School district manages property now because it is the common sensical approach

Letter to the Editor,

“So, they’re going to run a school levy.  Well, I’m not voting for any levy while the district is hanging on to all those closed buildings. If they need money, they can sell some buildings!”

Yes, it’s a commonly expressed sentiment.  In the past decade, Asa Wood, McGrade and Plummer schools have been closed. What’s happening to them?  Why doesn’t the district get rid of them?

Good question.  Let’s look at four alternatives:

• Sell them

• Tear them down 

• Board them up

• Trade them away

Sell them

In some cases this is a good choice, but there is a distinct difference between listing a property and selling a property. Realtors can cite instances of buildings that have been continuously listed for 20 years without selling. The district has discussed listing  these properties with realtors. A listing, however, like an appraisal requires comparison with similar properties that have recently sold and there just haven’t been any used schools sold in the area lately. If such a building were to be listed, it would be a matter of what the market would bear, and it would sell for a very low price in this market.

Tear them down

Easier said than done. The district looked at tearing down all or a portion of Asa Wood. The EPA refused because the asbestos-laced vermiculite is all contained and is not considered a hazard unless disturbed. A third party was approached for demolition. However, it was made clear that if any asbestos were encountered, the EPA would have to handle the abatement.  Before this could be fully considered, the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) got in the act and said that all other asbestos in the building — floor tiles, pipe wrap, ceiling tiles — would have to be abated before any demolition would be permitted, at a price of several hundreds of thousands of dollars. Is that the way the district should spend its money?

Board them up

This option is not free either; there are many costs associated with closing up a building and preserving its integrity. And there is an interesting sociological phenomenon as well: Vacant buildings draw vandalism like road-kill draws maggots.  Despite precautions, before long, walls are covered with graffiti, windows are broken, pipes are frozen, undetected roof leaks result in interior damage, etc., and the building has lost much of what value it had.  Not least of all, boarded-up buildings are an eye-sore in the community and decrease property values around them.

Trade them

This is an attractive alternative if the opportunity presents itself. A building occupied and kept in good repair could well be traded for a property the district may require in the future when the real-estate market has improved. The current elementary and MS/HS campuses are 44 and 50 years old, respectively. At some point in the future a new campus will be required and it is not too soon to be searching for that site. Having other properties to trade in the deal could be very attractive, but impossible if they are “given away” at today’s market prices.

A tale of two buildings

The old high school: A few years ago many, many meetings were dedicated to discussions around the sale of the old high school. It was finally decided to sell the building for about $150,000. That was one-time money, now long-spent. Plans for the building renovation were interrupted because of a very unfortunate accident, and for years this property has been a major distraction in its very prominent down-town location, depressing the value of properties around it.

On the other hand, McGrade: When McGrade was vacated as a school it suffered the fate of vacant buildings. Within a short time, many windows were broken and other vandalism resulted. Subsequently, the building was renovated to office space and for the past nine years has been fully leased. The revenue from this building exceeds its utility and maintenance costs by nearly $50,000 per year, which goes into our educational system, i.e. every three years it generates as much revenue as the sale of the old high school, and we still own the building in good repair!

Plummer school has a similar scenario.  Head Start, a very valuable educational program in our community, has occupied the building for years. It continues to pay the utilities and has expended hundreds of thousands of dollars in improvements to the building.

In principle, perhaps no one believes the district should be in the property management business. However, given the times and the current market, would the district or the community benefit by giving away, boarding up or burning down these buildings on principle?

Another building that receives frequent scrutiny is Central School. It is sometimes suggested that the Alternative School be moved to another building and Central be closed. While it isn’t clear where the Alternative School would go, it should be remembered that Central houses far more than the Alternative School. It is also home to our communications center, business office and the office of the superintendent.  

The conference rooms in that building are used on a daily basis and the Little Theatre is a community gem that would be sorely missed if that building were closed.  This theater is booked for dozens upon dozens of performances, meetings and cultural events each year, and if Central were to be closed the entire building would have to be closed.

Concern over surplus buildings is, indeed, legitimate and circumstances may change in the future. At present, the continued ownership and management of these buildings is the fiscally responsible choice and their contribution to education and the arts in Libby outweighs their modest expense to the community.

— Les Nelson

Libby resident