At Wednesday's board meeting the school board received a presentation concerning the appraisal of the Nichols property performed by D.L. Evans. The appraised value was given as $2.36 million, based primarily on the value of the land. It was judged that the buildings added very little value to the property. The appraiser did meet with city officials and discussed development of the property and its historical designation. It was the judgement of the appraiser that any developer would need to retain the the original school building structure- that is the portion of the building built in 1935 facing Monona drive on the corner with Nichols. The developer indicated that without the building the property might be worth significantly more.
Although there are many options for development of the property, most reasonable considerations would call for commercial/retail development along the Monona drive end of the property with residential development towards the other end. The property is zoned as a "Community Designed District" which means that there are not any specific zoning requirements, but any proposals would be individually reviewed for approval by the city.
The appraiser did indicate that it would likely take considerable time to market and sell the property.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
Off topic, but I hope the people who were so snotty back when the board made the decision about geothermal at GD read this article. http://herald-independent.com/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=52&ArticleID=1884
If I could insert a bronx cheer symbol here I would....
What was the property's highest & best use as improved (from the appraisal)?
Better yet, put a PDF of the appraisal on MGSD web site. And please, no lame excuses why you can't. The district paid for the appraisal.
"Off topic, but I hope the people who were so snotty back when the board made the decision about geothermal at GD read this article. http://herald-independent.com/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=52&ArticleID=1884
If I could insert a bronx cheer symbol here I would...."
You talk about sour groups? I was mad about the geothermal and road because it was NOT in the original specs, again NOT in the original specifications for the building.
THE BOARD decided to do what THEY thought was best because they were the benificaries of creative accounting. This accunting was NOT MADE CLEAR TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
This by all accounts, rather ethical STANDARDS is wrong OR we might call it BAIT AND SWITCH-so bronx cheer right back at u baby.
"You talk about sour groups? "
I mean to say-it sounds like you have sour grapes?
I'm glad the report showed the geothermal system working. It's too bad that there was such a negative movement for GDS. It really seems to have been built with long term benefits which will be good for our kids, and the tax payers of both towns.
Which brings me to this post. Don't sell Nichols for 2 million. That's not much to help with our needs, and if we do need space in the future, you'll never build a school for 2 million.
"Anonymous Monona Parent said...
I'm glad the report showed the geothermal system working. It's too bad that there was such a negative movement for GDS. It really seems to have been built with long term benefits which will be good for our kids, and the tax payers of both towns. "
I think it is great that it is working too-glad to have it. However, for someone to state the public was dumb and the board took it on the chin for buying and whine about that fact.
Well, the board should have taken it on the chin-they told the public as little as possible and then did what they wanted to do.
How can any be surprised that some in the community were a litte POd?
I think the surprise was on tone of those POd. People were (some still are) so negative about CG vs. Monona, but the more I look into it, the more I see GDS had the whole district in mind.
TYPING IN ALL CAPS IS CONSIDERED TO BE SHOUTING IN THE CYBER WORLD. MAYBE WE CAN MAKE OUR POINTS WITHOUT SHOUTING?
"TYPING IN ALL CAPS IS CONSIDERED TO BE SHOUTING IN THE CYBER WORLD. MAYBE WE CAN MAKE OUR POINTS WITHOUT SHOUTING?"
NO.
Peter - I went to the MGEA web page to look at the contract to see what a starting teacher actually makes, but their "master agreement" webpage no longer has it.
Could the district post the contract?
Starting salaries are a big problem at Monona Grove but the dynamic of that in bargaining is not what one might think.
The experienced teachers on the bargaining committee have no incentive to see starting salaries rise. In fact, they have a disincentive. There is a finite and defined amount of money in the budget to pay teacher benefits and wages. If starting salaries are bumped higher, the experienced teachers have less of the pie to divide among them.
On the flip side, the starting salaries are a huge problem for the administration because it is the administration who hires new teachers, not the union. If MG is not competitive with starting salaries we have difficulty luring teachers in the licensing areas that have shortages - such as math.
If the public cares about starting salaries then we need to support the board in pushing for that to happen. This can entail enduring union tactics such as "working the contract." This can be very difficult when you are a parent with a kid that needs a letter of recommendation to get into college and a teacher is refusing to write such a letter. Not saying this will happen this fall, but it most certainly has in the past.
"If the public cares about starting salaries then we need to support the board in pushing for that to happen. This can entail enduring union tactics such as "working the contract." This can be very difficult when you are a parent with a kid that needs a letter of recommendation to get into college and a teacher is refusing to write such a letter. Not saying this will happen this fall, but it most certainly has in the past."
We still have a contract with the teachers?
If a contract lapses before a new one is negotiated the old one stays in force.
The MG contract dispute is almost certain to head to arbitration, a long, drawn-out process (according to Susan Fox on her televised interview). Given that more districts are seeing contracts ending up in arbitration, it looks like "working to contract" will last for a good share of the school year.
So if the school board is playing by the rules, i.e., arbitration, then why does the union feel a need for work actions? What is the school board supposed to do in the meantime? My kids are done with MG and this nonsense has been going since before they even started. I never hear about this in other districts where we have friends, like Verona or McFarland. What's the deal?
What have the other districts gotten in the area for raises?
Can someone just post the contract-here for example?
221-7660. Call it. Ask for a copy of the contract and it will be mailed to you. It's a public record
"Call it. Ask for a copy of the contract and it will be mailed to you. It's a public record"
in this town?
What have the other districts gotten in the area for raises?
Here are some local district settlements.
The Janesville teachers settled a 4 year contract with salary increases and no mention loss of benefits. The story is at: http://gazettextra.com/news/2010/aug/27/tentative-agreement-includes-pay-increases-janesvi/
Waunakee. They received a pay increase and no reduction in benefits. http://www.waunakeetribune.com/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=52&ArticleID=3175
Oregon -They got a salary increase and no reduction in benefits. http://connectoregonwi.com/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=2&ArticleID=1904
Madison settled with 1% increase in salary and no loss in benefits.
http://www.madisonteachers.org/press_releases/press%20settlement%202009-11%20final%20wpd.pdf
After comparing other area settlements and knowing it is usually a 2 year deal, thus not every district has a recent settlement, looks like the school board is really asking the teachers to take it on the chin with the current offer. Did other settlements in the district, like custodians or secretaries take a tremendous hit with retirement benefits?
"After comparing other area settlements and knowing it is usually a 2 year deal, thus not every district has a recent settlement, looks like the school board is really asking the teachers to take it on the chin with the current offer. Did other settlements in the district, like custodians or secretaries take a tremendous hit with retirement benefits?"
It seems you are familiar with the offer, can you tell us more? As I understand it the offers are not public, right?
other district unions didn't take retirement hits because they don't have the sweetheart deal the teachers have. most of us don't hate teachers but their reitirement benefits are going to bankrupt this district. talk about passing on a huge problem to the next generation....it has to be fixed and it's the schoolboard's duty to recognize this and deal with it. did teachers forgo heftier raises in the past to have excellent retirement benefits? perhaps. but that was a strategic error as it turns out because it is not sustainable. the school board has no source of revenue to continue the current scheme.
Peter-
You really need to post a clear statement about exactly what is going on with the teacher negotiations. I have heard lots of rumors- many clubs at mGHS cancelled, no letters of rec for seniors, etc etc. How long until it is resolved, what is the hold up, and at some point, don't you just have to each give a little and settle it.
Do you really think we will go most of the year with working the contract?
If it was an error to give teachers good benefits instead of a raise, it was the board's error. If they want the teachers to give up something the teachers have had for years, they need to figure out what the pay would be now and offer that amount of money.
You can't expect someone who was told their health care in their retirement will be paid for, to have the money needed, especially when they weren't paid that amount because of the agreement.
The entire contract debate comes down to one issue (surprisingly, not wages).
It's known as TEP, or the Teacher Emeritus Program, a little-known provision of the teacher's contract that is the golden egg for teachers here.
The TEP provision pays every single teacher who retires (with a certain number of years with the district, somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 years) a lump-sum payment equal to average of the last three (or so) years of their salary. So let's say you've been with the district 25 years. You retire making a salary of $55,000. The district pays you, upon retirement, somewhere between $50,000 and $55,000. That's in addition to paid health-care benefits (paid now by the district until age 70, five years past Medicare eligibility), and income from the state retirement system.
So, do the math. If six TEP-eligible teachers retire in any given year (not an unusual experience), the district is likely to spend more than $300,000 ANNUALLY on TEP payments. That's $300,000 not spent on librarians, or an extra section for an overcrowded grade, or even books and supplies. And it occurs every single year (in a year with alot of retirements, TEP payments can exceed half-a-million dollars).
The teachers will say: Well, we're saving you money by retiring. You more than make up the TEP payments by paying cheaper wages to less-experienced teachers over many, many years. Well, maybe (actually not; TEP costs the district money -- it doesn't result in any savings). But, more to the point -- does anyone else get this kind of payout? None of the other unionized employees in the district do. Very few other teacher contracts have this provision, and if they do, it's on a considerably smaller scale (a small percentage of final-year salary before retirement, not an entire year's salary).
TEP is the third rail of teacher contract negotiations; it's such a sacred part of the contract, the teachers simply won't negotiate on it. They refuse to even discuss the issue. The board has actually offered up a reasonable starting point in negotiations -- full TEP payments for teachers within so many years of retiring, narrowed-down TEP payments for teachers in the middle of their MG teaching career, and no TEP payments for newly hired teachers.
The only way to make a dent in the TEP arrangement is through an arbitration case settled by a state arbitrator. It can't be negotiated if one side (the teachers) refuses to even talk about it. So the district and school board have quite properly decided to stick to their guns (well, at least so far) and hold fast on their TEP position. The extended "work to contract" tactics by the teachers are designed EXPRESSLY and EXCLUSIVELY to get the board to drop the TEP provision of its side of the contract offer.
So, yes, the board can make the "work to contract" thing go away. And the board can negotiate a hard-line on TEP, and even hope an arbritration settlement will at least ease the TEP financial burden on the district. But it can't do both.
If the teachers end their "work to contract" silliness, you can bet the board caved on TEP. But as long as the board insists on doing something about TEP, working the contract is here to stay.
and where, pray tell, would have the district "find" that money? how many of us will not have the retirement we thought we might? are you willing to tolerate the program cuts, teacher job cuts and increases in class sizes that will cause?
our sense of entitlement is a serious problem in this society.
i say we hold a referendum specifically for funding our future retirement costs. i will vote yes - will you?
Sorry, but I don't want to comment on the negotiations. I can't speak for the board and its too easy to get into trouble.
I will ask my about what we can do to providing this information to the public.
Post a Comment