It looks like students will be returning to Kenilworth Public School for at least another year.
And, it looks like another round of public consultations may be needed before the Upper Grand District School Board can take action to close the school. Recent highlights of the board’s deliberations noted the status of a motion for the closure of Kenilworth Public School.
That motion dates to June 2003 and the board anticipated closing the school if enrollment dropped below 120 students for two consecutive years. That motion was again recently considered this year – but defeated.
In doing that, trustees agreed any necessary facility renewal expenditures would be undertaken, but any discretionary work would come back for consideration.
Current expenditures are in in the range of $10,000 to $20,000.
Further discussion on the school’s viability will be subject to any future accommodation reviews proposed for Wellington North.
However, a report to the board a month prior to the board’s decision, indicated closing the school now may be a bit more complicated than anticipated.
At that time, Dennis Cuomo, manager of planning, reviewed his report entitled Status of 2003 Motion to Close Kenilworth P.S. That motion had passed by the board following a year-long Wellington North accommodation review and established an enrollment trigger for closing.
Staff were asked to prepare the status report following receipt of a report on capital renewal requirements in December, that identified a substantial amount of work to be done at the school, in order to clarify the status of the motion.
While the trigger for closure was met, no action is being taken by the board.
Ministry funding sources for renewal projects are only to be used for work on schools that are not due to be closed.
A legal opinion obtained from board counsel regarding the motion to close Kenilworth advised if the board wishes to proceed with closure of the school, it cannot simply act on the existing motion.
The legal opinion indicated the board must provide further public opportunities for the community to address the closure under the ministry guidelines for accommodation review.
So, while the motion from 2003 affects the ability to proceed with work under Good Places to Learn and Energy Efficient Schools, acting on that motion is not recommended by counsel.
But the idea of closing the school is not being dismissed.
While the board adopted a motion to undertake some of the required work, it reaffirmed that should enrollment at fall below an FTE (Full-Time Equivalent) enrollment of 120 students for two consecutive years, the board will again consider closure.
