18 months. Be cautious about what you wish for.
a. It is a process. We’re looking at what our community wants us to do. We’re looking at a
huge upgrade of education in our middle and high schools. Now we’re looking at what
needs to be done in Phase II.
4. Traffic flow at start and end of school?
a. We need to get our bus and parent traffic completely separated, ideally on opposite
sides of the building.
5. My child goes to Dover Elementary and it’s already a traffic nightmare over there. That’s my
bigger concern about keeping a building there.
a. If buildings are taken on, we will eliminate the need for a Dover Elementary building
that will create options. Part of the access on that map showed access coming in from
Bassett, which is far from ideal, especially if you live on Bassett. That’s what’s there.
6. How can you ask for an operating/bond issues at same time?
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
a. Done through a combination levy. Is it risky? Anything you put on the ballot is risky in
today’s society. We need to judge what is viable. In 2017, the millage drops, so the need
for the payments on the high school and middle school project on Phase I will decrease.
That drop really could fund Phase II of the project. Looking at a smaller millage increase.
Nothing is decided.
Emergency situations in K-4 building, everyone on one site with 1200-1500 students?
a. Safety design would be part of the process.
Is there a thought as to when this might be put on the ballot?
a. Part of the plan from the board is to gather as much information as we can in next 2-3
months to determine if Phase II is feasible as soon as May 2015 or November 2015.
Concern to my husband and I with 4 kids. If you don’t have money for programs and teachers,
new buildings are great, concerns us greatly that programming, the heart of Westlake Schools,
isn’t in place.
a. There’s no doubt a concern of building new buildings and not being able to operate
them to this community’s standards is a concern. Something the Board needs to take
into consideration. Maybe go with an operating issue and come back to consider this.
We’re talking only possibilities tonight. That’s a concern we’ve thought about and we
need to try to find the best way to do this. That is a concern is making sure we can
stabilize operating revenue.
The community is already leery.
a. It’s a tougher economy and tougher on schools in the last 5 years.
First time you went with operating levy, a couple things I believe made a non-feasible approach,
and that was the library bond issue and the Cleveland water department issue. Now the city is
considering going for a bond issue to improve the recreation department, as far as either a new
swimming pool and/or some part installations. This would also, I believe, conflict with going on
with a bond issue around the same time.
a. We have to consider it. We’re a community and we ask the community members to help
pay for things we all need. That’s when I mentioned collaborating with the city, not only
using our assets, but finding ways to work together moving forward. We’ve been
reaching out and trying to establish that connection, and we’ll be continuing to do that.
We do have representation on the recreation committee, but we need to work together
on.
b. Lynda Appel: we aren’t entertaining any consideration on how we might entertain how
to entertain paying for that master plan out of the recreation committee. We will be
working in conjunction with the schools.
Demolition and hazardous material abatement?
a. It was included in Lesko’s report. To keep this a reasonable amount of time and at
20,000 foot level. If you demolish a building you have additional costs. Renovation has
removal of hazardous materials.
Real estate question about growth: the west end is not represented in the location of an
elementary building.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
a. West end of the district tis the most sparsely populated and is filing in because there is
space available. A part of what we have to look at. Need to look at a lot of issues. There
is no one cut and dried answer as we move forward. There are emotional and logistical
connections of neighborhood schools. None can be minimized as we move through the
process.
What happens if we vacate buildings?
a. There are legal ramifications if properties are put up for sale. Some involves charter
schools that have to be considered. Right now that’s steps down the road, but we need
to keep it in mind.
In a 4 building concept, how many students in a PK?
a. Somewhere around 1400 students on one site if we have PK-4. Schools sharing common
spaces, which is one of the attractive parts of that setup. Its saves repeating some of the
systems we’d have to do in another scenario.
Other properties?
a. Board could consider of properties that weren’t used if we move forward. If we could
look at including those spaces in the build and make that space available. If the district
sells property, the requirement in Ohio is it needs to be set aside for permanent
improvements. We can’t use that to pay general operating expenses, but for repair and
maintenance and upgrades to existing structures.
Study done regarding wetlands?
a. Last study is a few years old. The good news is city took several years back to add
increased drainage out there. Wetlands space is decreasing. Over 50% of that property
is unbuildable. We’ have to mitigate or relocate wetlands to make good use of that to
centralize our usable space.
Looking at these numbers looks like a general range between $30 and $40 million are we doing
anything with our teachers to see if they have an opinion on what they think is the best? Or
looking at other communities to see what they did?
a. One of the things is the challenge we have in trying to present information to the
community is these are the easy figures to come up with on the space. What we should
do is what’s best for our kids. To that end we have our Community Advisory Committee
is trying to find the best setups and structures for elementary buildings, the best
learning environments. We will be working with our staff and gaining input. What I don’t
want to do, and the challenge we have, is look at any of these conceptual drawing sis to
base decisions solely on dollar figures. Andrew Mangels is on our CAC committee, he’s
been doing work with that same topic. They’ll be making a recommendation to the
board and updates about what they have found. A critical point of what we do is how to
best serve the needs of our kids.
The underlying assumptions, you mention 2/3 analysis the state uses. Among other
communities that have self-funding, using this same 2/3 analysis in practice? To me there is a
huge difference.
a. The general standard that most discussions start with is looking at that 2/3 cut. Have we
looked at what other communities have done and have they used that standard? No.
20. With enrollment numbers is there a projection for growth or decrease?
a. In the early work, the 20/20 committee had updated enrollment data. We haven’t
gotten to the point of having enrollment projections done. The simplistic projections
show our enrollment will stay very stable, maybe a little fluctuation here and there.
There isn’t a whole lot of property or new construction. The question becomes the
births in the community.
21. We have the teachers taking a pay cut for past two years and pay to play now. Would that make
more sense to go to an operating levy now? Should we not go for an operating levy rather than
waiting and doing a combination?
a. Last couple of years has been pay freezes. One pay cut, but more of a freeze in last
couple of years. It’s a valid question, what should we do. Realistically there’s that
concept of is the option of using that millage reduction in 2017 from the Phase I
collection, does it make everything appealing if we combine? You don’t want to build
new buildings without operating. If you separate you risk getting the building and not
the operating. Nothing is written in stone. There are no decisions made. There are ideas.
It’s something that needs to be considered. Our district finances are reasonably stable
for next couple of years.
b. Teachers did take a rollback and then a freeze.
22. My kids are young, but I feel like the operating levy is so much more important than this. This
overwhelms people with trying to make a decision. We want to have a good school system with
our kids getting all the experiences. I feel like this discussion doesn’t need to happen right now.
a. The board will get the feedback from here and our survey. We would be foolish to push
a combination levy if the overwhelming majority says let’s just deal with the operating.
Using the opportunity to talk about that rollback. By combination in rollback, only
increase in taxes would be the operating piece. In 2017, that rollback accounts for piece
to build the new buildings. The challenge we face in that sort of campaign is clearly
communicating that in a way people can understand.
23. Is the building going to be unsafe by 2015? When are the buildings not safe that we can’t wait?
a. It is not necessarily a safety issue. It’s looking at the plan part of the original master
facilities plan, complete Phase I and begin discussion on Phase II. It just means we have
to talk about it and it’s net. If the community says let us deal with operating before
moving forward, that’s something the board will have to consider. Our buildings are not
unsafe. They aren’t necessarily the best structures to educate kids today.
24. The figures for renovation were based on bringing it to cutting edge standard or a safer-bettersustainable standard?
a. Those numbers are based on square footage renovation costs to bring to current
standards. An older building is never as good as a new building, but it would have
elements of upgraded technology and lighting. What we asked Lesko to do is give us
numbers to work on. They didn’t evaluate our systems. They used general numbers.
These are ballpark numbers. In 2008 they did the full evaluation and updated those
figures to today’s numbers.
25. There’s a risk of compounding assumption with the 2/3 rule of thumb. It might be worthwhile to
pursue that level of detail.
a. All things we have to look at.
26. How does this plan take into account projected demographic changes in this city?
a. Phase II is at the beginning stage, introductory discussions. Full blown delving into the
systems, demographic trends of neighborhood, we’re not there yet.
27. Buildings and negative impact on learning to relocate students during demolition, but wouldn’t
that occur with renovation?
a. Renovation of any site would involve relocating.
28. Difference in maintenance and operating differences?
a. We haven’t dealt with all of that. The more you consolidate, the more your
maintenance and utility costs can be consolidated. One struggle facing is we want that
to be part of the discussion, but down the list item.
29. Historical thought process that led to today seems district obviously trying to look at two new
buildings. Is that the direction being pushed? Herding everyone into one building doesn’t seem
ideal.
a. All of the slides I used are old slides. I pulled presentations form April and May and 2009
to give my historical perspective. Original options still there. Concept seems to be
headed toward either 2 new grade level buildings or 2 new neighborhood buildings or
one large joined building. We can’t let the discussions on saving money be the deciding
factor.
The options we’ve laid out are not necessarily ideas form the Board or any community group as far as
20/20 committee. They are just ideas based on viable properties as we could see them in our discussions
moving forward.
The presentation will be available on our website and we’re videotaping. We’ll try to be as open and
transparent as we can through email and our website.
NEXT STEPS
We will be meeting with the 20/20 Vision Committee that was in existence and added, meeting over the
next 2-3 months. If we’re going to get the information to move forward, that will happen. More
discussions and outreach with employee groups and community members. It’s important we do this.
Main process will be 20/20 committee delving into discussions and follow-up with community.