The Daily Standard
Story Archive
The proposed site plan concept for the new Celina High School.
CELINA - After unveiling their communitywide survey's results last week, Celina school board members are at a crossroads on what to do regarding future athletic complexes - specifically, whether or not to keep the school's historic fieldhouse.
Out of the 1,108 survey respondents, 58% said that there are traditional or older district facilities that should be preserved. At the same time, 36% of the overall respondents said that they strongly agree that the school district should prioritize cost-effective solutions, even if it means replacing older buildings. Just 16% of the overall respondents said they strongly disagreed with the latter statement.
Though construction of the new high school building going up on East Wayne Street continues to progress nicely, questions remain about the future of long-standing district athletic facilities.
School board members in January were presented with updated estimates from building project architect Garmann Miller showing that it will cost $1.3 million to $1.7 million just to update the fieldhouse and bring it up to code.
This would involve making utility-based infrastructure improvements, converting a coaches office into an ADA-compliant restroom and buttoning-up the fieldhouse.
"That has nothing to do with locker rooms … or outside of the one ADA-compliant restroom, that doesn't change anything else," board member Adam Schleucher had said.
The building project, which also involved a new 115,000-square-foot addition for students grades pre-K through 3 and the revamping of the Celina Intermediate School for grades 4-6, is a partnership between the school district and the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission. Originally budgeted at $106.6 million, the project ballooned to $121.7 million due to a host of factors, according to board member Mark Huelsman.
Built in 1939, the fieldhouse holds rich nostalgic value and is highly regarded by some, while other community members believe it has served its purpose and should be laid to rest.
OFCC would co-fund the abatement and demolition of the fieldhouse and education complex building. The state recommends abatement and demolition due to the building's condition, but it's ultimately up to the district.
"The only reason I wanted a survey was because of the money, because a former board, I hate to say this, but a former board said we were keeping the fieldhouse, and I wanted to honor that but it's just financially not real smart," school board member Jon Clouse said. "So now we're in the middle, so we gotta decide what we're going to do. Excuse my language, but we're damned if we do and damned if we don't."
Superintendent Brooke Gessler said that she and Athletic Director Derek Wenning have had conversations where they came to the conclusion that it's time to move on from the fieldhouse to a new athletic facility, she said.
"He and I have had conversations that it's time to look forward to the future," she said. "When a new facility is built, one that does not have barriers to people attending, and it will be a space that can be celebrated."
Resident Tim Homan spoke at the meeting in favor of preserving the fieldhouse and continuing to play basketball there. He questioned the point of the survey.
"Like I mentioned after I saw the survey, I was disappointed that, you know it just wasn't cut and clear," Homan said. "Like, 'Hey, do you want to keep the fieldhouse and play basketball there or not?' That's what we needed to hear. And I feel like those questions were omitted. So, now we have Brooke's interpretation of what that means to preserve our facilities. I think, you know, the public had to write in, 'We want to save the fieldhouse and the football stadium.' You know, for me, that means let's play basketball there. ... (With) 58%, you know, you can argue that they still want to play basketball there. I don't know. Did the survey even matter then?"
While Clouse said that he didn't want to "kick things down the road," he said the district does not have the the extra funds currently to take on an expensive athletic facility project.
"I hate to do that, but we don't have money," Clouse said. "Money is tight for these sort of things."
The biggest issue that Schleucher has with moving on to a new facility, he said, is that 58% of survey respondents said they want to preserve the old facilities.
"That's the thing that hits hardest for me," he said. "That 58% said that's what we want."
Board member Carl Huber said, because the survey wasn't black and white, he could argue that the majority of the respondents also said they strongly agree that the school district should prioritize cost-effective solutions, even if it means replacing older buildings.
"It's 'I want it, but I don't want to pay for it,'" Huber said.
School board member Julie Sommer added before she makes a final decision on the athletic facilities, she'd like to see a more comprehensive list of all of the potential project estimates.
Following the lengthy board discussion, the board agreed to hold a special meeting at 6 p.m. March 25 in which they will formally vote on the next steps for the fieldhouse and the district's plan for future athletic complexes.
