Issues and Answers

School Administration Building Relocation
August 1, 2000

1.  Why did the Board not know about this huge impending "surplus" when it was contemplating the 2000-01 budget and passed that budget at its Feb 22 meeting?

     a. Budget passed in February, the building was discussed in March.
      b. There was no surplus. There was monies we would have spent on Needs Lists items (Maintenance, Technology, and Instruction), we have done every year, that total in excess of $950,000. That money was obviously not spent on those items in order to have the funds to purchase the proposed facility. A fund balance of approximately $190,000 was expected. Add the $750,000 to the $190,000 the Board intended to turn in as fund balance and there is $940,000 of the $982,000 turned back into the City as General School Fund Balance.

2.  Why didn't the Board consider using the "surplus" money to make needed purchases it had placed in the 2000-01 budget or reduce the 2000-01 budget to ask the city for less money?

    The School Board Fund Balance from one year is not available the next year. The Fund Balance returns to School Budget funds the following year at which time it is included in the budget as a revenue resource and is used for needed purchases.

3.  Is having a new School Board Office going to raise SOL scores? How is it going to impact students?

   a. The current School Administration Office is not Americans with Disabilities Act compliant. One law suite from someone tripping down the steps or not being able to use the restroom at the current Administrative Offices could have serious affects on the operating funds of the schools.
     b. Student records lost from moisture in storage areas or an ever-increasing risk of an electrical fire from old overworked wiring could have serious impacts.
     c. Attitudes of administration working in a poor and overcrowded environment makes them feel unappreciated and provokes poor attitudes toward each other, staff, and the public.
     d. The High School Math Department is currently using classroom space in the VoTech Center. The VoTech Center currently houses the Pupil Personnel Services (PPS) and Food Services administrative offices. The proposed new school Administration building would consolidate PPS and Food Services from the VoTech Center. This would create more area that can be converted to classrooms rather than considering trailers or wing additions and related expenses in the future.

4.  Why would the School Board choose a site for an office in the most expensive business real estate area of the city? Why choose a building valued at over $1,000,000 and take it off the tax rolls?

    a. Where would you have a School Administrative Building? This location is more central and closer to every current school location except Lakeview than the current building. The proposed building has sat vacant over the past 18+ months.
     b. If the School Board can get a $1,000,000 building for $750,000 net using last year's money (not asking for additional funds), isn't that efficient use of taxpayers' dollars?
     c. Would an entity like the School Administration Office, that isn't going anywhere as long as there is public education, provide some stability and traffic to an area where numerous offices and store fronts currently sit vacant now. And when the proposed collapse of the Mall area occurs, wouldn't it be good to have something as stable as the School Administrative Office there to encourage others it is a good location for business offices?
     d. How much tax revenue does the proposed facility generate? The real estate tax rate is $1.20 per $100. If the assessed value for the property is $1,000,000; $1,000,000 divided by $100 equals 10,000 multiplied by $1.20 equals $12,000 a year in property taxes. City Council provided the relocated Chamber of Commerce $10,000 last year they use mostly for the rent of their building. If the City had the Chamber of Commerce move into the vacated School Administration Building, the Chamber could use the $10,000 a year for things other than rent if they had no rent. The City would lose $12,000 in property tax revenue, but not spending additional CIP dollars for a newer School Administration Office would save the City in the long term.

5.  Why was this proposed facility not placed on the City's Capital Improvements Plan?

     a. CIP dollars are typically allocated in future years. That would be fine if the School Board proposed building a new facility; we are not. You cannot find real estate and realistically expect a seller to hold it until CIP items and dollars are scheduled and approved.
     b. CIP dollars are in addition to the local dollars allocated to the General School Fund/School Budget. The school Board is very aware the Schools get the largest share of City dollars annually in the City Budget. Would it be wiser and more efficient to use monies the Schools already received and saved (by not buying things scheduled to be replaced that still worked) or ask the City for additional CIP tax dollars than were already received in the local School portion of the City budget?

SUMMARY: The School Board and Superintendent made a procedural error, which we have corrected. The School Board should have had a public hearing after we first agreed to pursue purchasing a building. Hindsight is always 20/20. We, as a Board, are wiser now than then. None of us has ever dealt with the purchase of real estate before. The Board is trying to do what is right by not debating whether we have the authority to purchase real estate or not, but by conducting business as advised by City Council.  I hope this redirection shows the respect from the School Board that City Council deserves as the School Board recognizes it receives half of its total funding from the local tax dollars of the City Budget. The School Board also recognizes the need for a good working relationship, trust, and open communications with City Council.  That relationship is more important to the School Board and Superintendent than whether we were right about having the authority to buy property without City Council approval.

The efforts of the School Board and Superintendent to rectify this entire situation and the redirection the School Board has taken will hopefully be recognized by the citizens as well as City Council. The easiest thing to do would be to consider this situation too complicated, too expensive, or poorly timed; just forget about moving and have the School Administration Office stay where it is. Ignoring the current School Administrative Office facility problems and inadequacies will not make them go away. These conditions will continue to deteriorate with time and growing automation needs.

Four of the five School Board members believe this is the right thing to do and the right time to do it.

We see this as beneficial to the Chamber of Commerce (representing local merchants and a School Business Partner) if they get the vacated building, the School System (administration to better serve staff, parents, and students), and the City Council (representing the citizens of our community) by not spending any additional local tax dollars.

We, the majority of the School Board, believe this is the most cost efficient use of local and state tax dollars in the immediate short term and definitely in the long term.

We, the majority of the School Board, believe there are no other existing local facilities that could be renovated or built that could be as adequate for less money than the current proposal.

The money for purchase has already been saved from last year's 1999-2000 School Budget.  It therefore would have no negative impact or new costs on the current 2000-01 or upcoming School or City Budgets.