Page 1 of 2
Why don't we sell the schools that we have closed?
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 8:51 am
by Rhonda loje
Since the drastic financial cut backs have happened concerning the State of Ohio and their contribution to the money they give Lakewood Schools. Isn't now time to consider selling the schools we have closed down. We were going to use them as transitional units while we were remodeling the remaining schools. It now looks as if we go forward with a Roosevelt and Lincoln remodel (which I still question), that all kids will move to Grant? Even if that is correct why are we still holding on to all of these schools we closed 3 years ago. Why aren't we trying to sell these properties? Wouldn't that money off-set some of the deficit needed to rebuild the remaining schools we are going to keep?
Why don't we decommission these schools and sell them?
It our tax dollars that pay for the heat and security of these buildings. Is that the best use of our tax dollars in this current financial atmosphere?
Re: Why don't we sell the schools that we have closed?
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 10:53 am
by Colleen Wing
Okay, I'll say it out loud.
Because they will have to offer the space to charter schools first.
And they don't want competition or are afraid of it, etc.
I, for one, wouldn't send my kids to a charter school right now because I have had a great experience in LPS. I support competition in failing school districts that are broken and lack leadership to give children and parents the option of hope...we aren't in that situation by a long shot in Lakewood.
If that is the law, then it should be changed. We shouldn't be punished for running more efficiently. And if a charter school really wanted to open in Lakewood they could do it in one of the Parish schools that have closed. And they haven't after 4 years. So WTF?
Is this an excuse or a reason? Or maybe it is something else all together.
Re: Why don't we sell the schools that we have closed?
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:36 am
by Rhonda loje
So let me get this straight...
We are wasting my tax dollars keeping them warm and secure.
We are wasting my tax dollars by not selling them and using the money to fix the schools we already have.
We are wasting my tax dollars because we are not getting any tax income from those properties.
And we can't fix the schools we have already scheduled to fix without another levy?
Because we are scared?
Is the really right? Is this really true? I would like more answers.
In this climate....that does not any make sense.
Re: Why don't we sell the schools that we have closed?
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:12 pm
by Charlie Page
Does anyone know what is meant by offer them to charter schools? Offer to sell, rent, lease?
Is there a notice of intent to sell that has to be given to Charter schools?
Who are these Charter schools that are said to want our buildings?
Are there any demolition related asbestos issues in the vacant schools?
We have a number of vacant schools and they can’t all be taken over by Charters? Why not sell?
Is the Charter school threat is a red herring?
Re: Why don't we sell the schools that we have closed?
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 1:36 pm
by Charlie Page
More questions:
When was the last time the School Board collectively or individually (without breaking Sunshine laws) discussed disposing of the decommissioned schools?
Will the disposition of decommissioned schools be a School Board agenda item this year? If not, when?
Have any developers, representatives of developers contacted the Administration, the collective Board or individual Board Members regarding the potential purchase of any decommissioned school properties? If so, who is interested, what properties are they interested in and what was the outcome of the discussion?
Perhaps one of our open and transparent School Board members can answer the questions from Rhonda and myself?
Re: Why don't we sell the schools that we have closed?
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:55 pm
by Ellen Cormier
I think it would be great if one got opened up as a community center of some sort with lots of multipurpose space.
I think there might be some rationale about keeping them or one of them in case the enrollment increased and there would be no way to buy any land for a new school if those sites were sold.
Clearly though the upkeep has got to be somewhat pricey and it seems foolish to keep both.
We could have some dynamic redevelopment if we put heads together and come up with something that would be truly unique and useful to the community.
Re: Why don't we sell the schools that we have closed?
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 6:56 am
by Mike Coleman
Can't they declare them administrative offices, move in a few desks, and then sell them?
Re: Why don't we sell the schools that we have closed?
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:47 am
by marklingm
Charlie Page wrote:Perhaps one of our open and transparent School Board members can answer the questions from Rhonda and myself?
Charlie,
I have been offline for awhile and will answer the posed questions in the following post.
In the meantime, open government is very serious and an issue that Lakewoodites should take to heart in the upcoming elections - which is why my comments as incoming president were heartfelt. See
Awake Through Transparent And Accountable Leadership, Lakewood School Board President Matthew John Markling,
The Lakewood Observer (Jan. 25, 2011) (
http://lakewoodobserver.com/read/2011/01/26/awake-through-transparent-and-accountable-leadership).
What Jim says is true – although I don’t think that I am necessarily always alone on the school board:
I suppose, as a high ranking member of City Hall recently shared with me, that is why we have elections.
Matt
Re: Why don't we sell the schools that we have closed?
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:50 am
by marklingm
Charlie and Rhonda,
Charlie Page wrote:When was the last time the School Board collectively or individually (without breaking Sunshine laws) discussed disposing of the decommissioned schools?
During my term on the school board, a specific plan as to what to do with the buildings after Phase III has not been discussed. However, there have been general discussions regarding the legal constraints placed on school boards when disposing of school buildings. There are many options.
Rhonda Loje wrote:Why don't we decommission these schools and sell them?
Charlie Page wrote:Will the disposition of decommissioned schools be a School Board agenda item this year? If not, when?
Good questions.
Nothing in Phase III is set in stone.
Our enrollment projections may change whether the OSFC will fund two or three elementary schools. So, Phase III may end up having three elementary schools after all.
While the economic conditions facing our Community and the Lakewood City Schools have only gotten worse, the following comments were published by Dr. P. Joseph Madak in
The Lakewood Observer in March of 2010 and serve as a good summary on this issue:
Dr. P. Joseph Madak wrote:On the future of properties not in use at the end of Phase III construction:First, it is important to remember that our need for our existing unused school facilities is ongoing until we identify our transition plan for students for our Phase III construction. There is a Lakewood Board of Education resolution to this effect that continues in force through the end of the 2010-2011 school year.
Second, there is no current plan in place, nor in the process of being developed, for the reuse of these properties. I have heard rumors of discussions on this topic that may have taken place prior to my returning to Lakewood. No one has initiated any of these supposed conversations with me.
Third, it is important to keep in mind that there may be facilities needs that we cannot anticipate at this time for our Phase III transition plans for housing students. The plan will be broader than which facilities will be needed for transitional housing of elementary school students during Phase III. The challenges for transitional housing for high school students for Phase III construction will be far greater than in Phases I and II. We must also bear in mind the housing for Lakewood City Academy.
Fourth, these vacant facilities do not have the potential of generating significant income for our schools so as to reduce the need for our 6.9 mill operating levy. Having the use of these facilities for swing places is the most cost effective way to meet these needs.
Fifth, the process for disposing of or identifying reuses for these properties will be complex. The process will be impacted by many statues, rules and regulations.
Sixth, coming up with the best plan for reuse of these facilities will require the best thinking and the best insights that will come from all of us working together. The process of developing this plan should include opportunities for community input.
Seventh, since beginning work on the Long Range Master School Facilities Plan in 2002, it has been my thought that initiating work on the disposal or reuse of properties that we will no longer need after the fall of 2013 or fall of 2014 too soon, had the potential of having to do this work twice or overlooking changing needs of our community that are not yet obvious.
Since 2002, my thinking has been to begin this work at the same time or shortly after we begin the work on the transition plan for housing students during Phase III construction. This time frame should give us time to do our legal research and other homework as the transition plan is being finalized…I anticipate that we would begin work on our transition plan for housing students during Phase III construction likely at some point during next school year, as we begin our next phase of work with the Ohio School Facilities Commission.
http://www.lakewoodobserver.com/read/2010/03/10/superintendent-confirms-no-schools-to-close
Charlie Page wrote:Have any developers, representatives of developers contacted the Administration, the collective Board or individual Board Members regarding the potential purchase of any decommissioned school properties?
I can only speak for me. Nobody has contacted me. Nor would developers or representatives attempt to contact me.
Matt
Re: Why don't we sell the schools that we have closed?
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 9:36 am
by Rhonda loje
I am very disappointed that this topic has not been discussed based upon the current budget crisis.
I would think that this community would want to have a discussion about Plan A, Plan B and Plan C based upon different scenarios that could or would occur. Any good business would be evaluating these circumstances and re-evaluating the circumstances to be prepared on the best way to meet their return on investment to their shareholders.
I don't understand why we are waiting to discuss this subject until 2013 or 2014? In this current business climate, it does not make sense to me, not to have a plan or even discuss one.
I would also think that being responsive to tax payers (shareholders) concerns and their tax dollars would be of utmost importance to convey to the citizens of Lakewood. The shareholders need to know why their assets are not, either being used, have a plan for use or have a plan for their disposal.
There still are many unanswered questions that need some discussion and very quickly.
Re: Why don't we sell the schools that we have closed?
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 9:54 am
by Meg Ostrowski
Matt,
Thanks for posting Dr. Madak's summary.
It seems the primary reason we are holding on to some of the vacant properties is so that we can handle the disruption that will take place at the high school.
If I understand correctly, each year Lakewood falls further back in line for OSFC funding based on Ohio Department of Education calculations of the district's three year average "adjusted valuation per pupil," and the percentage of funding decreases.
As we wait "for our number to come up" with OSFC, I would like to see the board take action to split the completion of the high school from the elementary school projects so that we can move forward. I was told during Phase III by Treasurer, Rick Berdine that this could not be done because some of the funds needed would have to come from OSFC. Now that the numbers (enrollment and funding) have changed, this may no longer hold up or justify delaying the high school renovation.
With all of the issues surrounding the elementary school projects, there seems a much greater chance of passing a bond issue that is exclusively tied to the completion of the high school.
Meg
Re: Why don't we sell the schools that we have closed?
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 9:55 am
by marklingm
Rhonda Loje wrote:I would think that this community would want to have a discussion about Plan A, Plan B and Plan C based upon different scenarios that could or would occur.
Rhonda,
Agreed. This conversation should take place. For me, the only issue is making it clear to the Community that the factors upon which each scenario is based is in constant fluctuation.
For example, at the end of the day, the OSFC may re-approve its initially approved OSFC plan and we may have three elementary schools included in Phase III - or not.
Matt
Re: Why don't we sell the schools that we have closed?
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 10:07 am
by Rhonda loje
I think this community can handle any discussion as long as it happens in the "light of day".
It needs to happen.
Re: Why don't we sell the schools that we have closed?
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 10:25 am
by Rhonda loje
Oh by the way Matt....
Thank you for having a frank, constructive and open conversation with me!
It is good for the community and good for the schools!
I wish everyone would contribute to a frank, constructive and open conversation on any topic.
It would be good for the City of Lakewood.
Thank you again for your prompt response.
Rhonda
Re: Why don't we sell the schools that we have closed?
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 10:37 am
by Charlie Page
Matt – I do appreciate your response. You jogged my memory with Dr. Madak’s comments on the subject but circumstances can change in a years time. I would have to think there are facilities that would make it to the ‘less than likely’ list for swing space. Considering that funds are expended to maintain buildings and phase 3 has been pushed back by the State, I would think a second look at the cost/benefit of maintaining some/all of these decommissioned buildings is a worthwhile exercise. I would look at the expected operating costs to be incurred through the expected end of phase 3 versus the cost to rent other facilities during the transition (6-7 years of operating costs could be more than 1-2 years rent). Additionally, the sooner the buildings are in private hands, the sooner the City and Schools can receive additional revenues from property taxes.
However little the revenue would be from selling the land and buildings, it’s still revenue and every dollar counts these days.