What to do now? Give up? Split the district? Vote NO?

The following are comments and questions from readers of the Springfield News-Sun concerning the article titled "District reviews construction options
Northeastern school board seeks input from the community on plans for new schools". The article was written by Bridgette Outten, Staff Writer.



"After reading this I am more confused than ever. Why even put another penny into Rolling Hills? It like South Vienna is falling apart. We need to seperate the districts, Northeastern/ South Vienna.... Kenton Ridge/Northridge/ Rolling Hills. Kenton Ridge could be turned into the K-7 and if necessary and needed expand it and build a new high school. What ever we do we need to support our Children and give them descent schools.
coll
10:42 PM, 3/18/2010"

coll: thank you for your comment. So was I after reading the article. The ending of the session Thursday evening found the plan in which the district would build a 9-12 building at Kenton Ridge and one at Northeastern, and a PK-8 building at South Vienna and one at Northridge. Although, I don't know if the board will go with this plan, this plan received the most votes. There is much more I can tell you on splitting the district....suffice to say be careful what you wish for.



"Separating the district won't happen. The first two plans (Segmented plans) are a no go for me. Hard enough time now passing one levy, but with these proposals the board would come back later (maybe years) for a second levy to fund building the other schools (although would still have money from the state paying part of it). The first two plans would cost more in the long run since the cost to build schools would go up when they came back for the second levy to finish the project.
JC
10:51 PM, 3/18/2010"

JC: thank you for your comments. After reading the comments you placed, I appreciate your candor with the various comments made. As others stated, segmentation is an option that I don't support simply because the job would never get finished, and if we went via segmentation, the cost would be more in the long run then doing it all now. Also, as I stated at the work session, we are not guaranteed the money would be available when the time would come to finish the project. With the current financial state of the State of Ohio, you can bet the Governor and the Legislature is looking at this money with "hopeful eyes".



"The Ohio School Facilities Commission requirements make schools much more expensive than they need to be. They require expensive things that schools do NOT need. OSFC forces schools to build what OSFC wants instead of what a community wants. I say get smart Northeastern! Refuse OSFC funds and build what you want, one building at a time. It will be cheaper in the long run and you will have the schools you want.
Sara
10:59 PM, 3/18/2010"

Sara: thank you for your comment. Interesting point, however, I disagree. If you have been in other schools you would find they have things I didn't have when I went, however, they are technology equipment that is badly needed in today's world. The community does have input in what their schools will be like. OSFC provides the framework (and $46 million) for our schools, we would have a say in how they would look and what we want in the buildings. It would not be cheaper in the long run to build one school at a time over time due to inflation, the number of time the bond issues would have to be turned down before being passed. Which school would be the first to be built? Northridge? South Vienna? Northeastern? Rolling Hills? I'm sure the people of this district would love to make that decision at the polls.



"whatever they decide to do ... I AM VOTING NO
jim ritter
11:15 PM, 3/18/2010"

jim ritter: thank you for your comment.



"I guess if the state is putting up $41 million it can have some say in what the buildings will include. OSFC only forces schools to build to their specs if you take their free (tobacco) money. These OSFC schools are no frills schools. How could it possibly be cheaper?
RS
11:34 PM, 3/18/2010"

RS: thank you for your comment. Actually, the OSFC (please don't confuse with "the state" because that indicates tax $ to some folks) is providing $46 million in tax free money. Surprisingly, they are nice buildings (take the opportunity to go through Tecumseh buildings). Yes, we need to build to their specs, but again, it is better than we have now. Plus, if the board can have an individual who reports STRICTLY to the board, who will oversee the project and assure construction is going right, then we would get better quality buildings.



"Not using OSFC specs is much cheaper - for example OSFC requires a sprinkler system for a rural school even if there is not city water supply hook up available. That means there must be a water tower - major expense. But legally a sprinkler system is not required, not required for safety because the school is all non-flamable construction anyway. You need to get into the actual specs. Look at Tecumseh and tell me that is a bare bones school. No Way. It is a OSFC palace.
Sara
12:48 AM, 3/19/2010"

Sara: "Not using OSFC specs is much cheaper". How much? $46 million cheaper? Mark my word, sprinkler systems will be required in new homes if the state legislature has their way. There is pending legislation in the Ohio House of Representatives that will require sprinkler systems in private homes! Since schools are public buildings, I would think they would be required just to protect the public's property. I have visited Tecumseh schools. Compared to ours they are palaces, but then again it wouldn't take much to compare our buildings with new and not think they were palaces.



"Instead of using a dozen proven basic architectural plans that could be inexpensively customized and adapted, OSFC requires that each school must be designed specifically from the ground up. This OSFC requirement costs hundreds of thousands of dollars per school and lines pockets of the architects who donate heavily to keep the OSFC going strong. Frankly I don't care if our new high school looks exactly like one in Newark or Toledo. OSFC will NOT allow sharing of blueprints between districts.
Sara
12:57 AM, 3/19/2010"

Sara; fact or assumption? I am going to find out for you. Be at the board meeting this coming Thursday evening at Northeastern and I'll have the answer. I would think that OSFC would not be showing the buildings of other districts if sharing the designs would not be allowed.



"NO MEANS NO - this is not the time for building new schools because it is NOT THE TIME TO BURDEN ALREADY STRETCHED FAMILIES WITH MORE TAXES. obama beat you to it...
done with it already
6:16 AM, 3/19/2010"

done with it already: thank you for your comment. I'm not. This is not for me, it is for our future.



"((“We decided to get together and hear from you, the community,” said district Superintendent Rick Broderick. “We want to know what plans you will support.”))
Well this has been the problem all these years. Ram this stuff down the throats of the tax payer without even asking any input. How many schools in the state have built their new buildings and now find they can't afford them.
george
6:53 AM, 3/19/2010"

george: thank you for your comment. Over the past 5 years we've been working on this issue, we have ask for public input many many times. The responses have been very small. We are not "ramming" anything down the people's throat. We are simply trying to take advantage of an opportunity. I've said many times that if this opportunity from the OSFC was not available, we would not be coming to the people at this time.



"First they say ALL building must be new or they can't get the money, then they say, well OK, now we can rennovate KR high school - really? You think?? Exactly how will they now decide which way to go - are the voters going to be asked in a fashion that could be trusted or will the board say they know what the voters want, as they have always presumed in the past? Without splitting the district into two systems, it appears whatever they come up with will not pass anyway. Too little, too late.
Taxpayer"

Taxpayer; thank you for your comment. First, you are correct. It was indicated that the only way we would get funding from the OSFC was by abandoning all of our buildings. Initially, this was true especially when districts were getting 88%(Springfield City Schools), 77% (Tecumseh Local Schools), etc. I personally felt this was the only way the funds would be coming. After our plan failed in November and February, we found that there was the opportunity to renovate. Unfortunately, where do you renovate that people will support? If one gets a new building, why can't I have a new building? Renovating KR makes the most sense to everyone else but those who will be utilizing KR. Again, as I stated in a previous comment about splitting the district, be careful what you wish for. I don't know which side you reside, just be careful what you wish for. You may get it.



"I am also not understanding the change in options, when has it been said up to now that we could renovate some of the existing buildings? This is why I refuse to give any more money to the NESLD. Stop changing your story and be upfront with the taxpayers, and someday you might have a chance to pass a levy. No means no still.
no new taxes
7:55 AM, 3/19/2010"

no new taxes; thank you for your comment, The change in options was a misinterpretation of the OSFC's standards. They told us we needed to abandon all five buildings because the cost of renovation was more than 66% of the cost of rebuilding. If you are told this, what would your recommendation be? I was totally frustrated when I found that OSFC funds could be used for renovation, however, it doesn't change my view about new buildings. When you renovate a building that will cost 2/3 of the price of a new building only to have to replace the old renovated building eventually, at a higher cost, it makes sense to build new now.



"I was at the meeting last night and feel compelled to comment. In the past, I have voted both yes and no on levies at NE. There is a feel of contradiction within our community, with each side looking at the other with lines being drawn. The distrust, malicious and emotional attacks, and former lack of accountability w/in the district are hurting our children. If this can't be changed, then nothing will happen. Perhaps splitting the district is a good idea.
Split
8:37 AM, 3/19/2010"

Split: thank you for your comment. I am looking into the possibility of splitting the district, not as an emotional issue or "we versus they" issue, but on a financial issue. I will do a commentary on the subject when I get the FACTS not the feelings together. What I've found so far is "be careful what you wish for, you may get it". Suffice to say that the Ohio Department of Education and / the State Legislature may be the deciding factors as far a splitting any district. They are more into combining school districts, not splitting them into smaller entities.



"Yeah, the whole spiel all along has been that we had to build ALL new schools, or nothing. No options, no bending, no compromises.

Now they see the writing on the wall of another failed levy, so they finally change their tune. Voting no.
BeHonest
9:17 AM, 3/19/2010"

BeHonest: thank you for your comment. I explained the reason why we looked at renovation. The interpretation from the OSFC was not correct. I am not trying to be dishonest, just getting you the facts.



"Why haven't they tried to update the schools one at a time when they started getting bad? I think the voters would have passed a levy one at a time.
T Keller
10:11 AM, 3/19/2010"

T Keller: thank you for your comment. Updating schools with trying to maintain old buildings with 50's and 60's wiring, plumbing and infrastructure is difficult when it takes 4-6 times to pass levies to do so. By the time the levy gets passed, the required maintenance or upgrade has extended into a crisis situation, then people get mad because we didn't maintain the buildings. Example, Northridge, when the Health Department was going to close down the building due to the roofs leaking. What is needed, new roofs or upgrade technology? What about when South Vienna needed more rooms? It took the district having to look at split sessions in order to handle the overflow of students. What about when we had repairs at South Vienna and we had to make cuts in order to pay for the important repairs because the levy didn't get passed. If you are who I think you are, we've been through this before.



"Even if the option of two new 7-12 buildings and two new preK-6 on each side of the district, it doesn't mean that the preK-6 will be in South Vienna.
Tkeller
10:13 AM, 3/19/2010"

Tkeller: As I have said on numerous occasions, "what is best for children" was a campus environment. Keeping a building in South Vienna was not in the best interest of children, however, there is a group who feels that South Vienna would "dry up" and become a ghost town if the school would leave. Having lived in South Vienna for 23 years, I feel the town is made up of better people than that. It was a great town before the school was built. If the village would dry up and become a ghost town, it will be because of the people, not the school. HOWEVER, in response to you statement, we would keep the PK-6 building in South Vienna.



"Why didn't they re-evaluate in the first place, knowing the state of the economy? Maybe the board's economic situations are good, especially when people are double dipping now rather than bringing in new talent and ideas. I may have actually voted yes to the renovation if they had offered renovation the first time, but considering the economy really hasn't improved that much and now there is even less trust in the NESLD board, no way in heck will I ever vote yes for any plan now. No means no.
no new taxes
10:17 AM, 3/19/2010"

no new taxes: thank you for your comment. Part of the original plans (going back to the early 2000 was a lot of renovation utilizing a program whereas the OSFC would pay us the funds for the project we completed. This bond issue was rejected 5 times! When the OSFC assessed our facilities and determined that some could be renovated, we looked at 18 different scenarios of renovation and new construction. It was at this time the OSFC came back and determined that ALL of the buildings needed replaced. We had to narrow our focus on 3 plans and chose the one that was best for children's education. Now that the OSFC has said we CAN renovate, we began looking at that option, however, it is not a good option since the renovated building would need replace sooner or later at a much higher cost to the residents since they would pay for 100% of the cost.



"I've watched the School Facilities Commission work with other districts. They quickly maneuver to shut out anyone who does not want their program. OSFC has a cut throat team of market stratigists who smile and coach the districts as to what to say and how to respond. I see that a few of you are repeating the carefully scripted responses.(You get a puppy treat) Fact is they offer money Ohio no longer has to take over your district. Have an old building you love? They demand demolition.
Sara
11:49 AM, 3/19/2010"

Sara: Sorry to tell you this has not happened. I personally have talked with the OSFC and, if you know who I am, you would know I mistrust government more than anyone. If it is "too good to be true" then it usually is. I have not been "scripted" to say anything I didn't feel was in the best interest of children. No one is "taking over our district", as long as I am on the board. If you have a building you love that does not provide a good educational environment for children, then the focus of the building is wrong, in my opinion. I graduated from Northeastern. I love the building, however, it is brick and mortar. What I love about Northeastern is the people, my classmates, and the kids. They make Northeastern, not the bricks. If your building is KR, then it isn't the brick and mortar that you love...I don't think.



"I am surprised that a consolidation of the two High Schools was not considered.
John Michael
12:02 PM, 3/19/2010"

John Michael; thank you for your comment. Combining the schools was an option. It was plan #5. Only one person voted for it and he wanted to do away with sports and other curricular programs. Even in the past, the option of one high school was the least popular option.



"I live in another district and sent my kids to parochial schools. I know many people who live in the Northeastern district and most do not hesitate to spend money when it comes to athletics. I'm talking about traveling baseball & softball, AAU basketball and select soccer. Do you know how much that costs over time? 95% of your kids aren't going to get athletic scholarships so spend the money on education that will benefit your kids the rest of their lives and forget the traveling teams.
From another district
12:04 PM, 3/19/2010"

From another district: I normally do not respond to those from another district, however your comment was very true. Actually, the percentage of kids participating in high school sports is less than 2%. I do appreciate the comment you made.



"I wish the school district would respect the voter's decision. We have already said NO twice and will continue to say NO every time. You are waste valuable money putting this on the ballet again. It doesn't matter how you propose it, we will vote it down. Having a roof over my head and food on the table is more important then your new schools, that aren't needed. I can't afford more property taxes or to have my wages taxed more then they already are. KEEP VOTING NO EVERYONE!!!!!!!!!
NE Resident
12:13 PM, 3/19/2010"

NE Resident: thank you for your comment. If we didn't continue to get levies passed, we would still be holding schools at Westside, New Moorefield, Catawba, Plattsburg buildings. Our teachers would be at other districts who would support them, and our educational system would be defunct. Unfortunately, the way Ohio Schools are funded is what we have to work with. Of course at the same time, your no vote would not allow the roads or fire and emergency in your community because they rely on taxes that you would not support.



"Split the district, and then go back and ask for money at a later date as two new districts. No more of this... they got it, so we need to have it. Lets let the communities support their schools. I would bet that every area would be more willing to pass a levy if they were only supporting their local school and not the whole district. Plus 21000 dollars to put a levy up each time is just plain stupid.
Not important
1:08 PM, 3/19/2010"

Not important: thank you for your comment. Again, I want you to know that I am looking into this. What I've found so far is simply....be careful what you wish for, you may get it.



"I found our board presidents comment last night, that our community doesn't support schools as a slap in the face to all those people who do. Failure of levies are not an accurate measure of support or no support for a school district. Maybe he should of said that the board continues to ask too much of the community - maybe since he has been there for so many terms, he should wise up and realize that the community has limits on what they can give each time.
Not important
1:13 PM, 3/19/2010"

Not important: again, thank you for your comment. This response is from me, the President of the board. I'm sorry if you were offended by the truth. I don't wear any "rose colored glasses" or tell you what you want to hear. People in this community give what they set their priorities on. Since 1969 our pass/fail of levies is deplorable. That is what my supporting schools comment is based on. I know the people in this district and how they feel about certain things. There are a large number of people who won't vote for a school levy that strengthens their property values, but wouldn't give a second thought to spending large sums of money to assure their child participates in "traveling team sports" and other programs. I'm not indicating how people should spend their money, that's their choice. What I'm saying is that people need to know that their schools are important not only to their children, but to the future of the community, property values, community pride and assuring our kids get the best chance to compete in a differen society than we grew up in. Sorry to offend you.



"The state has not addressed the school funding issue. The Ohio Supreme Court FOUR times has ruled on this and the STATE still is dragging their heels. Make Widner and Hackett do their job or VOTE them OUT. Look at the attached web page it speaks for itself. The state is trying to push more onto the individual and school districts.
http://summitprogdems.org/library/i...
Don
1:43 PM, 3/19/2010"

Don: thank you for your comment. AMEN! SOMEONE FINALLY GET IT! If I had a nickel for every time I spoke about this I could buy a new school. If I had a nickel for everyone who said what you just said, I'd have 25 cents! As a Legislative Liaison for our school district, I have been to Columbus and Washington DC lobbying for educational funding many times. In addition, I have tried to get people behind me to write letters, make calls, talk with Legislators demanding the school funding system get fixed. I have been doing this since 1994 and the "beat goes on". Your message is inspiring and I would like for you to contact me through the board office at 325-7615. Maybe we can start another movement.



"State of Ohio budget is awful and the Feds will have no money to help out in the future. They are blowing it all on free health care for everyone. Building new schools is totally crazy at this point and fiscally unwise. But those at the OSFC need our money to so that they can consult, and design,( and condescend) They will keep on pushing and pushing. What is wrong with repairing and maintaining? I'd rather have a new house, but I have to repair and maintain the one I have.
Sara
3:07 PM, 3/19/2010"

Sara: I agree with what you say. What I fear is the State will take the OSFC $ and use it for the budget. Yes it would be nice to remodel, renovate our buildings, but at what point will we have to build new? At who's expense (100%)? You can renovate and remodel but you still have an old building that is not conducive to educating kids to meet tomorrow's technology. We have a "need" for new buildings. Without the "opportunity" of the OSFC funds, I can tell you we would not be putting these levies on.



"I wonder why districts like Catholic Central do perfectly well with old buildings? How in the world do they ever teach anything in Europe? Are all the buildings at Eaton new? In America the construction industry and architects have us convinced that we have to have new buildings to teach. Fact is we just need less crowded classrooms and some discipline. We need to spend as much energy supporting the educational process that we do trying to pass levies and getting new buildings built.
Sara
3:20 PM, 3/19/2010"

Sara: Parochial schools do not have to comply with the unfunded mandates of the public schools, therefore they can do what they need to. You have many thoughts, but you need to get involved and ask questions of school officials instead of commenting without getting answers.



"To from another district,
You are absolutely correct about the overemphasis of sports in the Northeastern School District. I am, however, glad to see that the course offerings have changed for the better since I was in high school over 30 years ago. More advanced classes are being offered which is vital for students as they prepare for either college or the work force. Advanced classes require up-to-date materials and equipment. Vote Yes!

Northridge parent and alum
3:45 PM, 3/19/2010"

Northridge parent and alum: thank you for your comment. Yes, we have worked to improve our course offereing, however, we are "tied" to what the Ohio Department of Education and the Legislature mandates us to. Too often, extra classes, especially in AP (Advanced Placement) classes require specialized faculty and the cost is quite high. Other times we can offer AP classes, but because the teacher may not be certified (another unfunded mandate), we cannot classify it as an AP class. We do what we can for our kids. Also, thank you for your support.



"Ohio’s historic schools are being lost at an extremely alarming rate. Since the year 2000, over 110 rural and community centered schools have been demolished, while others are abandoned.

After completing the proper studies, many school districts even find it less expensive and a better overall value to renovate existing buildings than build new schools.

More information at:
http://renovateohioschools.wordpres...

Renovate Ohio Schools
Renovate Ohio Schools
4:13 PM, 3/19/2010"

Renovate Ohio Schools: thank you for your comment. I will go to this website and look at the contents. One point I do want to make about your opening comment. "Ohio's historic schools...". the term Historic is the key word. If a building has "historic" value, the OSFC does give consideration to its renovation if the value is within certain guidelines. Since none of our buildings fit into this "historic value" guideline, we have not considered this.



"Everyone that has voted NO and is sick and tired of them putting this on the ballet again and again. Here are the phone numbers to your State Reps. Board of Elections says this is who you need to call to complain to.

Chris Widner 614-466-3700
Ross McGregor 614-466-2038
Bob Hackett 614-466-1770

Maybe if everyone calls to complain to them we can get them to realize they need to start doing their jobs. Good Luck and Keep Voting NO!
Frustrated
8:49 PM, 3/19/2010"

Frustrated; thank you for your comment. AGAIN, AMEN! SOMEONE ELSE FINALLY GETS IT!
As I mentioned to Don, please contact the board office to get hold of me. I would like to regenerate a movement to get school funding corrected. Thank you for bringing this information to the comment.



"The construction industry and the architects desperately want you to have to rebuild every couple of decades. That is why School Facilities Commission has a well trained team of managers called "consultants" to recognize anyone who is not with the plan and make sure they don't get a position of authority. Ask your district how much they have already paid "consultants" who are helping them figure out how to pass this construction levy.
Sara
9:29 PM, 3/19/2010"

Sara: please, I think you have been watching too much CNN or MSNBC and feel there is a big conspiracy going on. Get your facts!



"I've watched this happen in various districts. OSFC inspectors first tell districts how terrible all the buildings are. Then they insist that all buildings have to be replaced with totally original designs. Then they create a sense of urgency. It MUST be passed within a short time period. Savvy districts adopt more reasonable remodel and update plans. People today cannot afford to pay for even 59% of a complex of palaces. Ohio can no longer afford this.
Sara
11:58 PM, 3/19/2010"

Sara: I quit "watching" other districts, I've "talked" with other districts about their involvement with OSFC. They all agreed that it was a great opportunity. I feel the same. Since you have all the answers, I am inviting you to our Board Meeting on Thursday evening, March 25th (this coming Thursday) and give me the facts.