Council rejects funding to build secondary access drive for Independence Primary School

The Independence City Council voted 3-4 on Oct. 14, 2025 against awarding a contract and authorizing up to $150,000 to build a secondary access drive into Independence Primary School from Brecksville Road.

City officials and school leaders said the new entrance would split morning and afternoon pickup traffic, reduce backups on Hillside Road and provide an alternate evacuation route for first responders. Opponents on council said the proposal left too many uncertainties — including how much of the road and median work could be completed with the requested funds, the precise cost of an easement, who would maintain the drive and whether the work would actually reduce backup on adjacent streets.

Don, a city staff member who presented the plan, described the design as “an 800 foot long, 12 foot wide, secondary access way into Independence Primary School property from Brecksville Road.” He told council the engineering estimate had been $150,000 and that the low bid came in at about $138,000. He also said the contractor proposed a concrete alternate and that the city had an informal agreement from the property owner (the diocese-owned parcel, described in the presentation as CEI) to allow an access easement but that the easement was not yet fully executed.

School leadership said the new drive would be used primarily for K–4 parent pickup coming off Brecksville Road, while Hillside Road would continue to serve preschool pickup and bus operations. The school representative said using the secondary drive should reduce the number of cars stacked on Hillside, call out safety concerns the schools and police have documented, and better allow buses to circulate.

Jim Green, the school resource officer, provided traffic observations used in planning and told council he had counted “37 cars” stacked along Hillside at times. The chief of public safety said a secondary access would improve options for emergency response and mass evacuation compared with the single Hillside entrance.

Council members who voted against the ordinance repeatedly highlighted unknowns: the exact easement cost (presentation later stated the owner had requested $10,000), how much of the median could be cut out within the $150,000 authorization (staff said $40,000–$60,000 might secure only a short gap), contingency and gate costs embedded in the bid, and the lack of a maintenance or long‑term responsibility agreement specifying who would plow, repair or repave the drive. One council member also said there was no traffic‑engineering study beyond the police and school observations.

The roll call on the final motion to adopt the ordinance was: DeGeronimo — yes; Narduzzi — yes; Wachanowicz — yes; Cagliotti — no; Traicus — no; Buvertka — no; Day — no. The motion failed 3–4.

Because the measure failed, the city will not award the bid to Katz Construction at this time. Council members and staff said they have discussed continuing to pursue solutions, including more detailed cost breakdowns, a finalized easement agreement and clearer maintenance arrangements before returning with another proposal.

The discussion on the entrance stretched across the meeting and included comments from multiple departments, the school, and public safety. Council members said they want more concrete commitments about easement and maintenance terms and more clarity on how the $150,000 would be spent before approving construction funds.