Division I regional track finals
Fenwick graduation 2012
Ponitz graduation 2012
Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2008 > March > 11 > Entry
For $4 million you can save Julienne HS
A Dayton Public Schools renovation plan for the former Julienne High School estimates such a project would cost the district about an extra $4 million over the typical price for a new elementary school.
The unsettled question is where the additional money needed to save the school might come from and if it can be raised in time.
Julienne, built in 1926, was slated for demolition and replacement with a new elementary school at its Homewood Avenue site before neighbors and preservationists asked the district to reconsider renovating it for re-use.
The estimated cost of the renovation plan is $17.3 million with a new gym and food service area added. But because its funding partner — the Ohio School Facilities Commission — would fund fewer elements of the renovation project, the district’s share would be higher at about $10 million.
District construction chief John Carr said the current cost for a typical new elementary school is about $13.5 million and the district’s share is about $6 million.
The costs to rebuild Julienne would be mostly borne by the district — about 58 percent of the total amount. By comparison, the district’s cost — with local extras such as a larger gym and more special education space factored in — for the typical elementary school is about 45 percent.
The Julienne renovation plan raises other issues. The facilities commission would ask the district to raze Julienne’s convent — considered one of the more historic elements of the school by preservationists — unless there is a plan for its use before the construction project begins.
The district also evaluated Wilbur Wright Middle School, which was to be torn down and replaced with new elementary school. Neighbors have objected to tearing down the school. School board President Yvonne Isaacs said the cost for renovation of that school also is significantly higher but exact figures were not available Tuesday.
Isaacs said she plans to hold with neighborhood groups for both schools.
“We’re going to lay it out there and ask them to help us explore options,” she said.
Isaacs said the district is not likely to commit extra money to the projects, but is willing to consider renovation if supporters can identify outside funds to fill the gap. A decision on how to proceed, she said, is needed by the end of the summer at the latest.
“Right now it is costing us money not to make a decision,” she said.
School board member Joe Lacey, a strong supporter of renovation, said he plans to share the renovation plans for the two schools with an outside architect to get a second opinion on the costs. He also was hopeful the facilities commission would ultimately commit more money to the projects.
“In the past, I’m not sure they really got everything they could out of the OSFC,” he said.
Permalink | Comments (14) | Categories: School Construction
Comments
By Eve
March 17, 2008 11:04 PM | Link to this
Actually, Joe, I live on Huffman Avenue. And I have never been a DPS employee. As a concerned citizen, I was there. And, as I noted, you weren’t.By Joe Lacey
March 17, 2008 8:11 PM | Link to this
To my point Eve, you don’t know who attended those meetings either.By Eve
March 17, 2008 4:30 AM | Link to this
Note that Joe Lacey was a school board candidate when these meetings were announced in September 2001 (Quote from the DDN article: “The future of Dayton’s public school system will take shape during the next six weeks and school officials are begging district residents to help guide their plan.”. ) but apparently didn’t bother to attend his own community’s 11/8 meeting.By Joe Lacey
March 15, 2008 3:48 PM | Link to this
Gail Littlejohn and others talked about the original town hall meetings regarding the district construction proposals a lot when we met with neighborhood groups to talk about what we were doing in their areas. When I asked for some documentation as to who was at those meetings I was told that there was none. Nobody knows of any neighborhood people from the areas around Julienne or Wilbur Wright who attended those meetings. For all we know, those meetings may have been made up of only DPS employees. If Oldprof knows of someone who lives in one of the neighborhoods around Wilbur Wright or Julienne and who attended one of thosse original town meetings to tell the board to tear down Wilbur Wright or Julienne, he should bring that person forward because that would be a first.By Oldprof
March 13, 2008 9:35 PM | Link to this
Joe Lacey claims “The original town hall meetings about the district construction proposals had no input from the neighborhoods involved.” OK, Joe, so DPS held town hall meetings, and nobody cared enough to show up? What’s the evidence to support this latest allegation from the Lacey allegation machine? More fabrication, that’s what I think it is.By Donna
March 13, 2008 2:17 PM | Link to this
Background question �how did DPS come to own Julienne? The school was Julienne from 1926 until 1964 when it was sold to Dayton Christian. Dayton Christian then sold the school to DPS in 2004. The Mathile Foundation never owned the school property, but did own the adjacent lower vacant lot on Forest Ave. where anaprtment complex was demolished. This is the property that was donated to DPS. Just wanted to clear this up.By Scott Elliott
March 13, 2008 11:31 AM | Link to this
I need to correct what I said earlier. The Mathile Family Foundation did not own Julienne at any point. At one point it helped a neighborhood with a grant that was used to buy property adjacent to the school. The neighborhood group later donated the land to DPS.By Joe Lacey
March 12, 2008 11:01 PM | Link to this
The original town hall meetings about the district construction proposals had no input from the neighborhoods involved. This was demonstrated at subsequent meetings where the neighborhoods expressed an interest in renovation. I think it’s important to understand that these are studies put together by an administration that has shown a strong interest in new construction over renovation. It’s also important to understand that the OSFC rules may still have some questionable favoritism towards new construction left over from the previous administration. New construction is more profitable than renovation and we have seen unwarranted favoritism towards new construction written into the rules in the past, the 2/3’s rule is a good example. The board should look to see if there are more rules like that that need to be brought to the Ohio Schools Facilities Commission members attention.By Dan Kennedy
March 12, 2008 9:59 PM | Link to this
As far at the demo of the convent and the complexity of a site that has a building un-needed by the BoE, David Bohardt made an offer in the name of St. Mary Dev Corp to divide the property into two parcels. This is a completely realistic solution to simplify the site and he was dismissed out of hand by the chair.By Oldprof
March 12, 2008 2:19 PM | Link to this
Personally, I would doubt the objectivity of any architect who was being paid by a single board member whose agenda so far has been to float unfounded allegations. A pattern that Lacey is continuing here by his “I’m not sure” comment. Joe, if you have evidence to support that statement, bring it; otherwise it’s as vacant as that open-meetings lawsuit you finally dropped. Here’s an idea—instead of hiring an architect, donate that money to start a fund to raise the $4 million. Then maybe you really will save a building you admire, rather than just complaining about it.By Skeptic
March 12, 2008 9:04 AM | Link to this
Scott, here is the history according to online deed records: Dayton Public acquired the site in 2004 from Dayton Christian Schools. They acquired the site in 1975. Prior to that it belonged to the Notre Dame Educational Institute, who probably acquired it in the 1920’s when the school was built. I did not find any record showing the building was ever actually owned by Mathile. Perhaps they had a purchase contract or lease, but never took title from what I can tell. Time will tell what happens next…By JT
March 12, 2008 9:02 AM | Link to this
I hope the independent architect that Mr. Lacey wants to consult is knowledgable in the Ohio School Facilities Commission requirements because I am sure that any architect without that knowledge could easily undercut the estimated costs by several million dollars. It is my understanding that the district is behind the eight ball and could lose money for its construction projects because it has moved so slowly with the projects and there are deadlines it needs to meet in order to recieve those monies. As far as I am concerned, this is a non-issue that Mr. Lacey has perpetuated to get more attention for himself. During original town hall meetings about the district construction proposals, there was very little demand by the public to renovate these historic buildings. I would bet that it is less expensive to renovate Julienne than Wilbur Wright because I am sure that Dayton Christian took better care of the building than DPS did with WW. Plus DPS put a lot of money into Julienne in order to move Stivers there. The whole situation is indicative of the lack of leadership in DPS, allowing the squeaky wheels to guide the processes of running a district and losing sight of its true purpose: to educate the children of Dayton.By Scott Elliott
March 12, 2008 12:04 AM | Link to this
I am not sure of the complete chain of custody, but for several years the Julienne building was owned by Dayton Christian Schools and housed Dayton Christian High School. When DCHS moved to Miami Twp. a few years ago, the building went up for sale and was first bought by the Mathile Foundation. Mathile considered using it to house some of its programs but ultimately went a different direction and sold the building to DPS. The district used it to house Stivers School for the Arts the last couple years while that school’s building was reconstruction.By Rich
March 11, 2008 10:15 PM | Link to this
Background question — how did DPS come to own Julienne? I assume this was originally the girls-only school that eventually paired up with boys-only Chaminade. (Sorry to be ignorant, but I don’t know this bit of local history. Thanks!)