The Cleveland County Board of Education held a special called meeting Oct. 21 to determine the method of disposal for the surplus Marion Elementary School property and to hear community input on whether the district should retain the site.

Board Chair (name not specified in the record) opened the meeting saying, "The purpose of tonight's meeting is to establish the method of disposal that will be used for this property." The board heard a presentation from district staff on enrollment, space utilization and a facility assessment, then took public comment from more than a dozen residents and stakeholders before voting 9-0 to enter a closed session to consult the board attorney about the property under North Carolina General Statute 143-318.11(a)(3).

The discussion centered on two competing concerns: district officials cited demographic and facility data showing capacity and cost issues, while neighbors, teachers and community leaders urged the board to retain Marion as a school or community asset. Several speakers urged caution about disposing of the campus given new housing developments in the Shelby zone and what they described as overcrowding at nearby schools.

Superintendent Dr. Fisher and district staff reviewed the history and data behind the current proposal. Dr. Fisher summarized the district's reorganization and said Marion was closed at the end of the 2021-22 school year as part of consolidation; the board declared the property surplus on April 17, 2023. District presenters cited a facility assessment by McMillan Paz & Smith (MPS) that rated Marion as poor for overall facility condition and "critical" for health, safety and accessibility. A district presenter said, "Safe and efficient run schools is our priority." (presentation remarks)

On enrollment, staff reported the district is down about 200 students from last year and said there were roughly 297 empty seats across the three elementary schools in the Shelby zone at the time of the presentation. The MPS demographic forecast quoted to the board projected a decline of about 351 students by 2026-27; the district said its most recent 10-day count showed a decrease of 162 students compared with the study baseline. The presentation also compared utility and per-student costs across campuses; staff noted the district has paid about $13,000 a year to keep Marion vacant and estimated occupied utilities at Marion would be about $70,000 annually.

District staff described two disposal paths the board typically uses: an upset-bid (sealed-bid) public sale, or a negotiated sale to a nonprofit under the negotiated-sale provision the staff cited as "North Carolina General Statute 160A-266(b)" (as stated in the meeting). Staff said Preservation North Carolina or a similar 501(c)(3) could act as an intermediary in a negotiated sale to ensure historic-preservation terms "run with the land" and remain enforceable if the buyer later changes ownership.

Representatives of a local nonprofit, 1 More, 1 Less, and several community partners and residents urged the board to allow the nonprofit to acquire Marion and use it for foster-care, reunification and family-support services. Contisha (Tisha) Sherrard, identified in the record as child welfare program manager for Cleveland County DSS, said, "I believe 1 More, 1 Less is definitely an ideal situation for parents who are trying to reunify with their children." Other speakers described direct services that 1 More, 1 Less and partnering churches have provided, including laundry, adoption assistance and volunteer recruitment, and said acquiring Marion would expand those services.

Teachers and parents who spoke urged the board not to sell Marion without a public, long-range facilities plan. Elizabeth Swepey, a Cleveland County Schools teacher and long-time employee, told the board, "Selling a usable school in a premium location now makes no sense," and asked the board to pause disposal until a transparent long-range plan for the Shelby zone is developed.

Several speakers described capacity and safety issues at Jefferson Elementary, including use of leased modular classrooms (trailers) and a recently reported floor defect in a unit. A district official explained why a modular unit was added at Jefferson, saying moving some instructional space and creating a corridor improved daily circulation and campus safety for younger students, and that short-term leasing was less expensive than operating Marion.

Board members repeatedly cited competing fiscal pressures. One board member noted the districturrently lists roughly $129 million in capital needs across the system and receives about $1.5 million per year from the county for capital, which the board member said would make reopening Marion or building a new school difficult without additional funding. The board also noted that an open-auction sale could result in a buyer whose plans do not align with neighborhood expectations, while a negotiated sale with preservation covenants could preserve the campus footprint and community uses.

No sale or transfer was finalized. The board voted 9-0 to go into closed session to consult with the attorney about Marion School property under General Statute 143-318.11(a)(3); the motion was seconded by Board Member Bridges and carried unanimously. The board did not take a public vote to sell the property during the meeting. Earlier procedural votes included a motion to place board-member comments after public participation (initially recorded as passing 7-2 during discussion) and a later adoption of the amended agenda recorded as 9-0.

What's next: the board will meet with legal counsel in closed session to discuss the negotiation path and legal constraints referenced in the meeting. Community members and speakers asked the board to publish a long-range facilities plan for the Shelby zone and to consider a public bidding process if the board proceeds with disposal.

Meeting context and participation: the board set this as a special called meeting focused on Marion Elementary property disposal; staff and board discussed demographic forecasts, facility-condition ratings and cost-per-student metrics; at least 16 members of the public signed up and 16 spoke during the public comment period. The discussion combined technical facility details with high public emotion over neighborhood schools, future development and the role of a local nonprofit in providing services.

Quotes used in this article come from the meeting record and are attributed to the named speakers as recorded at the meeting.