About two weeks ago the School
District
was seeking public comments concerning demolition of the old high
school. I responded with this Email to the board (to their .edu
addresses):
“As I was not able to attend your
public comment period concerning the disposition of the old high
school, I will offer you my 'outside the box view,' if I may.
I would strongly oppose demolishing the old High School. I maintained when the new school was proposed that it was a viable building and continue to view it as such. I have not yet seen the analysis of the financial 'benefits' of the demolition, but question whether the school district should become a developer or land manipulator.
All schools are, obviously, built with taxpayer dollars. (mainly local). I understand an attempt was made to sell the building to the County for several ($9 ?) million when it was vacated. That exchange would have simply transferred money for the taxpayers left pocket to the right pocket. A simple transfer may have been a benefit to all. It could have provided office space, theater and a rec center (for which the county subsequently spent other tax millions on).
I would strongly urge, before demolition, a sincere consideration of:
I would strongly oppose demolishing the old High School. I maintained when the new school was proposed that it was a viable building and continue to view it as such. I have not yet seen the analysis of the financial 'benefits' of the demolition, but question whether the school district should become a developer or land manipulator.
All schools are, obviously, built with taxpayer dollars. (mainly local). I understand an attempt was made to sell the building to the County for several ($9 ?) million when it was vacated. That exchange would have simply transferred money for the taxpayers left pocket to the right pocket. A simple transfer may have been a benefit to all. It could have provided office space, theater and a rec center (for which the county subsequently spent other tax millions on).
I would strongly urge, before demolition, a sincere consideration of:
-
(1) using the building as a school (I understand that is apparently not given much approval by the education establishment.)
-
(2) selling, trading or donating the building to Heber City,
which is currently considering a large expenditure for a
public safety building. Again it is nearly the same basic
taxpayers (Heber has about 60% of the county population) There
is also a problem with required impact fees (which would not
be a problem if Heber owned the building)
Thank you for your consideration of this proposal to transfer the property to Heber City. I trust it will yield a discussion with the officials involved. The transfer might also solve a problem with Heber's eventual need for larger office space AND possibly allow Wasatch County additional meeting space. WIN, WIN, WIN
In any event, we, the taxpayers, will continue to pay the bills. Let's look for ways to minimize taxes wherever levied.”
No response, of any type, was
received.
Last week in the Wave, I read that
Supt. Shoemaker said, “It may be time to look at the property
without the existing buildings.” However, it appears that the
decision had already been made and plans were well underway well
before the public comment meeting! (Note that there is already discussions with Mountain America CU as a buyer of Lot 1)
Heber City received proposals from the
school district for a commercial development last month (or
earlier). Click here for the development plans (about page 12) C
Given that school districts are given some exceptions to zoning laws, impact fees and various regulations, a few more questions need to be answered.
Is it appropriate for a school
district
to be a land developer? Are they going to be involved with
“redevelopment agencies”? Is their any guarantee of a sale
after the $700K demolition, and additional development costs? What
will be the full cost of the redevelopment, history shows than
some
previous financial estimates have been more than a little bit off.
The Wave reported Mr Shoemaker saying
that “many local government entities expressed interest,” but
none acted. Perhaps it was the proffered price which was millions
higher than the latest suggested 'value.' Board Chair Baird
suggests that the “school would retain rights to types of
businesses” on the property. Is the proposal really to sell, or
to manage, the proposed 11 lot subdivision with offices, gas
stations, restaurants and retail? (At least no high rises dwellings
were suggested.)
If this is such a potentially
profitable deal, why hasn't some enterprising individual, or
company,
jumped on the opportunity? Or will it be easier for the school
district to get approval than a normal commercial developer? Just
consider how much tax money could have been saved by working WITH
“local government entities,” five years ago rather than trying to
extract top dollar from the left tax pocket to the right? Let's
have the real discussion.
****************
Addendum: the Heber Planning Commission gave concept approval in their 9 Jan 2014 meeting The link contains the agenda, info packet and audio.
WSD estimates demolition cost at $700K for the old high School, Heber suggest $350K (?) for the old central school to build the proposed Public Safety building.
****************
Addendum: the Heber Planning Commission gave concept approval in their 9 Jan 2014 meeting The link contains the agenda, info packet and audio.
WSD estimates demolition cost at $700K for the old high School, Heber suggest $350K (?) for the old central school to build the proposed Public Safety building.
No comments:
Post a Comment