09/21/2015 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

evaluation there are a few things they would like to keep but the rest wasn't worth utilizing in the new building. Mr. Neville said there are architectural elements to the building such as columns and medallions that are details worth salvaging. Mr. Henderson said it can be saved but then it becomes a matter of how should it be used in the new construction. Mr. Neville said perhaps there are items the Historical Society could use and repurpose to preserve. Mr. Dubelko said he was not satisfied with the presentation as the decision to not preserve any part of the original high school was already made. The decision is then backed up by saying there is already a plan in place. There have been other communities which have chosen to preserve or not preserve historical schools which he cited. He would like to hear the process the schools went through in deciding this beautiful historic building located in the historic district and so important to the city's history was not able to be refurbished or salvaged to be used as a centerpiece for the new building. He asked the schools attorney to address the wording which went before the voters which mandated the buildings be demolished and the wording which now precludes the district from using funds to refurbish or salvage the original high school. Mr. Smith said the school district has a co-funding partner which is the state of Ohio. Both the Board of Education and the State of Ohio signed an agreement prior to going into the bond issue. The agreement which was signed was for the master plan which then went before the voters and that master plan was to demolish the structures mentioned and to build a new school. Mr. Smith said respectfully the plan has to be unveiled to the school board first, he didn't know they were present to rethink the process or to rethink the issue which was put before the voters. Mr. Dubelko said the language of the bond issue which went before the voters stated, "Should bonds be issued to the North Olmsted District for the purpose of constructing, adding to, renovating, remodeling, furnishing, equipping and otherwise improving school district buildings and facilities." The language which was put to the voters in no way declared any building had to be demolished. Why would the Commission vote on the issue if there is no option but demolition? This is the first time the request to demolish this building has come before the Commission and he wants the background information on the decision. He doesn't want to vote on an issue if there is no choice in the matter. Ms. Cossler said there is no one present which can address the commissioner's questions as they were brought on board after the voters approved the issue; the discussion predates their involvement in the project. Mr. Dubelko asked why there was no one present from the school or board of educa' don. Mr. McDade said the State of Ohio has a formula they use to renovate or build new if it's more cost effective in order to be funded. The middle school was more expensive to preserve than to construct a new school. Mr. Dubelko said it might be a straight forward process for the schools but Landmarks is being asked to give a COA without any background information to support how the conclusion to demolish the buildings came about. Nor is anything being presented to assure that the integrity of the historic district will be preserved with the new building. Mr. Limpert was concerned with the schools' position that the only things from this historical building that will be salvaged are the front entrance and two interior doors and possibly a logo off a gym floor. He asked if perhaps the group could present more information once they've met and presented their unveiling to the school. Mr. Neville said the commission can ask the applicants to return with more information. Mr. Limpert said he wished the law department was present so more was understood. If the bond language legally mandates all buildings demolished