West G BOE Approves Facilities Master Plan
Plans for a consolidated campus have taken another step forward after West Geauga Schools Board of Education voted to accept a facilities master plan during a Jan. 31 special meeting.
Plans for a consolidated campus have taken another step forward after West Geauga Schools Board of Education voted to accept a facilities master plan during a Jan. 31 special meeting.
However, passing the resolution does not mean the plan is set in stone, a point emphasized by board President Christina Sherwood.
“I would like to stress that these are not votes for us actually doing it,” she said. “This is us saying we want the community to start looking at the option, and, ultimately, the choice lies in the community, and that’s why we’re here — to give the community choices.”
Superintendent Rich Markwardt provided a recap on consolidation plans, which first began in 2018, and why they have taken so long.
“The process was delayed by two factors. One of those factors was the addition of Newbury (Schools) to the West Geauga family. Newbury had not been a part of (the planning) process to any extent in 2018 because, as you recall, Newbury became part of West Geauga in 2020,” Markwardt said. “The other event that slowed down the discussion on the master plan was the (COVID-19) pandemic.”
Post-pandemic, the district decided the master planning process needed to be updated, both to factor in the opinions of Newbury residents and because construction costs had increased by about 30%, Markwardt explained.
“This is from a 2023 cost set,” Director of Operations and Technology Scott Amstutz said, referring to the updated plan by The GDP Group architecture firm. “We are expecting in April a new cost set to come out and with our architect, they talked about anywhere between up to a 3-5% bump in costs when it comes to the renovation and the new building.”
Building Plans Proposed
The board was provided a packet outlining the options for a new building housing grades nine through 12 or a new building housing grades six through 12.
Per the nine-12 plan, Westwood Elementary School would be used for pre-kindergarten, while Lindsey Elementary School would be either abated or demolished. Either the middle or high school would be repurposed for grades three through eight, with the unused building being abated or demolished.
Per the six-12 plan, either the middle or high school would be repurposed for pre-kindergarten through fifth grade, with the unused building being abated or demolished. Both Westwood and Lindsey schools would also be either abated or demolished.
Costs ranged from $86.7 million for erecting a new nine-12 building and keeping the existing middle school, to $131 million to construct a new six-12 building and keep the existing high school.
Board member Mary-Michelle Coleman Walsh asked if the renovation costs to keep Westwood online were factored into the estimated cost for the nine-12 building. Amstutz said they were not.
Financing Choices
Two financing options were presented to the board for the projects — a U.S. Department of Agriculture loan or a bond issue.
While the USDA loan and bond issue have similar pre-election timelines, the USDA application requires both an environmental survey and preliminary architect’s report, causing it to take a little more time, said municipal advisor Heather Meyer Arling, of Bradley Payne Advisors.
It takes about 30 days for the USDA to review and approve the loan, she said, adding the board needs to either have approval or almost full approval in order to decide what interest rate to put on the ballot.
The current interest rate at USDA is 3.75%, while the current market rate is 4.75%. Should the district’s USDA application be approved, the rate would be held for a year, Arling said.
USDA’s rate will also adjust should rates go down before closing, she said.
“USDA locks their rates in quarterly and then, if you are locked in March/April and in … September, October, November, they do a rate reset and it goes down, when the district goes to close with USDA, that rate will be adjusted down,” she explained.
Arling noted while the fees with USDA are lower, they would be paid out of the district’s general or project fund, while bond fees would be paid through bond proceeds.
Arling ran millage estimates for both a bond issue and USDA loan. The bond issue came out to 4.25 mills for a standard bond, while the loan was 3.73 mills.
Board Weighs Options
While both building projects included an option to repurpose the high school, the resolutions presented to the board for approval specified the middle school would be the building kept and repurposed.
Board member Kathy Leavenworth said while she would like to keep Westwood Elementary School, she approved the six-12 plan.
“Having looked at all the options and that this is a consideration, I’m in favor of this recommendation,” she said.
Sherwood also favored the six-12 plan, adding it would put the majority of students in a new building and help to eliminate dead space in buildings now too big for the district.
Both Markwardt and board member Pam Claypool noted with the six-12 plan, students would not be disrupted by construction.
“With this plan, students would be in the existing buildings until those buildings were no longer deemed necessary for educational purposes and then moved into new facilities,” Markwardt said.
He also recognized a fear among residents that the vacated buildings would sit empty and decrease property values.
“That’s one of the things that if the board decides to pursue one of these options, I think it would be incumbent upon the board to let residents know basically they will not have an eyesore,” he said.
The board passed the resolution approving the six-12 plan, which recommends constructing a new middle-high school, as well as the renovation of the existing middle school into a prekindergarten-through-fifth-grade building.
