City invites School Board to discuss relationship, issues

by Mike Lesko | reporter Published:

Streetsboro -- City leaders said they hope to meet with the city's Board of Education to discuss the "relationship between the schools and the city," according to Mayor Glenn Broska.

Broska said the site for the new high school and other matters related to the school facilities plan may be among the issues that could come up at such a discussion.

"The high school [issue] is out there, and I'm sure it will be discussed," he added.

No discussion has been scheduled as of Dec. 2, although City Council authorized Law Director David Maistros at the Nov. 25 Council meeting to send a letter to the School Board requesting the discussion. Maistros was unavailable for comment, and Broska said Dec. 2 he didn't know if a letter had yet been sent to the Board.

'Is the site

conversation closed?'

New City Council member Jeff Allen said he's received "tons of calls" asking whether the site for the new high school has been finalized. School Board members maintain that the Route 14 location, across from Deer Meadow Boulevard, is the best choice, although in recent months some other citizens including Allen had suggested putting the high school at City Park.

"Is the site conversation closed?" Allen asked School Board members at a Nov. 22 meeting. "Is it going to come back up? A lot of people who voted for it [the Nov. 5 5.06-mill bond issue and levy to pay for upgrading the schools] are very concerned because they felt they were voting for money only, not site specific."

Residents were voting, in part, for a new high school, although the ballot language did not list where the high school would be built.

School Board members said during the Nov. 22 meeting they were only interested in reopening discussions about the site of the school if there is new ground to cover. Council and the School Board discussed the issue previously this year.

School Board President Denise Baba said the issue of rebuilding City Park "is not a school district issue, but a city issue."

"If the city is willing to turn over City Park to the School Board, and if the city has the money to move City Park, then we can have a discussion [about the site of the new school]," Baba said. "Those are things we need to know if we're going to engage in a discussion. If that criteria can't be met, and the discussion is the same, [then there is no need]."

School Board Vice President Andrew Lesak said the Route 14 site appears to be the only option.

"I've heard all the options up to this point," Lesak said. "What is left is, build it where we have the land [on Route 14]. The City Park is not an option because there is no money sitting around for anybody to move that park. Is there some other land or some other option that I'm not aware of? If there isn't, then it has to be [at the Route 14 site]. If [we] don't have any additional information, I don't know what we'd meet to consider. People are saying we [City Council and School Board should] meet. Meet about what? I have to know what the agenda is and what the options are. And if the agenda and the options are exactly what they were before, there's nothing to meet about. Nothing has changed. The facts have not changed. The facts are, [the Route 14 site] is the only place you can possibly build it. If the city has no money to move the park, then the facts haven't changed. The city needs to come to us and say, 'We could do this [move the park].'"

School Board member Kevin Grimm agreed.

"I'm always open to talk about our options to maximize our dollars," Grimm said, but those conversations would need to start with a resolution to the question of who would pay for transplanting City Park to the school-owned Route 14 site.

"We [the School Board] and the city don't have an extra $3 million sitting around, or whatever it's going to take to move [City Park]. Personally, I'd be open to talking about things if there were also some solutions presented."

Broska said the city does not have the $3 million to $3.5 million necessary to move the park facilities to the Route 14 site.

"The underlying theme for us is that we already have a very significant investment in our city park," said Broska. "We just don't have it. We don't have $3 million to invest in a new park."

Baba said trying to fit a high school on to a limited portion of City Park with wetland issues would "kill our project" because of the additional cost and time necessary to get permission to build on flood-prone land.

Bill Prenosil, Ohio Facilities Construction Commission project manager who is working with the school district, said working with the EPA can be unpredictable. The EPA must approve projects like the building of new schools.

"The last three projects we've done on wetlands were absolute nightmares because the EPA is so hard to work with," he said. "They'll tell you one thing, then three months later, a different person will come out there and give you a completely different answer."

Allen asked at the Nov. 22 meeting if Route 14 would be widened and how it would be paid for.

Prenosil said there is $300,000 in the budget for that purpose.

"I assume we'll have to put in a turn, or deceleration, lane, and that money is in the budget," said Prenosil, adding that if a traffic light is installed, it wouldn't be covered under funds approved by voters in the November bond issue.

Allen said he doesn't want the city to have to pay a lot of additional money to upgrade the Route 14 site.

"Maybe we have to spend $1 million, or $1.5 million, to widen Route 14, and at that point, we could have moved the park," Allen said. "So maybe we ought to look at this [City Park issue]."


Phone: 330-541-9439

Facebook: The Gateway News


Want to leave your comments?

Sign in or Register to comment.

  • Most small companies do not have a $21,000,000.00 budget and actually I never ran the company but I was management and they are still around. I retired from there because as a manager I made the right decisions and kept the upper management informed so that they could make the right decisions. I currently work what most would consider a hobby job just to keep myself busy. Kind of a one man show like you.

  • Actually it is a better demonstration of how disconnected the community is with the schools. It was made very clear at the board meetings and all of the forums where the location would be.

  • Doc54,  Oh yeah, I guess the statement by Mr. Allen "A lot of people who voted for it [the Nov. 5 5.06-mill bond issue and levy to pay for upgrading the schools] are very concerned because they felt they were voting for money only, not site specific." kinda backs up my post where ALesak said he didn't hear of that.  That just shows how disconnected he is with the citizens of the school district.  If he is that disconnected with the community, how can we ever hope he is going to get this project even a tenth right.  I really have my doubts about the success of this project especiall with this school board.  With three of the most arrogant people in this state sitting on this board, we are doomed.

    Martin Fleming


  • Doc54 (a.k.a. bwoods54),

    A school district the size of Streetsboro is actually quite small if you want to compare it to a large organization. And yes, as small as it is, it would be quite easy to know what is going on in every aspect of your company.  In fact, most large companies know exactly what is going on in their companies.  That is what made them large.  It is apparent you weren't successful in running a large company.  Otherwise, you would still be running it rather than speculating and placing huge burdens on your fellow citizens.  It's clear now why you make the statements you do.

    Beware folks, this is a guy who likes to change his screen name and also use multiple names so it seems as he has a lot of people supporting him.

    Martin Fleming

  • Based on your commentary I am assuming you have never held a position of responsibility in a large organization. I can tell you from my experience in the private sector that it is impossible for anyone running an organization the size of a school system to be familiar with the intimate details of every transaction or contract being fulfilled. In a position of authority like a board member you must depend on the people that work for you to provide accurate information and to make good decisions.

    If you had attended the meetings you would know that the new building project is being done in a way that the contract will stipulate a guaranteed maximum price and if it goes over then the construction manager is at risk for the overruns. This is an OFCC project and the regulations/restrictions are closely monitored.

  • I respectfully still disagree with many of the responsibility statements. As do many in this community, that's why they have no faith and don't botther with the BOE anymore.  It may be seen as apathy, but in most part, for those of us who have been involved in trying to bring about changes for years, its just simply time to quit banging your head on a brick wall.

    The BOE members are absolutely responsible for knowing what is in a construction contract. Absolutely responsible for knowing what the contract guarantees and what they will be responsible for in cost over runs.  To have not asked those questions prior to approval was negligent and foolhardy at best.  So, if they are to just be absolved and considered not responsible for knowing any construction they approve, who is going to be responsible for this debacle of a master building plan they are going to undertake.  Apparently not them, if they aren't responsible for knowing the details or asking the questions on building.  What if their are land issues with the new HS location, or with the reconstruction/construction on any of the buildings.  Obviiously they shouldn't be held to any accountability.  The taxpayer should just be happy to allow their ignorance in approving whatever is given to them, no questions asked.  The taxpayer should just take a cut in their livable income to finance the debacles of the BOE/District.  Such a good plan.

    Btw, the superintendent had more than just a minor issue at his last job.  So, only time will tell, but many in the district already aren't happy with him and what he is doing.  Remember, everyone thought Mrs Keller was a good woman until she wasn't, Same with Mr. Hunt and many of the others that have gone thru our district on the revolving administrative door.  So, we will see.  Truthfully, I hope he does a good job, as it is in the best interest of our kids.  I just wish we would hire experienced people with a proven record. Not just the "nice" guy they "like" but someone who has a history of making districts work well.

  • Carmen,

    Your statement "Any other forum held after that resolution was a waste of anyone's time as their input was 100% useless." is actually impossible to rate because no one showed up to offer any input. So if the forums were a waste of time it was only because of the apathy of the community.




  • I never said he wasn't inexperienced I said that he was a good man, and one misstep in a career should not preclude anyone from advancement. The BOE members had no knowledge of the problems with the bleachers until after the fact because the people who should have been asking the questions (engineers, grounds supervisor, superintendent etc...) did not do their jobs.

    The board members are not psychics if they are being told it will cost  something by all the parties involved and then suddenly the story changes after the project starts like in did with the bleacher project they are kind of stuck with it. Personally I think the company that did the bleacher project and screwed up all the code requirements should have been held responsible. Not the board members.




  • First, I stand by my comments that the current superintendent is inexperienced. Many districts do hire superintendents with experience and with a phd. We don't. That's just a fact. You can like him but that doesn't change his experience level. Second, his contract was non-renewed from the Lake Local School District, that is also a fact you can find in their BOE minutes.  Most people know that districts who "non-renew" someones contract do it because that person was not doing their job effectively.  Personally, I do know the inside story from people in that district but I will not discuss or disclose it here, as it is "hear say" but if enough people are saying it and the district chose to let him go, it has a basis.  Irregardless, he had no prior experience as a superitendent, he was hired as a principle, promoted to curriculum director and promoted to superintendent so fast and yet no experience to back up the promotions, just the fact that the BOE members like him.  Talk to people who work in the district, he seems to either be loved or hated, not a lot of middle ground on feelings.

    Second, absolutely the BOE members are to be held responsible and accountable for all funding they approve and why they are approving it.  The former maintenance supervisor was not let go for this stadium mistake but for his cameras in the locker rooms.  The BOE never publicly expressed concern at the meetings about the cost, nor any of the cost over runs.  They never said, well, lets be sure what we are doing.  Or expressed concern over the large amounts of the over runs.  They are the final people responsible. They need to be a checks and balance.  If they are only yes men to consent agenda items and hold no responsibility to it, then what is the point of the BOE? Why do we pay them to even be there if they don't ask questions, get answers, and know the ins and outs BEFORE they approve something.

    Years ago, it used to be that BOE asked questions, and many times "tabled" the item for the next meeting until all information could be verified and assured.  I have never heard this current group table anything for further review.  They just approve ALL consent agenda items without question.  Its a ridiculous practice how many things are just thrown on the consent agenda list to be voted in one sweeping vote.  Its ridiculous how little the BOE questions any of the expenditures, even when the public has questioned it.  It is ridiculous that they never ask the questions that the public is putting forth to them.

    These are the same BOE members that let Linda Keller spend ridiculous amounts of money on lawyers and when the public questioned it, they didn't even respond to it.  Yet after she was gone, these same BOE members then say it was ridiculous how much she spent.  The same BOE members who agreed to thousands in different studies by different outside agencies under many different superintendents in the revolving door of things but never implemented studies or questioned the expenditures.  Yet, cut busing and endangered children for less of a savings that many of these studies cost the district.  You bet I hold them accountable for all their decisions as should anyone.

  • Doc54.... The board voted to enter into the CFAP at the May 9, 2013 meeting with their master plan.  The only forum held which I and many others attended was to weigh in on LFI's only.  Any other forum held after that resolution was a waste of anyone's time as their input was 100% useless.

  • No excuses I just choose to lay the blame where it actually belongs instead of trying to put everything at the feet of the board members. Mr. Fleming you yourself have commented in previous posts that you think the Superintendent is a good man.

    Everyone says that the board did not take any community input about this project and yet when they held a forum to gather input no one attended. That leaves the board to move forward with what they feel is best. If you don't like the plan but you don't have the courage to attend the forum and speak up then you get what is chosen. The same way people gripe about elections but never vote.

  • At one time, I was just like Doc54 (Bwoods54), and so were you Carmen, and I would bet Factualinfo was also.  But one day, something happened that made you want to really look into this and discover there are many things swept under the table and propaganda swirls everywhere while the real problems and the real logic remains skewed.

    One day Doc54 will forego his excuses and look at reality for what it is and he will then realize the wrong he has done to those around him with the help of 3 of the most arrogant people I have ever met in my life.

    And people thought/think I was/am the bully.

    Martin Fleming

  • Factualinfo,

    I have to take issue with a couple statements you made. First your comment about the new Superintendent Mr. Daulbaugh is uncalled for, every first time Superintendent starts with no experience and God knows they had a couple very experienced people who did a horrible job. As for your comment about him being let go from a previous employer I do not have any facts about that and I doubt that you or anyone else knows the whole story. I personally have found Mr. Daulbaugh to be quite responsible, pleasant to deal with and very reasonable.

    The stadium seating debacle was not caused by the Board of Education, the building and grounds supervisor was in charge of that project and if you check you will see he no longer works for the school district. Contrary to what you seem to want to believe the BOE is not involved in the daily decisions, they rely on information given to them by the people paid to actually run the District.


    I was at those forums and every question that was asked was answered unfortunately most people are not interested enough to show up and actually participate. If people have objections that is where they need to bring it up and it is the reason the forums are held. If there are as many people objecting to these plans why aren't they showing up.

  • The truth is that the public blindly voted for the school board to have a blank check and do whatever they please with it.  They answer to no one but themselves and never have.  They take only input that already agrees with what they want to do.  If there are cost over runs on this project massive project (and there will be), they will simply do what they have always done. Come to the public for more PI money to fix their continual poor judgement (like the stadium seating debacle, for one and HS renovations after fire and many more). Surround themselves with under qualified administrators (a superintendant with zero experience who was let go from his last district he worked in) who will just be their yes men. then rely on people too blind in their devotion to help the schools/kids; who are unwilling to question the powers that be.

    It really is a shame that the BOE members are so stubborn and limited in their viewpoints that they can't open their minds to any possibilities.  When Mr. Grimm and Mr. Kelly did their proposal before the BOE where they showed a map of where the HS might fit on part of the city park area, it fit perfectly fine in an area that would not even be near the areas of wetland concerns.  It was only their proposed stadium location that was at issue with the wetlands.  So WHY not just keep our current stadium that we have already invested millions in over the last few years. All it needs is a new turf and track.  WHY not build just the HS on a partial part of city park?  Why not meet with city officials and really discuss the options?  Why not be open to real possibilities of a central campus without all the risks/dangers of the Rt 14 location?

    Shut down Wait after add on to campus since you've already secured the blank check from the public, but I really hope the public eventually starts to question this whole ridiculous plan that will now be part of your taxes for 35 years. Why allow the district to turn the current MS into BOE offices.  Why maintain a whole school building just for administrative offices?  Then, ask how can our district operate effectively when it will be increasing the number of buildings to 6 that it will have to maintain in the long run.  So, basically, means more tax dollars, more levies needed.  Hopefully people in the public will also start to question where all the PI money is going?? What is it spent on? People should request a copy of the checks by report for the PI monies and see where it has been spent over the past few years. The good thing is that once the administrative members take over the MS building, they will be able to use all that PI money to redo their offices. Just like all our past revolving door administrators have been doing at the current board offices. Gosh, a whole new building to decorate and upgrade to their wants and needs.  Sure is important to the educational value of our kids, thats for sure.

  • Doc54 I totally agree.  The problem was they didn't release certain information until afterwards.  I did bring my concerns to the BOE at the 5/9 meeting and was promptly banned from PASS, and Parents for Public Schools.  Oh yeah- and they told everyone on the levy committee when they went out canvassing to tell people if they voted for me they wouldn't get a new school and that I was anti-school and anti-kids.  I'm none of those things.  I'm very pro schools and I wanted new facilities but the way we are going about it is going to result in a train wreck.  Jeff Allen spent months trying to tell them and meet with him, there has been a multitude of calls made to individual board members, we have spoken at council, we have spoken at Planning.  I testify in Mr. Allen's case when he tried to get them to listen in a court of law since they wouldn't listen to him otherwise... or anyone for that matter. 

    I tried to say this stuff as politely as I could when what I really wanted to do was scream and pull my hair out lol.  Please--- go to these meetings and try and see if you can get them to answer your questions---honestly.  Their "forums" were a complete joke as well.  They were just info sessions where they answered questions on what they already decided with zip for input from the community.  The only real input they had from citizens was that they wanted a campus setting.  So in my opinion--- they should really be do everything they can and exhaust all options to make that happen.  If people thought that would happen with the same school board who didn't do it the first time around?  Well... there is just no help for that kind of faulty logic.


  • Doc54 or Bwoods54, How about this, ""Maybe we have to spend $1 million, or $1.5 million, to widen Route 14, and at that point, we could have moved the park," Allen said. "So maybe we ought to look at this [City Park issue]." I would be willing to be it would cost 1.5 million.  Far less has been done on the roads and the cost was pretty close to that so I would say yes, it is going to cost about 1.5 million.  Not only would the road have to be widened, but the sewers would have to be rerouted, water lines, gas lines, poles, dirt brought in to fill the low spots, you have to consider the cemetary and what ground it takes up, yeah, I would say a lot of planning and cost would be involved.

    Surely it would be ludicrous at best to think it would cost under a million.  Then there's the cost of the traffic light or two.  Then has the city provided the permission for the school district to build there?  Did they get a variance that no one knows about?

    After that August meeting is when the board inserted the knife, in this article they are twisting it.  Maybe they believe the city council is too ignorant to notice that in the article.  Who knows what this board is doing anymore.

    Once thing is for certain, it won't be having a meeting to discuss building on that property.

    Martin Fleming

  • Sorry no ruffled feathers here, yes I did read the article but you still haven't answered my question. Who says it will cost 1 to 1.5 million to modify route 14?

    My only issue with the statement made by Carmen is when she said "Since I'm not running for office I don't see a need to mince words any longer" I see this kind of thinking as a large part of the problem. You should not mince words when you are running for office. She raises some points which are potential red flags and deserved to have been brought up before the bond issue vote not after.


  • At this point, he is probably thinking up a new name now.

    And he wanted people to believe he was credible.

    Martin Fleming

  • Carmen,

    Well said.

    And you know, "if you dare ask questions-- well you get labeled anti- schools and anti kids and you become a villan." is how they pictured me but they really don't know how wrong they are.

    But you know, you have really ruffled Doc54 (bwoods54), feathers.

    Get ready for the attack.

    Martin Fleming

  • Doc54,  Did you read the article before you started commenting?  Are you on medication?  Is this another attempt at being funny?

    You lost me.

    Martin Fleming

  • Since I'm not running for office I don't see a need to mince words any longer.  This whole deal makes me physically sick.  Here are some facts for you and they are FACTS:

    1.  Mr. Grimm and Mr. Kelly TWO times said they were coming to council in August in September and never showed up to discuss  as Mr. Grimm puts it "cost optimizing options." Mr. Grimm said just enough to quell the riot and had no real intention.

    2.  I went to City Hall and talked to the planning people, I spoke with people in the Regional planning office in Ravenna and guess what?  They never met with Mr. Grimm or Mr. Kelly.  What actually happend was Mr. Grimm was passing our planning director in the hallway after a meeting and asked one question- and it was regarding interpretation of our Master Plan (adopted 2009) Key.  The are is in red because its designated "untouchable"  Mr Grimm then took that one interaction and told the schools and the voting public he did a lot of research.  The reason that the park land has that designation is because its designated a park.  There is a 75 ft Riparian setback that must be adhered to but that gives plenty of room for a school.  I also went to Portage and got the flood plain maps and the flood plain is NOWHERE near where they wanted to build a school. 

    3.  Before the election day several people put and shared on facebook that we need to pass the bond because we can discuss the location later.  That obviously was never in the minds of our school leadership- they NEVER intended to do anything other than Rt. 14.  Not because council said no (because council never even had it before them to vote on- EVER), not because of any EPA issues because there are NONE, not because of a cost anaysis (because that was never done either), and certainly NOT because they went by what the people asked for ( a vast majority said campus setting).  NO, no , no- our district is not entertaining the campus option because their egos will not allow it.  They don't want to admit they were wrong and never even asked council.

    4.  The school district cannot even build anything on that Rt. 14 land because they still refuse to show up at planning commission for conditional use.  And just in case you're wondering- I will find that discussion in planning interesting since a school doesn't meet any of the conditional use criteria.  Why is that a problem?  Because we have denied other people from building for less of a reason.  That's how our town comes to own so much land from lawsuits-- poor planning and favoritism. 

    The campus setting is absolutely a possiblity.  And perhaps the city is willing to entertain a land swap and there are grants to rebuild parks- but somebody for the love of God has to talk to council!!   Not just talk about talking to council. 

    And while that asphalt plant may be in the proximity of other things like the church--- it is thousands of feet away.  Our new school is going to go with a few hundred feet of that plant.  Has anyone posting on here ever just stood in that field and took a good whiff?  I know I have- and it positively reeks of sulfur- which last I heard is not too healthy. 

    The last lie that was told to us was that the state will pick up the cost of widening route 14 and for traffic lights etc....  Wow- are you freaking kidding me?  Rt. 303 has been flooding since forever and we can't even get emergency vehicles down it when it rains and the state won't pay for that- so they are going to pick up the tab on a private project?  yeah...that makes total sense- said no one ever. 

    Maybe Jeff Allen is asking the right questions maybe he isn't- but we'll never know who's right.  Because one thing I've learned the hard way in this town is if you dare ask questions-- well you get labeled anti- schools and anti kids and you become a villan. 

  • Oh sorry I meant to say that as the crow flies the church property isn't far from the alleged toxins either.

  • What information do you have that says it will cost 1 to 1.5 million to improve Route 14? The route 14 property is pretty flat also and as the crow flies it isn't far from the alleged toxins either.


  • Doc54 or Bwoods54, however you want to hide, the point is, if we are going to improve the road and cause a mass disruption in the community in the long run and it is going to cost 1.5 million, then rather than cause the disruption, Mr. Allen would rather use the 1.5 million towards the 3 million to build the park and not cause the disruption to the community.  The 1.5 million would be better spent as a park.  However, the issue of toxins and air purity are still a concern and what would that do to the visitors of the park?

    If the district wants to swap the land then the school district should foot the bill.  However they are still using public funds to do that.  And there's the rub.  Money that has already been invested into the millions and the hours of labor are an issue.  Buy the land from the church, use that property to build the high school and very little if anything has to be done.  Lands pretty flat already, run off is good and I don't see any foreseeable problem.   Rt 14 is a disaster waiting to happen.

    And your attemp at humor was, well let's just say don't give up your day job.

    And by using two different screen names, it appears deception is one of your self admiring atributes. Aren't we such a clever one to be so deceptive to so many.  Bet your proud of that one aren't you.

    Martin Fleming

  • By the way if you haven't figured it out by now I also use the screen name bwoods54

  • Where did the estimate of 1 to 1.5 million dollars to widen route 14 come from. Is there a report? Can the public view it? Maybe a study should be done before we start throwing numbers around.

  • Geez Mr. Fleming, grow a sense of humor. I meant no disrespect to Mr. Allen if it was taken that way I apologize to him. My point was that government in general can't seem to do basic math anymore.

    And per your statement "Jeff is concerned about the citizens and avoiding un-necessary expenses. Looking for the cheaper and better method." if it does cost 1 to 1.5 million to improve route 14 then it is still cheaper than moving the park (3 to 3.5 million)


  • The tone that is carried by the school board officials in this article indicate they still want nothing to do with city council and have no concern about what the city thinks.  If you really want to know how the School Board feels about the city council and whether they would want to meet with them all you have to do is go to http:// and watch the August 8, 2013 School Board meeting and 55 minutes into it, the school board informs Mr. Grimm and Mr. Kelly their exact feelings about dealing with city officials.

    Mr. Allen, if you want people such as bwoods54 to understand what you are saying, you are going to have to start speaking gibberish and illogic.  Then it will come into light for him.

    Martin Fleming

  • It is odd how some attack those who are actually working for the people of the city.

    Jeff is concerned about the citizens and avoiding un-necessary expenses.  Looking for the cheaper and better method.

    Martin Fleming

  • Now I see the problem.  It is voters like bwoods54 that didn't understand Jeff Allen's statement and misconstrued what he was saying.  Fortunately for Mr. Allen there are people like me who know exactly what he is inferring with his statement.  From past posts, I have come to the conclusion that bwoods54 has no clue what he is talking about and that he has made some real blunders in his support of this past bond/levy.

    There was a lot of propaganda being spread by the supporters of this levy and now the real news is starting to come out.  There are alternatives to building on the current campus and it doesn't have anything to do with any part of the city park.  It would be disturbed at by building on the main campus.  No matter how many times they say there are no alternatives they are flat out, undeniably lying.  That is the pure truth.   There are alternatives but they don't want to have egg on their face when proved wrong.  These people apparently have one blind eye that they keep turning towards logic.  They refuse to use it.

    Martin Fleming

  • Ok, now I see the problem. Mr. Allen needs a math lesson, spending $1 million, or $1.5 million, to widen Route 14 is not equal to spending $3 million to $3.5 million necessary to move the park.