The school project has raised apprehensions primarily due to traffic and parking issues. Residents highlighted the challenge of managing increased vehicular flow on already congested streets like 87th and 88th, especially during school drop-off and pick-up times. The existing plan includes only nine on-site parking spaces, with an additional 33 spaces in an off-site lot, deemed insufficient by community members. Concerns were also raised about the adequacy of traffic studies, some of which were conducted during periods when schools were closed, failing to capture normal traffic volumes.

The project’s impact on local infrastructure was another focal point, with residents questioning the potential disruption caused by necessary sewer installations and the removal of up to 90 trees.

Community members expressed skepticism about the financial repercussions and the school’s perceived disconnect from local needs. The tuition rates, ranging from $36,000 to $44,000, were considered prohibitive for many residents, raising concerns about accessibility and the school’s contribution to the community’s socioeconomic fabric. Additionally, the potential loss of tax revenue from the site, should it be designated as a nonprofit educational institution, was a point of contention, with some residents suggesting alternative mixed-use developments that would better serve the area’s economic interests.

The historical significance of the existing United Methodist Church, a community staple since 1940, added another layer to the debate. Residents expressed dismay at the prospect of demolishing a structure with deep community roots, urging consideration of its preservation or adaptive reuse. The introduction of a development project that alters the historical landscape without sufficient community engagement was met with resistance, prompting calls for more inclusive planning processes.

Amid these discussions, the council emphasized the importance of updating the village’s comprehensive plan and zoning regulations to better accommodate new developments while preserving the community’s character. The meeting concluded with a decision to table further discussions on the school project until January, allowing for more comprehensive review and community input.

Beyond the school project, the meeting also addressed the selection of a new village manager. The council deliberated on candidates, ultimately appointing David Roseman despite expressing concerns about aligning his salary expectations with the village’s financial constraints. The need for stable leadership was underscored, with the council acknowledging the importance of retaining a manager who could navigate the challenges of ongoing and future developments.