PERMANENTLY surplus or not? Town, schools weigh options

Should the former Crosby and Parmenter schools become fully surplus or not? Town and school officials wrestled with this question, according to the following draft minutes of the School Committee's community-relations subcommittee held June 18. The account includes notes taken by Rose Udics.

In attendance:
       Jeff Thielman, Subcommittee Chair
        Ron Spangler, Subcommittee Member
        Sue Sheffler, Subcommittee Member
        Brian Sullivan, Town Manager
        Kevin J. O’Brien, Director, Department of Planning
        David A. Berry, Assistant Director, Department of Planning
        Andy West, Chair, Redevelopment Board
        Rose Udics, parent

The meeting was called to order at 4:35 p.m.

1.    The minutes of the June 2, 2008 meeting were approved.

Motion by Ron Spangler, second by Sue Sheffler. Approved 3-0.

2.    Parmenter/Crosby Schools discussion

• It was noted that on May 8, 2007, the School Committee (upon recommendation of the 2007-08 Community Relations Subcommittee) voted to declare the former Parmenter and Crosby elementary schools (located on Irving Street and Winter Street, respectively) surplus through June 30, 2011. The motion went on to say that the vote was taken “with the understanding that over the next 1-2 years, the town will examine the potential value of the buildings, and the school committee will examine the long-term school use of those buildings.”  It was noted that the two studies were to be done in parallel, not sequentially.

•  Mr. Thielman said that during the past several months discussions have taken place on the Capital Planning Committee (as evidenced by its report to Town Meeting this year), the School Facilities Working Group, and the Board of Selectmen indicating that proceeds from the sale of the Parmenter and Crosby schools could be used to generate revenue to make improvements in the Stratton and Thompson schools.

• Mr. Thielman disclosed that he may have a conflict of interest if and when there is a vote to declare the Parmenter surplus because his son is enrolled in the Arlington Children’s Center, which is located in that facility. 

• Mr. Thielman said the Community Relations Subcommittee had called this meeting to a) gain an understanding of the process needed to ensure that proceeds from any sale of the building would be used for Thompson/Parmenter improvements; b) determine what the School Department needed to be doing to comply with the May 2007 motion; and c) understand what the Town Manager and/or Redevelopment Board was doing to examine the potential value of the buildings.  It was also noted that some of the current tenants of the buildings might be interested in buying them.

• Additionally, both Sue Mazzarella [schools' chief financial officer] and Supt. Levenson, who had initially planned to attend this subcommittee meeting but were unable to do so, were looking into trends in kindergarten enrollment and the need for additional space. Currently the district has only about 2-3 spare classrooms at the elementary level.  Furthermore, if up to 50 special education students who are now transported out of the district to receive specialized services are brought back to Arlington, in a plan to provide those services here while saving on skyrocketing transportation costs, the school department would need several more specialized classrooms to accommodate their needs for small-group (6-8 student) classes.

•  Mr. Sullivan said he was reluctant to spend time and money on a study to determine the highest and best use of the properties until the School Committee voted the properties to be permanent surplus.  He said his understanding was that the School Committee was going to determine if any or all space in the two schools was needed to house programs run by the Arlington Public Schools. If the school department did not anticipate needing the facilities, the School Committee, in his opinion, should simply vote to make the two facilities permanent surplus and turn them over to the Town for disposition.  Mr. Sullivan pointed out that once the buildings were declared permanent surplus by the School Department, control over their future use or sale would be out of their hands; it would be up to Town Meeting to decide on the disposition of the buildings and use of any sales proceeds.

• Mr. Spangler said that he would not urge his colleagues on the School Committee to take a vote to declare the properties surplus without a guarantee that proceeds would go to Thompson/Stratton improvements and without the public’s having a clear understanding of the process and various scenarios.  He also suggested that the Committee would need to see the results of the study of the potential value of the properties under various disposition scenarios. Mr. Spangler, however, stated that it was reasonable to ask the School Department to determine, by the end of this summer, whether it might need any space in the Parmenter or the Crosby under certain circumstances. He stated that as part of its study the School Department would need to take into account increasing kindergarten enrollments and the ongoing effort to bring more out-of-district special education placements back into the district. Mr. Spangler noted that School Department policy (FA/FB/FBB) requires the school administration to make enrollment and long-term space needs projections to the School Committee each year. [Note: The policy calls for a report each March. School Committee minutes do not indicate a report being made in March of 2008.]   

•  Mr. Sullivan said that the guarantee on use of the proceeds would be achieved through a Town Meeting vote.  He suggested it might also be possible to achieve that guarantee through votes of the Board of Selectmen, Finance Committee, and Capital Planning Committee. 

•  Mr. Spangler said he understood the timing issue. To get Town Meeting votes on the use of the proceeds and on the sale of the buildings, with a School Committee vote in between to declare the building(s) permanently surplus, within the bounds of a single Annual Town Meeting could be logistically challenging.  But Mr. Spangler was uncertain whether the votes of the Board and other two committees would offer sufficient guarantees, and suggested this should be revisited later in the year.

• Ms. Sheffler pointed out that several schools were overcrowded with a number of art, science, and music classrooms being used for regular classrooms rather than for the purpose for which they were designed.  This would need to be taken into account by the School Department when it does its space evaluation, which should look at this bigger picture, in terms of any possible plans for redistricting in the future.
 
•  Ms. Sheffler asked how “highest and best use” was determined. Was it purely what would generate the most revenue from the sale of the buildings?  Were other non-economic factors taken into account such the number of families in the community that would benefit from the use of the facilities?  Building additional condos, for example, would have other impacts on the neighborhood (e.g., parking and traffic) that should also be factored in. Mr. Thielman suggested that a study of “highest and best use” should probably be envisioned as a matrix of uses and potential dollar values.

•  Mr. West explained that the first step in the valuation process was to determine exactly what the site is for each school. Does it include the building only or also the parking lots and playgrounds? Are there restrictions?  Are there easements?  Are there limitations by zoning bylaw to development?  Are there parking restrictions?  Could the sales have conditions attached that would enable the school department to lease back space, if needed? — how might such arrangements affect the sales price? Mr. Spangler pointed out that value added from the mix of educational diversity and the cultural institutions/ programs by the current tenants are benefits to the community that should be weighed in determining the “highest and best use” of these properties. A consultant would want community input, and s/he would present various options for the disposition of the building.

• Mr. Sullivan said that a decision on the sale of the facilities would ultimately be made by Town Meeting. 

• Mr. Sullivan proposed establishing a Crosby/Parmenter Advisory Committee that would include one representative each from the Board of Selectmen, the Arlington Redevelopment Board, Finance Committee, School Committee, School Facilities Working Group, Capital Planning Committee and the general public.  The charge of the Committee would be to provide advice and input to the Town Manager and Board of Selectmen, focusing on the ownership and potential impacts of the highest and best uses, particularly the impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods and future town needs; and to recommend ways to optimize those impacts through any limitations or restrictions on the transfer of the properties.  

• Mr. Spangler suggested that the Advisory Committee’s charge include a timeline, and he recommended that the School Committee vote to support the establishment of the Advisory Committee after the Board of Selectmen takes such a vote.  Mr. Spangler said that if a draft were available by the end of this week, it could be included in the School Committee packet that is distributed to SC members on Friday and discussed by the full School Committee on Tuesday, June 24, as part of the Community Relations Subcommittee report. 

•  The Subcommittee, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. West, and Mr. Berry sketched out the following DRAFT timeline:

      -- By Sept. 30, 2008, the School Department will determine if there are any scenarios under which it might  need space in either the Parmenter or Crosby schools to house programs of the Arlington Public Schools.  Some of this information is pending with the Massachusetts School Building Authority — Arlington’s assessment of need may differ from the state’s.

      -- As soon as the School Department completes its planning process and by no later than Oct. 1, the Town Manager will begin a process to value properties under various use scenarios, including partial use by the Arlington Public Schools under, e.g., a leaseback arrangement.  A consultant would be hired, would seek community input, and would assemble a valuation report with a number of options for the use of the facilities.   The objective would be to complete the process by December 31, 2008.

     --  From Jan. 1, 2009, through the start of Town Meeting, a warrant article addressing the disposition of the buildings would be drafted, and public forums held to gather community input on a decision to sell either or both properties. The consultant’s report would be reviewed by members of the public and members of elected bodies.

     -- Prior to the start of Town Meeting, votes on a proposal to dispose of the two properties would be taken by the Finance Committee, Capital Planning Committee, Redevelopment Board, School Facilities Working Group, the Parmenter/Crosby Advisory Committee, and the Board of Selectmen.  Pending the outcome of the valuation report, the Town Manager said he would recommend that each board vote that proceeds from the sale of the two buildings be used to finance improvements of the Thompson and Stratton elementary schools.  It was noted that a “Yes” vote by all of these boards to dedicate proceeds from the sale(s) of the building(s) to Thompson and Stratton would send a strong public signal.

     -- Following the votes of the boards mentioned above and prior to a vote on the floor of Town Meeting to authorize disposition of the building(s), the School Committee would take a vote to declare the properties permanent surplus, effective by a date certain.   It is possible, however, that School Committee members may want to wait until Town Meeting votes to say where funds from a sale of the buildings will go before it would vote to make the buildings permanent surplus.

•    Mr. Thielman said he was comfortable with this decision but wanted lots of public input throughout the process. He said the report from the consultant would need to be reviewed carefully as well.  Offers of some of the current tenants to buy one or both of the buildings would have to be considered as well, and there would need to be ample time for public conversation — the more we all know about the various scenarios, impact on the neighborhoods, the state of the market, and the overall picture of the distribution of students in other schools, the better. He cautioned that the Community Relations Subcommittee could not speak for the entire School Committee on any matter, including the process of addressing the surplus space issue.  Ms. Sheffler asked how the consultant would be chosen, and it was pointed out that the selection procedure is [probably] outlined in the Town By-laws.

•  Mr. Thielman asked if the other members of the subcommittee were comfortable with the timetable laid out above, and they said that in general the timetable was acceptable, though Mr. Spangler said he cannot commit at this time to a timetable that calls for the School Committee to vote to declare the buildings permanent surplus before Town Meeting takes a vote indicating what will be done with the proceeds of the sale of the buildings.  He said it may be more appropriate for the School Committee to take a vote to declare the buildings permanent surplus after a Town Meeting vote.

•  Mr. Sullivan said that the proposal to establish the Advisory Committee would be considered by the Board of Selectmen on July 14.  Mr. Thielman said the School Committee was meeting on July 24, the Community Relations Subcommittee would try to meet between July 14 and July 24, and the full School Committee could be prepared to take a vote to endorse a resolution/motion adopted by the Board of Selectmen.