Packard Plans

[justfacts]

The Packard Building Rental

Isn't it strange how some money slips and slides from one account to another? [/i]

There was $990,000 set aside in the Packard Fund for repairs of the building just two years ago. That figure dropped to $390,000 as $600,000 of the fund was transferred (with understated information that this was subject to a voter option for approval) in the second budget vote of two years ago. That option allowed the $600,000 to go into a Capital Fund for buying a new Air-conditioner. That transfer action of Repair funds into a Capital Fund account saved the money from coming out of the New Construction Bond issue - leaving $600,000 untouched in the Capital portion of that Bond Fund - making its expenditures look lower.

Last year the $390,000 remainder of the Packard Fund for building repairs was transferred to the General Unencumbered Fund Balance because the voters had not approved its transfer to a New Building Repair Fund Reserve when they twice rejected the proposed Budget. The Board had an opportunity presented to them (e-mailed suggestion) for returning the $390,000 for use in Packard Building Repairs before the second vote, possibly enhancing the chances of a revised budget being passed. But, by Dr. Richman's spoken effort's against spending the "$400,000" as he called it, the Board passed on this opportunity.

Now, since the money is sitting in the Unencumbered Fund balance, there are no funds committed to Packard repair. Yet, at a recent meeting information surfaced that an estimate of about $260,000 in funds would be needed to bring the building into a suitable state for rental.

Which brings me to a point that all I keep hearing is about what it will cost to fix this building up to make it rentable! To date, I've heard nothing about the payback to the community from this underused building that lays fallow in our District. As any landlord would normally do, plans would be examined as to the Rental income vs the maintenance costs.

A cash flow plan would reveal when the investment in repairs, annual costs (lights, heat, electric, insurance, security, normal maintenance, etc.) plus this $260,000 in amortized restoration repairs would begin to pay off. And just how much is that return expected to be on an annual basis? - $200, $2,000, $20,000?, $200,000? Just how much makes this effort to be a landlord worthwhile? I realize that the plans are an estimate, but don't you and I and all others in this community have the right to expect that the Board let us in on these plans? Especially before they commit to spending more of our money on this building? The interest earned on the proceeds of it sale might earn more income for the District in coming years! Normal interest rates on its sale could bring in $200,000 per year. Can, or does, the Rental Income match that?

The Budget information that Districts are required to provide to their communities in one section with detailed accounting lines for Property Rental Income. Another section details cost items - often lumped together and not associated with one building. This means there is no provision for the general public to know if the Packard Building rental is making us an annual net income or is causing a net added Property tax drain each year.

What we require is a stand alone Profit/Loss statement and plan about this Packard Building. As of yet, it does not appear to be forthcoming. Do we want this status to continue?[/i]

[justfacts]

For reference to those that might be interested;

The Packard Building is in Section 52, Block 528, Lot 19 of the District. It is commercially zoned and estimated to have a market vaule of almost $2 Million for this year - on which it pays no taxes. Its street address continues to be Baldwin Drive (although that end of the property was sold many years ago), not Central Avenue.

The Lot has enough space to build 40 homes on it (70x100) The average of surrounding homes have an estimated land value of $156,200 and a total estimated market value of $377,200 (for the 2005-6 year), 2006-2008 values are considerably higher ($1/2 Million range) The average tax bill was $7,123.

This means the just the land sufficient for 40 homes has a market value of at least $6.25 Million, and a group of homes worth more than $15,000,000 could be put on the property with their tax roll contribution per year of about $285,000. The sale of the land alone could establish a perpetual income fund that could earn about $200,000 per year for the District.

The two sources of income, interst and tax roll increases, would easily make up a future $1/2 Million reduction in our burden on Property Taxes - - - or, more significantly in light of this year's events - - - a financial offset for the sports programs that were dropped! What if the property was sold the year before and this form of income became available this year or next year???

Other thoughts: Does it pay to rent it? Would the net amount cleared on rental income exceed $1/2 Million?

Just some thoughts, fell free to talk about or challange them, or even distribute them, if you'd like.

Ed [e-mail]

[plaintalker]

I'm interested in hearing from others on the Packard/Pitkin proposed deal. I am not that familiar with the condition inside Packard and if they are so bad that that building cannot be used as a learning facility anymore. I would love to hear from teachers or PTA members that have been in that building as to how bad it really is. Is there a reason it cannot be used as a 5th grade center or 5th and 6th grade center? This would relieve the over crowding in the elementary schools without having to do additional construction to the elementary schools. I know there has to be money put into Packard to fix it up but there would also have to be money put into Pitkin to make it work. Never mind the proposed addition to Eastplain. If over crowding occurred in the middle school or high school it would give us an option of moving 9th grade into the middle school and 6th into the Packard building. I'm bothered that we paid all of this money for the construction bond for a beautiful library and media center in the new elementary schools and in a short amount of time we are back to art on a cart and not enough class rooms. I know it has to do with increased enrollment but if Packard is indeed a viable option then there is your solution. Somebody that has a good insight into how bad that building really is, please convince me so I don't sit here wondering why we are not using that building for learning. One of the down sides of the idea if the requirement for extra staff to fill the additional building.
Any ideas or information that anyone has would be appreciated.
One more thought, I know that the town is talking about redoing the fields at Packard if the deal goes through and it is supposed to state in the deal that we get first shot at the fields.
However, it is still going to be a town field and I'm not sure how many days the town will give us the field without having to provide days and times for other towns such as Farmingdale, Bethpage, Massapequa, ETC. They have a right to use the fields too if it is a town field. Does anyone from the sports programs know how much the Packard field is used by our community at this time? Open to all thoughts on this one?

[justfacts]

plaintalker

Great input and insights plaintalker! You've given us enough insights and questions for the community to start a hot open dialog on the Packard Building and its use. This is a lot more than the BOE has done in the past 6 years.

As someone that remembers the early days of Packard, I know that there were comments and complaints made from the very beginning about incomplete and defective initial construction work - with several contractors defaulting on the warranty (or clean-it-up, fix-it-up) part of the original build!

Maybe all this traditional "disaster talk" is more habitual than factual! A simple written survey for all to read, would clarify the true problems there for once and all! This defective work "disaster talk" is a familiar cry even today on much new work, as we are now hearing about with the New Middle School.

This is not unique to Plainedge - the Bethpage Library also suffered from incomplete and defective contractor work! Their Attorney, Bill Cullen, managed to get several hundred thousand dollars back from contractors on that job to cover the costs of incomplete and/or defective work. That money paid for a lot of later-day improvements in the original Library plans. Would that we had such an advocate working for Plainedge on the new school issues!

You questions do deserve answers - can Packard be put to better use by fixing a portion of it for holding some classes - rather than building a new addition to Eastplain? Just what would be the cost differences between adding new to Eastplain verses restoring a portion of Packard?

Not all of Packard is falling apart and crumbling! A partial restoration might be far less expensive than adding new to Eastplain![/i]

But another factor concerns me. It would seem the in the forty years Eastplain has been up - its size has not been a limiting factor to holding classes in this District.

Why has its size now become a problem? Or is the problem one of limited vision and insight by the present Administration on how to plan the distribution of classes in the District?

After all, Eastplain served us well with twice the Student load we now have! How did the prior Administrations do that so well? And why can't the present administration do it as well?

And what is the true balance sheet numbers to us for swapping Packard for Pickin? Just what marvelous advantage does Pickin have? And what are its yet to be spoken about limitations? After all, its use as a Town facility involved many changes in the Building from school functions - what does it take to bring it back to snuff? What impact would the adjacent town garage facility have on students?, Safety?, Breathing fumes?, Fire/Explosion hazards?, etc.

Could Pickin's restoration enable us to also eliminate Eastplain from our property holdings, saving Eastplain modification costs to be applied to enlarging/improving Pickin?

Or could it be done vice-versa? Forget Pickin - upgrade Eastplain property enough to do both jobs and get rid of Packard - putting the property back on the tax rolls?[/i]

Thank you for exposing the tip of the iceberg of the many unresolved, undiscussed items in the plans for the future property holdings and their use by the Plainedge School District. It is about time we stopped waiting for the BOE to bring these items up - and began our own dialog, discussions and suggested paths to progress on these community websites!

Ed.

[bette]

I don't think making a 5th - 6th grade center at Packard or Piken is feasible at this time. You would have to add in a gym - lunch room, lunchroom staff, nurses, custodians and more administration. We can't even keep up with what we have now. We rent out classrooms to BOCES in our schools, maybe for the time being we should take them back and use what we have and redistribuite the kids. The loss of revenue there would not be as substantial as all of the rebuilding and refurbishing costs of these two buildings would be. We just don't have it and all of the schools (even our new middle school need repair).