Meetings on NEW SCHOOLS

237 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

Winton Woods District Schedules Meetings to Discuss New Schools

Winton Woods City Schools invites district families and community members to a meeting to discuss solutions and a possible bond issue for new schools. The meetings will be held on

• Monday, April 21, from 6:30-8:00 p.m. at the Forest Park Senior Center, 11555 Winton Road, Forest Park.

• Monday, May 5, from 6:30-8:00 p.m. at the Greenhills Community Building, 8 Enfield Street, Greenhills.

• Wednesday, May 7, from 6:30-8:00 p.m. at the Winton Woods Primary South gym, 825 Lakeridge Drive, Springfield Township.

This informational session will also include opportunities to provide feedback to the district. Those attending will:

• learn more about current school facilities.

• understand the district’s educational needs.

• discuss solutions and a possible bond issue for new schools.

Passage of a construction bond issue will allow the district to consolidate its six schools into two larger campuses, a PK–6 school located in Greenhills on the current middle school property and a 7–12 school located in Forest Park on the current high school property. This configuration was arrived at after community engagement, surveys and focus groups during the 2012-2013 school year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

community engagement, surveys and focus groups

F A C I L I T A T O R S

Great timing after my last Common Core post. laugh.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

a 7–12 school located in Forest Park on the current high school property

My oldest daughter will be barely be 12 in the 7th grade. You guys expect her to go to school with 18 & 19 year old men who are seniors? Why not do a K-8 school? Time to look at Ohio Connections Academy. dry.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Oh Boy! Here we go. Wonder what this will cost the average homeowner?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Joan,

If I am not mistaken, Gr. 7-12 configurations merely share common areas like a Cafeteria, Gym, etc. It may also give 8th graders in advanced courses like Geometry to take them in the High School if they so desired. This configuration is actually fairly common in districts our size (Mt. Healthy being an example).

Before jumping the gun and fanning the flames of FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt), attend one of the meetings. I am sure that it will be one of the top 5 FAQs at the meeting.

Pool Lover,

The costs of the bond issue will be explained. I am sure that this presentation will contrast the cost of new construction versus the upkeep/ mtce. of aging buildings. The energy savings of new construction AND the State contribution will be explained by Mr. Denny in DETAIL.

I am certain he will be armed with charts and graphs.

Aside: The furnace in my house has reached the point where it needed replaced (17 years). Sure, I could have repaired bits and pieces, but when the cost options were laid out, I went with the new furnace and AC. The energy costs in efficiency will pay for the furnace / AC in about 10 years. While a new school won't really do all of that for the WW taxpayer, the phrase "throwing good money after bad" might apply. Why would I spend $3,000 replacing something that might just last another 2-3 years?

I realize (after 7 years here) that Junedale (online) is a tough neighborhood, but I hope folks keep an open mind about all of this.

Just a thought: Riverfront Stadium was constructed after all of the current WW schools were built. It was imploded 12 years ago because the facility was "obsolete". I get it though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Ya'll do what you want...I'll try to stick it out in my hometown.

I have PILED on the information about who is tied to this

new school proposal, our zoning, the regional

comprehensive plan and common core and it's cousin

AGS.

It's not even about reason anymore...both sides have points.

Like it or not, it's about who is pulling the strings that SHOULD

send earthquakes up our sustainable mixed-use spines.

Many KNOW EXACTLY what this is....some are ignorant to it.

Some turn a blind eye and some are facilitating it. It's Big.

Bigger than council, bigger than schools and is not an

exaggeration when it may be even called treasonous.

You're all great folks. If we want new schools, I hope it doesn't bury us.

One request...No 10ft. barbed wire fencing around the school with

the top barbed wires facing IN. wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Don't fall for it folks. Additional taxes will ensure the demise of Greenhills. They can't fix this. I remember not to long ago how moving to K-2, 3-4, 5-6...was going to be our salvation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Just to be clear. Seven years ago, the school district's consolidation and transition to grade level buildings was designed as a cost savings measure to stretch our diminishing school funds and provide relief for our citizens which has successfully accomplished this goal. But our school buildings, ranging in age 40 plus years or more, are in need of major, costly repairs- heating systems, roofs, ect. This is a fact. There are costs to repair or do we replace. What are the options and how do we make the best decision? Important questions and very reasonable to ask.

Whether we like it or not, every school district in Ohio is facing the same burden of increasing costs while dealing with reducing resources. Ohio government in Columbus continues to shift educational costs to local property owners while instituting more and more state and federal mandates. So to say this issue is unique to WW is hardly a fair or an accurate statement. One has only to look around. No matter what school district you may think will offer tax relief, the disappointment will follow.

Please take time to attend one of the meetings to understand and examine the proposal personally. Today's schools are changing in design and function allowing for more community uses than traditionally used. You may be pleasantly surprised.

I am sure we can all share our desire to support and strengthen our own community. I just can NOT agree with the notion that abdicating our community's role to support the education of our children is feasible nor well reasoned. Not to mention this would also under mind one of the most integral employers in Greenhills.

Conversely, should we not support our district's schools, truly the adverse impact to Greenhills would be overwhelming forever changing what Greenhills stands for and stunting its' healthy prospects for the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

"every school district in Ohio is facing the same burden of increasing costs while dealing with reducing resources."

if that is the problem, how are new school buildings the answer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Good question.

Regarding why replacement can save money, the cost to upgrade 6 40+ year old buildings may be more costly than building 2 new including any new cost saving energy upgrades. As many materials used years ago are toxic by today's standards requiring costly measures for disposal. Additionally, with 2 school buildings, there would be consolidation of administrative positions such as principals, janitorial services, grass cutting, snow removal, upkeep of 2 buildings rather than 6 and so on.

Another important factor is new facilities would be more attractive to home buyers than decaying school buildings which give the appearance the community does not take pride in its neighborhood or education of their children.

Regarding the problem of decreased school funding, districts are required to be more creative, stretch resources, and "think outside the box" ( which can be good practice- wish all government agencies had to follow this trend) such as WW partnering with Chinese students who pay tuition to attend our school here in the USA. The district earns money by providing busing for Finneytown schools and rents a section of its land for a cell tower. The AGS allowed our district the opportunity through a grant to develop innovative programs. They are part of a group of school districts working cooperatively pooling their collective buying power to negotiate lower energy costs, lower costs for paper products ect. The district shares our Treasurer with another district to reduce costs.

Schools should be resourceful and good stewards of our taxes but should not lose sight of their main task which is to provide a quality education for our community's students.

But again, take time to attend the meetings to see the plan- examine it, ask questions. But above all, your tax money stays here and improves the overall quality of life for our community. I would much rather have my hard earned money stay close to home where the benefit can offer its' greatest, positive impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Wasn't it just a few months ago that councilman Jack Lee was assuring us that authorizing the board to obtain bond counsel was just a procedural move, that there was no chance that a gargantuan tax hike that was soundly rejected at the fact-finding stage just a year or so ago would come forward again so soon? That should have been your first clue this community-killing massive tax monster was still alive & well.

When everyone clearly said how dumb this idea was, I predicted it would happen anyway, and it will. It's like the casino vote. You can vote "no" twenty times over the years and it doesn't matter: it only has to be approved once for it to happen. These people want your money desperately and they won't stop until they get it, consequences be damned. If they're still talking $70mm locally and $100mm overall, the consequences will be devastating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

"why replacement can save money"

it can't. plain and simple

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Wasn't it just a few months ago that councilman Jack Lee was assuring us that authorizing the board to obtain bond counsel was just a procedural move.

Yes, I did and I stand by that statement.

The School Board is also required to make certain decisions and take actions at certain times according to Ohio School Facilities guidelines.

That includes a timeline to attempt a bond issue, just to hold their place in line for matching state funds.

But of course, I'm sure you knew that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

"why replacement can save money"

it can't. plain and simple

I would disagree. But again, that is why there are public meetings to discuss the pros and cons of any action. There are costs and savings for every action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

"why replacement can save money"

it can't. plain and simple

I would disagree. But again, that is why there are public meetings to discuss the pros and cons of any action

Maybe the difference is similar to having an older car

that nickle & dimes the owner with upkeep and repairs often.

The car has been kept this long because of tight economic

resources. And living within budgeted means.

One type of indiviual opts to buy a new car.

This is the "Savings in the Long run" person. Nothing wrong with that

mentality under normal economic circumstances.

The other type keeps the car...does what the person can to keep it nice.

This person sees the economic circumstances FIRST. And that

what once were the economic circumstances are not quite as certain.

These people are both tempted to spend on credit terms, but future

incomes are also uncertain.... to pay back such debt.

(Btw...we are not the FED and can bail ourselves out laugh.gif )

So while both sides have merit, it comes down to this.

Do we spend millions that WE DO NOT HAVE and risk the future of

Greenhills on money we can never pay back OR get out our budgeted

Nickels and dimes, fix things up and live within our means?

It's no different than federal spending....and it's funny how we could blindly spend millions on schools for our children while putting a DEBTORS NOOSE

around their/our necks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I would disagree. But again, that is why there are public meetings to discuss the pros and cons of any action. There are costs and savings for every action.

But there are only JUST costs for doing nothing.

Meanwhile, the district will continued to be compared not only for state scores but for facilities and offerings to the like of Princeton, Wyoming, Finneytown, Mt. Healthy, Northwest, Fairfield. Each has managed to upgrade or build new, as have almost all school districts in Hamilton and Butler County. How and why? You tell me.

You want to fix the schools, there's a price for that. You want to ignore the schools and pretend they don't exist or aren't needed, there's a price for that too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Bigger in this case is most definitely not better. We have serious social issues impacting our communities and schools. The district can play a major role in decreasing that gap if they choose too. They choose not too, therefore nothing will change. Trivia: How old is Roger Bacon? How old is St. X? How old is St. James of the Valley? How old are the houses we all live in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I'm not sure where I saw this but wasn't there some discussion of a possible operating levy in the next year or 2, because the last one isn't going to last as long as they anticipated. If this is the case then we could expect to see a bond issue and an operating levy in the near future, who can afford that? I guess they think we have the same disposable income as those that live in Indian Hill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Each has managed to upgrade or build new, as have almost all school districts in Hamilton and Butler County. How and why? You tell me.

What you are suggesting is that we spend millions of dollars

PLAYING to Standards (that I have documented here for years) AND

playing to Perceptions of school prosperity with the "solution" of

buying an expensive building.

Similar to a Con artist taking people's investment money,

him buying a 3 million dollar house and a Ferrari, the investment

flops (because of no real plan) and the people are left holding

the bag...uhh...debt.

wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Bigger in this case is most definitely not better. We have serious social issues impacting our communities and schools. The district can play a major role in decreasing that gap if they choose too. They choose not too, therefore nothing will change. Trivia: How old is Roger Bacon? How old is St. X? How old is St. James of the Valley?

At first sight, I thought this was a complete joke thread. I'm mortified that it is NOT.

There is so much wrong with the idea of the school board believing that new schools are required to provide better service for the children which attend them. There is so much wrong with the attitude that replacements need to be made, therefore it's more financially responsible to tear down and rebuild than to make repairs.

I've got an idea for the district: Create an atmosphere where businesses, alumni, volunteer groups, parents, and students get together to fund these improvements like many, if not most, of the parochial schools do.

Here is another problem with the ideas that the board will not discuss; the downside to the same issues they may propose as the solution. That is huge in my opinion. This is the same story with a lot of politicians. The story you get form them will always be the side of the story they are optimistic about - not the whole story. I always stand weary in front of people who are trying to change major things about a community, society, or raise my taxes, or pass legislation without giving both sides of an issue. IMHO, when they don't come forward with that information on their own then they are intentionally "not telling you everything you need to know or realize about the issue before passing judgment".

There is absolutely no data that proves new buildings equal better community.

It is only my belief that if you are a person that believes that accepting federal money to pay for a part of this school as a gift or something that you will never receive again because it being a "one shot deal" then you are foolish indeed. If you, as a school board member, will lay down with the same devil that you constantly complain about being regulated by, then you are foolish. It is, in fact, you the board member that isn't being proactive with new creative ideas to raise money, volunteers, and other streams of revenue to proceed with updates and renovations or maintenance to your existing buildings.

What were you elected to do anyway? Were you elected to reach out to the same people you so despise for a handout? Were you elected to be the messenger of the government to "help" communities in the lead for the lambs into slaughter?

There are several people on Junedale.com that are very intertwined with the Winton Woods School District. I have read their complaints about how the government ties their (the District's) hands and lead them down paths which are impossible to attain. I've read their statements complaining about how the very legislative instruments that affect their jobs in a negative way make it impossible for them to "teach with true instruction". Now, for some reason these same people have dreams of a crystal palace that once built will take away all of the culture which hampers their district at the core.

New schools would be like a big tourniquet to a hemorrhaging artery - It will stop the bleeding for a little bit, but in the long run the core problem must be fixed. The tourniquet is not the solution.

But, what is more troubling to me is the fact that the teachers don't make a stand and demand more from their union. Teachers won't strike on inproprieties made by the State of Ohio given the fact that they have already declared the way schools are being funded are being funded unconstitutionally. The teachers have a job to do in this debate. They won't as a whole because they won't stand united. They won't because they will absolutely tell you that "that's the union's job. I'm not risking my neck". The teachers that preach all of this inpropriety are the teachers who need a mirror held in their faces as they preach to their communities, students, and parents about how bad they have it.

I'm sick and tired of hearing complaining. I'm sick and tired of complaining and going on about an issue which would do more service by never having the need to be brought up because there are plenty of schools in the area that are much older than Winton Woods schools and are in better shape inside and out. How do they remain in such good order? They remain this way not only because of the support from the parents, general community, alumni, and by businesses that want and are called upon to help, but because they must remain mostly self-sustainable. Relationships and networking do wonders for all of us. Perhaps, it's time for those in charge of the Winton Woods School District to make a real (openly public) effort to pave the way in a charge forward asking for this help.

If the new buildings are built then I say dump every single teacher, administrator, and other employee that is employed on the district level and make them re-apply for their positions. Perhaps, fresher faces will rejuvenate a newly energized school. I just hope the tourniquet doesn't break.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

there are plenty of schools in the area that are much older than Winton Woods schools and are in better shape inside and out.

Really? Which ones. Shouldn't be too hard to come up with a list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The burden is on the school district (and by extension those of us that work for the school district) to make the case as to why a possible bond issue is in the best interest of our students. A NO voter has no burden, and I respect that. Just like in 2008-2009, the argument about taxes is a fair one. If you can't afford the additional tax, you can't afford it.

That being said, there is little denial of the NEED to make serious repairs and other upgrades to our buildings to give our students the same quality educational environment that they deserve. Like it or not, the state does have standards as to what conditions are acceptable in our buildings. What may be fine at your church or in your house isn't going to be acceptable to the state officials that certify our buildings. Even that isn't the point. If the goal is to attract families, they are not likely to be impressed with what they can see if they go to the 2nd floor of the High School or what they may see in some of our other buildings.

Personally, I could teach in a barn. But it isn't about me.

Christine points out about older schools that are still operational. No doubt that this is the case, but even in the Catholic school world, new construction is not a foreign concept (Bishop Fenwick- Middletown being an example). The archdiocese is also working on an expansion to consolidate grades at a HS in Springfield. Nobody would dare say that our fair archdiocese didn't maintain Fenwick, right?

Currently, WW operates 6 school buildings as well as a central board office and office space in the Greenhills Community Bldg (White Bldg.). Each of these buildings has HVAC, roofs, windows, and a lot of items that are very costly to operate as they age. Yes, it is true that you may be able to patch here and there and certainly this is an option. However, at some point, you really are throwing good money after bad. It is why we trade in cars, buy new furnaces, etc.

Perhaps a bond issue isn't the way to go, but neither is the notion that the problem will go away. The thinking is that the costs of making a lot of patchwork repairs as well as future needs will be more than the cost of new construction when the state contribution is factored in. If you disagree (and you have no obligation to do so), then perhaps a better plan can be offered.

Although Hair has some good points about common core, WW really has to play the same game as all of the neighbors. There are many fair critiques of WW, but I don't believe that a proposal to study the feasibility of new construction is some nefarious con job. Indeed, similar discussions are going on in Fairfield and Middletown.

It was also written that "Yeah, and then they will be right back for an operational levy". Yes. I don't know when that would be, but yes.. at some point that request will be out there. However, one of the obvious benefits of consolidation is efficiency in delivery.

Small point, but I would add one additional item. The plan (as it is written) would appear to create a number of jobs for the Village of GH. If the PK-6 is built on the proposed site, GH village government will see increased income tax revenue.. mostly at the expense of Forest Park. About 1/2 of the entire WW workforce would be paying taxes directly to GH. So.. you would have a lot more out-of-towners paying taxes to prop up your city services.... and for a long period of time. Perhaps someone could do that analysis on the impact of this on a GH taxpayer. For those that worry about the long term sustainability of the village, I wouldn't think that we would dismiss such a possibility to bring these kinds of jobs to GH. Perhaps the wage taxes brought in could allow the village to offer more of a tax credit on taxes GH residents pay to other cities? Who knows. The point is that folks really should consider the larger picture even if you don't have kids in our schools.

I believe that we are all aware of the significant sacrifices that are currently being made for our children through taxes. Sadly, we haven't done a very good job of requiring the State of Ohio to fund what they mandate. BUT, if there is an offer to help rebuild the physical plant... it may be in our best interest to throw the numbers up there.

But again, I hope folks keep an open mind and consider hearing the proposal and sitting down to have your voice heard. You certainly have no obligation to show up and speak your mind... but it is your right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I propose all who support this and believe that building new schools will help us achieve excellence, to put their money where their mouth is. Dig deep into you retirement funds and put the money upfront. We'll set measurements for success and if the district maintains that success for a period of time and our communities feel the impact of that success we'll accept the taxes, you get your money back and I'll eat my words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Appreciate your fair and balanced analysis, Equalizer.

Yes, the repair/replacement of high ticket items are coming up for most every school. The district would be dismissive to not consider all viable options and how to yield the greatest value to all our residents.

Reminder to carve out time to understand the plan and all of its impact by attending one of the public meetings.

Winton Woods City Schools invites district families and community members to a meeting to discuss solutions and a possible bond issue for new schools. The meetings will be held on

Monday, April 21, from 6:30-8:00 p.m. at the Forest Park Senior Center, 11555 Winton Road, Forest Park.

Monday, May 5, from 6:30-8:00 p.m. at the Greenhills Community Building, 8 Enfield Street, Greenhills.

Wednesday, May 7, from 6:30-8:00 p.m. at the Winton Woods Primary South gym, 825 Lakeridge Drive, Springfield Township.

This informational session will also include opportunities to provide feedback to the district. Those attending will:

learn more about current school facilities.

understand the district’s educational needs.

discuss solutions and a possible bond issue for new schools.

Passage of a construction bond issue will allow the district to consolidate its six schools into two larger campuses, a PK–6 school located in Greenhills on the current middle school property and a 7–12 school located in Forest Park on the current high school property. This configuration was arrived at after community engagement, surveys and focus groups during the 2012-2013 school year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now