The Plan calls this section “Capital Planning and Facilities Management” but what we’re talking about are buildings and building closures.  The problem is that the buildings in the district are ancient.  The costs to upgrade and maintain them are massive.  Cutting buildings saves on their regular maintenance costs, but also removes future improvement costs.  That’s what this section of the plan is basically addressing.

I will say this: the suggested closures, which I’ll outline below, aren’t set in stone.  If the district’s finances improve more quickly than projected, then it’ll be possible to revisit this.  Obviously, I don’t want to see ANY buildings close.  But I’m talking district-owned buildings.  We lease two buildings, the Electric City Academy and the Whittier Annex.  Getting rid of them would save money.  And if we get rid of the Admin Building and move it, that would save money.  I don’t want to get rid of it, since it’s centrally located downtown, but we have to be realistic.  The other potential closures, which are McNichols, Adams, and Sumner, would be really sad for each of their respective neighborhoods.  I don’t want that to happen.

Based on what the district currently owns, it would take $143.8 million to upgrade all buildings to where they need to be.  About $54 million of that is critical. As in it has to happen ASAP.  This is wildly problematic.  We just can’t afford even a tenth of either of those numbers.  Any yet we have to fix our buildings.  In my time on Buildings and Grounds, I’ve dealt with TONS of unexpected expenses due to deteriorating buildings.  I’ve been dealing with it even this week.  Things are very, very bad.

There is one major contention I have with the Plan, which draws on PFM’s report on district capacity: according to both groups, the district has a lot of open space.  I dispute the numbers.  Simply calculating numbers of students along with total classrooms isn’t enough.  There are specialty classrooms, size limits in the contract, and general logistical concerns that worried me when I read the PFM report a few months back.  The other thing is that the plan references a 2012 facility study.  The district has grown by 600 kids since then, which is basically like adding a whole building.  So the observations here are suspect to say the least.

Here’s what the plan has to say:

• Get a Facilities Director.  We are on this and currently have somebody in a temporary capacity who, so long as all is well, will be appointed in August.  Every person I’ve spoken to who has worked with or dealt with this person in this new capacity has given glowing reviews, so I’ll be inclined to vote to confirm.
• Make a capital plan.  The district is falling apart.  Not just metaphorically.  Physically.  So we need to prioritize.  What is falling apart most and needs to be fixed quickly?  This will be an all hands on deck situation.  Honestly, our buildings are a mess.  We have no choice but to repair things that are falling apart, and we have to do it in a way that is feasible.  This will be a challenge, especially since no estimate on costs is ever accurate.  I expect this will be what blows holes in our budget over time.
• Reconfigure Facilities.  This means school closures.  Nobody finds this exciting or pretty.  This one is rather complex, and I would add that it’s unpredictable.  Nothing happens this year.  I’ll break the rest down by years.
  • 2020-21:  Pre-K goes… elsewhere?  The plan only talks about “partners” and I don’t know who they are or where they’ll be.  So space opens up with Pre-K being gone.  (Side note: one of the MOST attractive things about Scranton is its Pre-K program.  No other district in Lackawanna County has one.)   Then, Whittier Annex and McNichols go.  Fifth grade moves to the intermediate schools to make room.  I agree on the Annex closure.  However, I don’t want to see a neighborhood school go.  But this is so far up on the timetable, I don’t know that McNichols can be saved.
  • 2021-22:  Goodbye Adams and Sumner.  I also don’t want to see this.  If district finances improve, it’s possible to save them, but this is two years away.  I don’t know how we can stop it.  I hate to sound hopeless and defeated.  I grew up walking past Sumner every day on my way to West Intermediate.  I’m still heartbroken at the closure of Marshall.  This is the darkest year of the plan.
  • 2022-23:  Close and sell or lease the Admin Building.  Move to McNichols or another location.  So, this seems almost silly.  If McNichols goes in 2020, then we can move Admin to it during 2020-2021 and sell Admin in 2021.
  • Ultimately, this will allow for reduction of staff on the teaching and administrative levels.  According to the Recovery Officer, no teachers will be furloughed.  This means attrition.  It also means maintenance can be realigned.  One thing the plan points out is that we don’t have enough custodial staff.
• Sell unused buildings and properties.  This KILLS me.  I’ve been working on this since I got on the Board, especially when it comes to Lincoln-Jackson.  It’s disgusting what the district has done to that neighborhood.  Look at Marshall!  It’s a beautiful, upscale apartment building!  And the Board wanted more money out of LJ and refused to sell it to the developer who made Marshall the jewel that it is.  Give me a break!  It’s been 8 years of ruination on that neighborhood and it offends me.  We just got appraisals, finally, for LJ and for the Samuel Morse property.  These will be sold soon and getting rid of LJ will save us a fortune in utilities and maintenance and get it back on the tax rolls.  This should’ve been done YEARS ago.
• Find energy savings.  Obviously, there are a lot of energy costs related to so many buildings.  GESA is the Guaranteed Energy Savings Act.  This means a company will install energy-savings upgrades (like certain kids of lights) and guarantee a savings.  This is a good thing.  So this examines that initiative to make sure we are saving money and the program is working.  This is actually more involved than I’m making it sound.  GESA is pretty complex, so if you want to get into the nitty-gritty, its on pages 107-109 in the plan.
• Find EVEN MORE utility savings.  The district’s buildings are old.  Would spending a couple of bucks upgrading HVAC produce long-term savings be worthwhile?  Should we add another windmill?  (Answer: Hell, yeah!)  The plan suggests we look at how building upgrades could produce savings.
• Fleet Inventory.  Given the Sansky situation, of course we’d look at fleet and fleet management.  What do we own?  What do we use?  What do we need to own?  What do we need to use?  The plan also suggests looking at how vehicles can be shared, or where employees utilizing personal vehicles would be easier (with reimbursements for mileage) as opposed to district ownership.

There you have it.  It’s sad to talk about closing neighborhood schools.  And this is very important:  in the initial draft of the plan, the closures happened in the last year, not the second.  Want to know what changed that?  The state budget.  They promised $10.5 million in recurrent funding and gave us only $6 million, plus a $4.2 million one-time grant.

You want to blame somebody for school closures?  Look no further than the State.