Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facility Renovation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Surveys split North College Hill residents on fate of 1500 West Galbraith; many call building ‘poor’
Summary
Two surveys presented to a North College Hill council subcommittee show mixed preferences for the old Clover Nook Elementary at 1500 West Galbraith: a smaller survey (128 responses) leaned toward teardown while a larger survey of residents (310 valid responses) favored keeping and restoring the building; most respondents rated the structure in poor condition and fewer than one-third said they would support local funding via loans or a levy.
North College Hill subcommittee Chair Mister Wilson convened a special meeting on Dec. 3 to review two public surveys about the future of 1500 West Galbraith (the old Clover Nook Elementary School) and to set a date for a follow-up discussion.
The first, seven-question survey presented by Miss Gaskins collected 128 responses and—according to her presentation—showed that 66.4% of respondents selected the option to clean up and tear down the building rather than restore it. Gaskins told the committee the survey went out in February, was not widely advertised, and was later paused. She described the top priorities reported by respondents as youth development (39%) and family/community engagement (32%).
A second, larger survey presented by Miss Dukstein drew 313 total attempts and 310 valid resident responses collected Oct. 18–Nov. 30. Dukstein said 46% of respondents reported being "very familiar" with the municipal building, and 64.5% rated the building’s condition as "poor." On future options, Dukstein reported 61% selected "keep and restore," while she combined split categories to estimate roughly 24% favored tearing down the west wing or partial demolition. Dukstein also tabulated likely uses if the building is restored: 212 respondents selected city offices, 206 selected recreation and youth programs, 179 selected a community meeting room, 140 selected public safety/emergency services, and 104 selected senior wellness.
On funding, Dukstein said 27.2% of respondents indicated they would support local funding (loans or a levy), 43.8% would not, and 29.1% were unsure.
Committee members repeatedly raised the survey distribution and methodology: several members urged broader outreach (mayor’s newsletter, canvassing, festivals) to increase participation and reduce sampling bias. Dukstein said she used Google Forms, ran bias checks, and closed the online results; she agreed to circulate the full written responses and the datasets to the committee by email for review.
The subcommittee also discussed logistics tied to either outcome: Dukstein said organizations that store historical artifacts (the historical society, DAV and similar groups) may remove items at their convenience and would need to arrange and pay for storage unless the city makes alternative arrangements; she noted that an earlier contractor plan (RWB) to assist with item removal is paused.
Dukstein told the committee she had arranged an appraisal with Beck Consulting of Finneytown to evaluate the building’s value (building—not land) based on potential rehabilitation, and that appraisal results are expected in January.
Before adjourning, Chair Wilson tabled agenda item 3 to a later date and asked members to provide availability for a follow-up meeting; the group agreed to circulate a poll and select dates in mid-December so the committee can review the full survey data and the forthcoming appraisal.
The meeting adjourned after scheduling follow-up coordination; no formal policy decision was made on the building’s future during the session.
