School district will move central offices
Mary Herbert will house administration
By Bobbi Mlynar
Thursday, March 13, 2008
The Emporia board of education agreed to sell its current central office Wednesday night, but told administrators they could spend "not one penny more" than the proceeds remaining from the sale, after expenses are deducted.
Board members Mike Helbert and Mary Helmer scrutinized appraisals, the sale and lease contracts, and the potential cost of moving central office employees to the old Mary Herbert School.
"Assuming that we do this deal, do we have the plans in place to do the renovations here at Mary Herbert, that we can have a seamless move and how much does that seamless move cost? And what is the total cost to the taxpayer for the sale of the building and the renovations?" Helbert asked. "... (Are) all of our savings going to be from utilities and maintenance in the future?"
Appraisers Ray Toso and Michael C. Hinkson had appraised the current central office, formerly a post office, in February. Toso's appraisal was $265,000; Hinkson's was $259,000.
Hinkson pointed out that without remodeling, the office layout would not accommodate multiple businesses, and that much office space already sits empty in Emporia. Other buyers may not be easy to find.
Toso added that the property, if sold by the district, would go back on the property tax rolls, which would benefit other taxpayers. Heim estimated the tax payable on the property then about be about $8,500 tax annually, at its new assessed value.
Deuce Holdings Inc., represented by manager Brad Hase, in February had offered the district $228,860, approximately the same value as listed by the Lyon County Appraiser's office.
Helbert said that the new county appraiser's valuation lists the property value as $281,000.
"I know that nobody's got a crystal ball but apparently the county appraiser thinks he does," Helbert said, drawing laughter from the board and the audience. "Do you think that the value of this property rose to $281,000 in the last month?"
The board in February had agreed to the purchase price, with the stipulation that it could back out of the contract if certain points could not be negotiated to the satisfaction of both parties. The board was required to take action on the sale by March 12, the date of this week's meeting.
The new contract shows a monthly lease rate, for one year, at $2,800, up $300 from the earlier contract's $2,500 figure. Glenn Strickland questioned why the amount had risen, and was told that the amount was adjusted because the buyer would begin paying property taxes on the building when the company took formal ownership, and because the amount of interest also would be increased.
Hernandez provided estimates for Mary Herbert renovations that were done by architect Dave Emig during a walk-through of the school in early February.
Hernandez said that four rooms would need some type of construction work on the first floor and two rooms would need work on the second floor. A wall or two also will be installed on the first floor for private offices.
"The rest of the buildling, we will use modular furniture and it will stay as-is," Hernandez said.
HVAC work may need to be done.
She said that $121,140 had been estimated to do those renovations, with a 20 percent allowance for design and scope changes that increased that estimated by $24,000 to $145,368. She added on another $10 percent for fees and reimbursement costs, bringing the total to $159,905.
New signage outside, at an estimated $7,000, brought the estimate to $165,000.
Hernandez said that about $65,000 of electrical and technical work is needed at the current district office for the technical department, and plans had been to do the first part of that work at a cost of about $35,000. The Mary Herbert building has adequate electrical sources to supply the needs of the combined offices. Other technical work that may need to be done at Mary Herbert, as well as perhaps Kansas Avenue and Maynard schools, would approximately offset the $35,000 savings from not doing those improvements at the 501 Merchant St. office.
Helmer asked about the costs of the moves.
Kansas Avenue and Maynard schools, which are expected to house the Toy Shoppe and a few other small offices, would need electrical work and installation of technical wiring.
"Is this going to be at least a revenue-neutral move, or ... is this going to cost us money?" Helbert asked. "I know we don't have a crystal ball again, Dr. Heim."
"I think if it's your desire that this be a revenue-neutral move, then you can make a motion that this is a revenue-neutral move," Heim said. "If you want to make that a parameter of the move, I'm very comfortable with that."
Helmer said that she had talked with residents who were concerned about spending funds at a time when no one could predict how much the Tyson downsizing would affect the school district's budget.
"I think it all needs to be included, in my mind," she said.
Helmer began crafting her motion to approve the sale, with a restriction.
"Anything associated with this move has to come out of the profit, after our expenses, after the rent we're going to pay ... that's your budget," Helmer said. "We can't go a penny over."
Heim added a caveat that the amendment should include costs covering moving costs of every employee office involved.
"Anything that has to do with that building being shut down," Heim said.
Helbert asked to add what he termed a friendly amendment: "assuming that we can get all this construction completed in one year."
The motion carried 5-1, with Mike Crouch voting against the sale. Board member Homer Garza was absent from the meeting.
Helmer later asked that the district track all profit and expenses on a spreadsheet that would be provided later to school board members.
Deuce wants possession of the building on June 1, 2008, with a year contract running until May 31, 2008.
Hernandez said that she planned to move offices in stages, as areas are completed for occupancy, and hopes that the renovations and moves will be completed by Dec. 31 of this year.
Purchase slowdown
Board member Angie Schreiber said that she has been told that requests to purchase classroom needs are not being approved because of a "slowdown" in purchasing. She said she had heard rumors concerning several departments and was trying to trace them back to the teachers for conformation.
"It's not a slowdown; the budgets have been frozen," Schreiber reiterated what she had been told. "What I'm hearing from some of these teachers is kind of contrary to what you're saying."
Hernandez said that some requisitions early into the slowdown "were caught between kind of taking a closer look at requests, and then slowing down" purchases.
"We were starting to scrutinize every single requisition that came through," Hernandez said.
She added that the business department had received open purchase orders that needed more information or explanation in order to be approved, and that queries on quantities actually needed also had to be tracked down from the teachers who had turned in the incomplete or open-ended requests.
"We're trying to control the open purchase orders," she said. "Quite frankly, people are going to have to be better planners and not wait until the last minute. They're going to have to think ahead."
Board member Glenn Strickland said that the board last year had approved 1 4 percent cut in money requested for such classroom purchases, and that the slowdown in spending was being done without the board's approval.
Helbert disagreed, saying that he believed the responsibility for approving expenditures of approved funds should be handled by the district's administration.
"Personally, I think it is the job of Dr. Heim and the staff to take the steps necessary," Helbert said. "I don't want to be in the position where I'm managing" day-to-day functions that the board has hired staff to do.
Helbert suggested that the board meet in study session with staff members to talk about their concerns.
"I hope all of us will keep an open mind until we can do this," Helbert said. "My personal opinion is that the staff has done an excellent job in trying to provide us the information as best they can as to what's going on."
In other action, the school board also
-- unanimously approved a low bid of $249,200 from Markowitz Builders for the second portion of the Logan Avenue School project, to be completed by Aug. 1 of this year. The Markowitz bid included $237,000 for the base project and an additional $12,200 identified as "Alternatve #1" to remodel the school's music room, which was overlooking in the original documents, according to a memo provided to the board. The first phase of the project was completed last year.
-- approved a $117,804.65 replacement for the fire alarm system at Emporia Middle School. The current system continues to malfunction and is a safety concern for the district.
-- approved a bid of $96,940 from Gerald Schumann Electric to update a transformer and electrical service at EHS. Westar will assist with the project.
-- approved a bid from Markowitz Builders for $53,200 to make permanent repairs to the EHS pool. A lower bid, from Emporia Construction and Remodeling Inc., was rejected because it did not meet the requirement to use one of the pre-approved pool contractors listed in the bid documents, and di not submit an application from the pool contractor used for the ERC bid.
-- heard a curriculum report on Literacy First from representatives of EHS and EMS.
-- heard the Fiscal Year 2008 audit report from Abram Chrislip of Lowenthal Singleton Webb & Wilson of Lawrence. Chrislip said the audit revealed no material weaknesses and one finding of non-compliance involving a major federal program.
"This noncompliance was not the result of the district doing anything incorrectly, but more of a conflict between state and federal time-keeping guidelines," Chrislip said. "... It's a common finding we're putting in a lot of our reports until the state decides one way or another" whether it will adopt the federal guidelines.
-- approved the school calendar for the 2009-2010 school year. Changes include:
1. Fall parent-teacher conferences at the end of the first quarter so teachers can better evaluate student progress, and spring conferences prior to the end of the third quarter, to alert parents and students to improvement that may be needed, and to allow time for students to make the changes and complete required assignments.
2. An additional snow day has been added that can be made up at the end of the school year, if the teachers' union agrees.
3. Thanksgiving holiday will run from Nov. 25 through 27 (Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday); winter break will be Monday, Dec. 21, through Monday, Jan. 4, with school resuming on Tuesday, Jan. 5; and spring break will be Monday, March 15, through Friday, March 19.
A total of 424 parents and 447 employees participated in an on-line survey conducted to help the calendar committee in making its scheduling decisions.
activecitizen (anonymous) says...
Budgets have not been "slown down." They have been frozen. The only things allowed for purchase are things completely necessary for the day to day running of the school. The comment that teachers should have planned ahead is BULL! I know many teachers at my school who were planning to use the money for rewards for their students at the end of the year, and now that is not an option. We had planned what we were going to use our funds for, just hadn't spent it yet. Anyone who already spent it, congratulations, anyone else, tough luck! Thats what we were told.
March 13, 2008 at 10:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Emporia_Spartan (anonymous) says...
The Board had not approved the freeze on funds that had already been allocated and approved for this year. The Tyson panic is creating a horrendous situation for teachers and students this semester. This is a knee-jerk reaction without Board input and should be questioned. Being financially prudent is very different from freezing funds that have already been planned for.
I also find it more than curious that the story omitted the discussion and the vote about non-renewed teachers in the district. On a vote of 4-2 the non-renewal was approved, but the two who voted no (Strickland and Schrieber) had very valid reasons. A letter was sent to the teachers who were not retained by their principals indicating that it was the intent of the Board not to renew-- BEFORE the names even went to the Board for consideration. How can Theresa Davidson or anyone in the central office know the "intent" of the Board before the information has been shared with the Board members? Is the central office so used to having a "rubber stamp" Board that they don't think the new members are going to challenge the "after the fact" notification or the "it's a done deal" attitude before the item is brought before the Board? I would like to see more input from teachers who are affected by this "freeze" on funds and other unilateral decisions that negatively affect our schools. It's time that teachers and administrators stand up and speak out rather than just rolling over and sighing about injustices or perceived problems. I really feel that this Board will listen and respond to those who feel a need, an inequity, or a disservice to members of the District.
March 14, 2008 at midnight ( permalink | suggest removal )
activecitizen (anonymous) says...
It's frustrating to see and hear all that is going on in the district. I know as a first year teacher, I would very much like to stand up against the things going on, but to what loss? My job was one of the first cut, and I now have to rely on a positive reccomendation from administration if I have any hope of obtaining a job next year in the teaching field. If I stand up, how will that be effected? I know many other teachers who are in similar situations, and wonder if they say anything will they risk their jobs or furtures as well? We have ENEA, but honestly its more of a joke in Emporia than a union. Teachers aren't united, we are more divided than anything.
March 14, 2008 at 4:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
$117 thousand to replace a fire alarm system in a fairly new building? Who put the system in to begin with? I can't believe that someone with a specialty can't troubleshoot this system for a lot less than that.
March 14, 2008 at 6:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )