Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2006 > December > 26
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Mario: Roosevelt decision sound
There’s been a lot of talk about Roosevelt High School that followed developer Beth Duke’s plea for the city to block demolition of the historic school.
Board member Mario Gallin has some comments in response to the criticisms of the board’s decision-making process. She E-mailed her thoughts to me and asked if I would post them. Here is Mario’s view of the Roosevelt controversy:
“Over the last few days, there has been renewed comment on the school board’s decision demolish the old Roosevelt High School and build a new PreK-8 school on that site, in conjunction with the City’s plan to build a “rex-plex” on adjoining property. Some of the comments have seemed to indicate that the Board did not consider all possibilities to save the old Roosevelt building. As a board member who has been intimately involved in all aspects of this decision, and as the Board Liaison to the Construction Project, I would disagree. We had been gathering information and hearing presentations for 3 years before the recommendation was made to locate the Boys’ Academy on that site. There have been public meetings and discussion during that time
On May 20, 2003, the board approved a contract to purchase the Reynolds & Reynolds property in order to consolidate central office operations in one location. This meant that the staff at Roosevelt Center would be moving out and into the new location, which occurred in August of 2003. Central State also relocated their operations around that time to space they continue to lease from DPS at Jackson Center. In a moment of serendipity, they are now strong partners with the Dayton Technology Design High School, a Dayton Public School charter high school targeting out-of-school youth as well as high school students considered at risk of dropping out. The police station that was located at Roosevelt moved in December of 2005, at which time the building was officially closed.
On May 30, 2003, a press release was issued announcing the formation of a Blue Ribbon Task Force to identify alternative uses for the Roosevelt High School building. In that press release, President Littlejohn indicated that one possible use of the property could be a new school site.
The Task Force originally consisted of Dave Bohardt, Chair, Jim Francis, Annie Bonaparte, John Moore, Jr., Tom Webb, Andrea Amonick, and Raleigh Trammell. In a memo from Gail Littlejohn dated June 24, 2003, the Task Force was charged with bringing a recommendation or appropriate alternative use for the Roosevelt Center: “The process should include an assessment of all viable options, solicitation of input from the surrounding community and Roosevelt alumni, business community and other interested parties and the recommendation should include potential owners of the property, appropriate use of the property and anticipated funding sources.” The original deadline was November 30, 2003.
Annie Bonaparte sent a letter to the board on September 3, 2003 asking for an opportunity to present a proposal to the board at the October 7, 2003 meeting. In a response dated September 30, she was told that all presentations would be postponed until the Task Force made its recommendation, at that time anticipated in March 2004.
On November 4, 2003, a recommendation to request proposals for the redevelopment of the Roosevelt site was approved by the board.
On April 20,2004, Jeff Wray gave an update on the planned redevelopment of Roosevelt which included a PreK-8 school within the building. I believe this was in the context of the Blue Ribbon Task Force and was not a proposal from what later became the Roosevelt Renaissance proposal.
On May 18, 2004, another recommendation to request proposals for the redevelopment of the Roosevelt enter, including specifically exploring the option of using part of the building as a PreK-8 school, was approved.
These recommendations to request proposals was necessary because we are unable to arbitrarily pick a developer. There is a legal process that needs to be followed, from advertising to a timeline for submission and an evaluation by the purchasing department staff, before a recommendation is made to the Superintendent and then the official recommendation to the Board.
On September 7, 2004, the task force met to consider three proposals submitted to Dayton Public Schools. Their recommendation to the board, made on September 8, was to accept the proposal submitted by the Roosevelt Collaborative. At that time, Dave Bohardt, as chairman, thanked Gail, Dr. Mack, John Carr and Stan Lucas for their support of this process.
A recommendation to authorize the Superintendent and the Chief Construction Officer to pursue the plan for redevelopment of Roosevelt Center with Karrington/Wilkinson, primary partners in the Roosevelt Collaborative, was approved by the board on December 7, 2004. At that time, UJIMA was also involved in that collaborative.
Several informal deadlines for presentation of the projects came and went.
On July 12, 2005, I met with John Carr, Mark Parks and Oliver Wilkinson. Mark and Oliver made up Karrington/Wilkinson. They provided an update on their planning and committed to giving DPS a decision the feasibility of the project by the end of July. On July 18 John Carr received an email saying that Karrington/Wilkinson had dissolved their partnership and that each individually would be preparing a proposal. In an August 1 meeting with Mark Parks, John Carr and I were informed again about the dissolution and that the Wilkinson Group would be working with UJIMA. At that meeting the plan to include a PreK-8 school was dropped. Use of OSFC funds for part of the renovation as well as ownership of joint use space became problematic. The Karrington Group wished to proceed without the school.
I sent a memo to the board on September 2 outlining this development and also letting them know that both groups were to provide a proposed use and financial statements by September 2, 2005. Those proposals were attached. The intent was, if the board was agreeable, to make a commitment on the Sept. 13th agenda . The designated group would have until December to make a firm presentation. At that time we would either approve the transfer or take Roosevelt off the table and move toward demolition.
The Wilkinson Group did not provide the financial information requested and was asked via email on Sept. 7th and Sept. 10th to provide it by September 16th for a board decision on September 20th. On September 15th, Oliver Wilkinson emailed that, while his proposal had the support of the community, he did not have financial information to submit at this time.
A letter dated September 21, 2005 was issued to the Karrington Company as a letter of intent to proceed with the proposal for the Roosevelt Project. They had asked for this board action to be able to show potential investors that they were the designated developer. This would help them in getting firm commitments on the project. The deadline for a final presentation was Dec. 31, 2005 or another mutually agreed upon date. On Dec. 16th they asked for a 30 day extension.
At the same time, UJIMA was finalizing their proposal. On October 3, they sent a letter to the board with a draft proposal for the redevelopment of Roosevelt. At that time, they indicated that Mark Parks was no longer associated with them and they still wished to move forward. It was apparent that Oliver Wilkinson had not kept them apprised of the events in September and the decision was made to schedule them for a presentation as well on December 20, 2005. They were to come back to the board January 15. An extension was granted to January 31 because of personal circumstances relating the presenters.
A letter from Lee Massoud on January 18, 2006 to the Karrington Group reiterated the level of detail that the board was looking for and asked that it be part of the board meeting presentation on January 24, 2006
During a lengthy board meeting on January 31, 2006, both the Roosevelt Collaborative and UJIMA presented their proposals for use, and detailed financial documents. This meeting was recorded and broadcast over DPS TV.
The Karrington Group financial plan had multiple aspects. It included LLC equity, which consisted of cash and deferred fees. A User Capital Campaign would feature a consortium of non-profits who would be renting space in the building. Their responsibility would be to raise the money to renovate that section of the building they would occupy. City of Dayton funds would be sought over multiple years. Issue One Funding, which is Brownfield development money from the state, would require that the property be transferred to the Collaborative and would require that the City take the lead to manage the application process. Low Income Tax Credits are extended to projects that create low income housing. The Collaborative would go after the 4% tax credit, which is non-competitive. This project was not deemed to be fully competitive for the 9% tax credit and that tax credit requires a significant track record in doing 9% projects in the past. Historic Tax Credits are applied to 20% of the certified rehabilitation expenditures and has a three-part application process. Moving ahead with the Historic Tax Credits would require permission of the owners.
Jeff Wray told the board that the Low Income and Historic Tax Credits would be bundled together and used to work with the equity partner who would contribute dollars to the project. They were a significant part of the funding. It was crucial that those things that can, be assembled and identified because it contributed to the equity portion of the financing, at 54.7%.
The balance of the funds would be from grants or the City of Dayton. A loan equivalent to 16% of the project cost would be needed.
There were pointed and specific questions from board members regarding all aspects of the financial proposals. Clayton Luckie questioned the need for senior housing with the VA Center project in the works. It was explained that that is for veterans. He also questioned whether the affordable tax credits would be that easily obtained. His experience with the County indicated otherwise. At the end of the meeting he also expressed concern that additional housing experts, i.e. HUD, look at the impact of additional low income senior housing on the community.
Mark Parks was asked about the Collaborative being in a position to assume the operating costs of the building until the funding for renovation was in place. He said that he had not yet discussed it with the partners but was willing to do so.
Joe Lacey asked for a copy of a letter sent to the Collaborative after a “dry run” on December 12. He also asked for a copy of the letter of intent September 26, 2005 authorizing the Karrington Group to move forward with this proposal and also how many streets would be vacated (1).
Lee Massoud asked how the project would go if the marketing study indicated that the market for senior housing was not a strong as originally indicate. Mark and Jeff replied that a softening of the numbers would still be feasible but a total loss of market would scotch the project.
Annie Bonaparte and Bill Johnson presented UJIMA’s proposal, the Roosevelt Preservation Initiative. Their proposal was based on putting programs into the Roosevelt building that were programs already being provided or were opportunities that the community identified that they would like to see available. Funding for their proposal relied primarily on a $12 million dollar loan from Charter Funding Mortgage, out of California, which would be repaid with lease and operation income from Roosevelt tenants. While there were no firm lease commitments made at the time of the presentation, Mr. Johnson was optimistic tenants would come on board once they saw some movement on the project. Again, Lee and Tracy asked specific questions regarding the financing and debt service payments. Tracy asked what would happen if the projected revenue did not materialize and we were told the building would revert to the mortgage holder.
The fact is that many of the funding proposals made by both parties were challenged and it became clear that things were not as cut and dried as it would appear.
On March 16, 2005, the Karrington Group was provided with the carrying costs of Roosevelt Center. The cost for 2005 was $248,000. The building had not been mothballed as anticipated because people were still going through it as proposals were being finalized. Also at this time, a group of business persons had been asked to review the proposals for sustainability. The review committee consisted of business executives and developers. That group met with both Karrington Group and UJIMA in April.
A review indicated that while both proposals had some exciting components, there was not enough financial information to allow a thorough review of the projected sources of income or the projected long term cash flow for the projects.
Concurrently, UJIMA and the Karrington Group announced that they were considering joining forces again to submit a united proposal. This was not, as far as I know, a request made by anyone in DPS. Remember, they originally started out as one unit. The strengths in either proposal could complement each other. In the end, however, they did not submit anything to the board.
At some point in the spring, the new Dayton Public School student population projections were released and John Carr was directed to begin adjusting the Master Plan for submittal to the Ohio School Facilities Commission. It would involve determining how many total schools would be needed for the district population projected for 2010 and where the remaining schools to be built should be located. He would need to factor in our boys and girls schools, Montessori and traditional elementary schools and look very carefully at where our student population was based, what existing school sites or properties were available, and what specific commitments had been made to community partners (specifically the Neighborhood School Centers initiative). No small task.
In particular, the site for the Boys Academy needed to be determined. It needed to be in an area that would be easily accessible from all sides of town as it is a magnet school. It should not be placed in a neighborhood that would rely on it as a neighborhood school as it was a magnet school. The Roosevelt site consistently came up as an ideal spot. When the City began its discussions on the new recreation multiplex, it became apparent that this would be a great collaboration in the same vein as was proposed during the levy campaign for the new schools. The Boys’ Academy would be a state of the art PreK-8 building on the Roosevelt site and the City would locate the Recreation Center adjacent to create a campus feeling for the area. Subsequently, the City has indicated that they will also be looking at housing redevelopment to truly help to revitalize that corner of the city.
The press conference in May to announce the Roosevelt site decision was held by Dr. Mack and Gail Littlejohn as Board President. While no official vote had been taken, all board members had been consulted and with the exception of Joe Lacey, agreed. Five of the board members had been a part of the process from its inception in 2003. Lee Massoud, while only on for about 10 months, was intimately involved in the latest iteration of the proposals and brought her banking and development expertise to the table in helping to analyze all the factors involved. Joe Lacey was the newest board member, having slightly more than four months as a board member. I spoke with him before the press conference and he indicated he did not feel that full board discussion had been held. I suggested to him that he ask our board assistant to schedule another meeting or just have the item put on the agenda for discussion. He said that he would wait until an official resolution was made.
That resolution was made on July 5, 2006. A recommendation was made to enter into a revised Master Plan with the Ohio School Facilities Commission. Part of that Master Plan included a Dayton Boys Prep Academy on the Roosevelt site. Another recommendation specifically asked for acceptance of Segment III, which also included the Boys Academy. Unfortunately, there was a technical problem and the sound was not recorded. Joe did have a prepared statement which he read at the meeting, and he did provide a copy to the board assistant afterwards. It is clear he is not in agreement with the majority of the board on the condition of Roosevelt, on the decision build a magnet school in general, and on the feasibility of the plans presented for reuse of the building. He sites examples of DPS schools which sat vacant for decades before being repurposed, with the implication that eventually something can be made of them.
I do not specifically remember what was said by other board members regarding this issue, but again, over the past three years, individually in the community and in our capacity as board members at official meetings, we have had a cohesive, consistent message. We will work with whomever in the community who can provide a sustainable reuse of the building that would benefit the community it is located in. Those proposals have to have solid and demonstrable financial stability for well into the future. In the absence of those guarantees, we will make good on our promise to leave no vacant buildings in Dayton to become eyesores and trouble spots. And we will do it in a timeframe that allows us to access 61% state funding for demolition, to relieve the tax burden on the residents of Dayton. In this case we are also able benefit the students and parents and to be a part of a revitalization of a corner of Dayton that has been looking forward to redevelopment.
I hope this has clarified and perhaps refreshed memories on the decision making process. I am sure that there are people who will still disagree with the decision to demolish the old building, but I hope that at least they will agree that it was a decision made with a great deal of thoughtfulness and due diligence on our part.”
Permalink | Comments (14) | Categories: Dayton Public Schools
