Update: The federal General Services Administration plans to auction off the Federal Reserve Bank building, with an opening bid of $1 million and a closing date of Jan. 28, 2015.
The Seattle Public Schools Board of Directors disappointed hundreds of downtown families and residents yesterday by unanimously voting against plans to acquire the vacant Federal Reserve Bank building—at least through a federal disposition process that would let the district have it for free—and turn it into a downtown school.
It’s an enormous missed opportunity, based largely on what seems like a solvable timing conflict. The decision will almost certainly cost the district more in the long run, whether it winds up serving downtown’s growing population of children there or somewhere else. As Jon Scholes, a downtown parent and vice-president of the Downtown Seattle Association put it: “The growth and the challenge isn’t going away. This isn’t a blip. This is a need.”
Some board members expressed interest in letting the building go to public action and trying to buy it then. That way the district wouldn’t be under a federal timetable that would force it to renovate and open the elementary school before it can line up the money to do so. It’s unclear how much that would add to the downtown school’s price tag, though Scholes pegged the acquisition costs at $20 million. It’s also unclear where that money would come from.
The four-story former Federal Reserve Bank building that sits on a half block of valuable downtown land at Second and Spring has been vacant for six years. The federal government is willing to let nonprofits or government agencies have surplus buildings for free, but the gift comes with strings.
The main sticking point appears to be the federal government’s requirement for the district to renovate the building and open the new elementary school within three years. The school district can’t line up funding and meet that timetable with its business-as-usual approach to financing new schools. The renovations are estimated to cost $53 million, and the district only has $5 million in its current capital budget allocated for exploring a downtown school.
It could build the request into its next school building levy, but even if voters approve it, the money wouldn’t become available in time to meet the federal deadline, according to school board members. And they were unwilling to take on that amount of debt now, with no guaranteed source of funding to pay it off. Here’s how school board director Sue Peters put it:
We all know Seattle is a growing city…and the idea of having a downtown school makes perfect sense. The question is, though, is this the right choice for us at this point? As I see it, there are two main challenges. One is simply the money…we don’t have the funds to pay for this at this time. It’s predicted to cost at least $53 million to take this building and repurpose it as a school. Right now we would have to basically borrow against a future levy. It would not be fiscally responsible to do so, and it would also violate board policy.
I believe that our best option here is to allow this to go to market and to bid on it there. That would allow us to take advantage of this opportunity but not be constricted by the three-year timeline and allow us to prioritize how we use this building and when we use this building.
Few school board directors disputed the need for a downtown school. Already, there are 427 elementary school-aged children who live within a mile of the Second Avenue and Spring Street site. Children living downtown are currently bused to public schools on Queen Anne or Capitol Hill, with long commutes through downtown traffic. Parents who have chosen to live downtown because they can easily get to everything they need without a car—work, great cultural resources, restaurants, the waterfront—say those logistics make it difficult to volunteer or feel like their families are fully part of their school communities.
A recent Downtown Seattle Association analysis found that more babies (265) were born in 2011 to families living downtown than any other school attendance area in the city. To compare, there were fewer than 100 babies born within the attendance boundaries of popular schools like Loyal Heights, Beacon Hill International, John Stanford International, Laurelhurst, and McGilvra elementary schools.
The Federal Reserve Bank building could house 660 elementary students. Adding that same amount of capacity by expanding existing elementary schools nearby would carry a price tag of $64 million, significantly more than it would cost to renovate the bank building.
Downtown parents have been frustrated that critics portray the need for a downtown school as some sort of “extra” or “luxury” that the district can’t afford. As parent Bradley Calvert told the school board:
We are not asking for special accommodations or frivolous benefits to support some obscure lifestyle choice. We are asking for the same access to education as other neighborhoods and to satisfy a need and demand that’s only going to grow. This is your opportunity and our opportunity to make downtown Seattle liveable for all ages.
In focus groups conducted in 2012 with downtown Seattle families, a high-quality, public elementary school downtown—which could serve as an anchor for families and help create a stronger sense of community—was the single highest priority for parents. Portland opened one a decade ago, and Vancouver BC’s three downtown schools can’t keep up with demand.
But even strong supporters of a downtown school on the board said they couldn’t vote to acquire the federal bank building, given the lack of funding for renovations and the federal requirements to fast track the project. As board member Stephan Blanford said:
I have great sadness about this… Last night I had the opportunity to drive by this building, and I looked at it and thought, “what an incredible opportunity it would be for us if we were able to take this building and reconfigure it and serve our burgeoning population of students downtown.” But my colleagues have convinced me that that wouldn’t be fiscally sound and…would be an abdication of our responsibility. I hope beyond hope that we are able to figure out through the auction process some way to acquire the building or another building at some point.
Before the unanimous vote, board president Sharon Peaslee encouraged the federal government to let the district acquire the building without the restrictions that it initially imposed:
I would like to invite the federal government to reconsider their offer to truly give us this building free, with no caveats and no restrictions. If that were the case, I would gladly vote in favor of this. However, we don’t have $53 million to commit to turning this building into a school within three years and those are the requirements. So we cannot meet the requirements of the federal government. I will be voting against this— however, I extend a heartfelt invitation to the federal government to come back to us with another offer.
Rob Harrison AIA
All sorts of legal hoops I’m sure, but what if SPS could facilitate getting a much taller building built on the site, with the school on the lower floors, and leasing upper floors to commercial and residential tenants? One of those creative “public-private partnership” deals. It’d be tough to make that happen in three years I suppose.
Thinking about the Chrysler Building in New York City. The design and engineering school Cooper Union owns the land under it. Revenue from the lease helped Cooper Union to be tuition-free from its founding until just this year.
Jennifer Langston
It’s listed on the National Register of Historical Places, so that would complicate things quite a bit. But the idea of a school/residential/commercial project is something that I’ve certainly heard people talk about, though I’ve not heard of a concrete plan or proposal.
Ted Wolf
Sounds to me like a sensible if unfortunate, decision under the circumstances. SPS board president Peaslee seems to frame the matter correctly. The $53 million cost is about the cost of a new ground-up middle school. 660 students is likely more than any elementary school would be designed to serve (unless Seattle is way out of line with the student capacities that Portland plans for). Outside of a capital bond or levy, very hard for school districts to come up with the kind of funds needed without making intolerable trade-offs in operating budgets — trade-offs that generate their own little bonfires of community controversy.
Melissa Westbrook
It’s an enormous missed opportunity, based largely on what seems like a solvable timing conflict.”
Based on that statement, I gently say that you do not understand the situation for Seattle Schools. They have grown, across the district, by about 1,000 students a year for EACH of the last four years. We have portable villages everywhere in the district. The district has a backlog of maintenance across about 100 buildings of $500M. All the BEX IV money, the renovation levy, is already committed (including $5M to figure out what to do for downtown).
I was one of the first – via my public education blog – to champion this issue. I talked to the Downtown Neighborhood Association about how the district might approach this issue. But after the district and the Board did their due diligence, I agree with them – there are no available funds. You don’t spend money you don’t have, no matter how great the deal.
The building is going for auction on Dec. 5th – the district could make a bid OR a coalition of downtown businesses could buy the property and gift it to the district. Then the district could build on its own schedule, not the feds’.
It would not be appropriate for the district to put the costs of renovation in the next levy which is for major maintenance and not renovation.
It’s interesting that there IS room in at least two schools – Lowell and Bailey Gatzert – and yet downtown families are mostly not accessing those schools. It’s hard to know why not. That those schools have room already and yet aren’t full is troubling.
The building has a historical designation that would preclude any height (despite its zoning area). So most developers would likely not be interested in buying. (Although if a company like Amazon or Vulcan would give over a floor or two – or lease – to the district, the district could open a school quickly. If you want to wait for the district to find money to buy/build a school, you’ll be waiting a long time.)
It would be great for downtown businesses to rally around this issue. So far, there’s a lot of cheerleading but very little action.
It is not a “luxury” to have a downtown school and SPS will eventually need one.
But there are multiple capital issues for SPS and those seem to either be ignored by downtown parents or not understood. Those issues cannot be ignored especially while other schools have been patiently waiting for capital funds for their under-maintained buildings.
Jennifer Langston
Melissa – I don’t disagree with much in this comment. The solvable timing conflict I mentioned most revolves around the arbitrary federal requirement that a school be up and running in 3 years. If the feds were willing to be more flexible and let the district renovate on a longer time horizon, getting the land and building for free would indeed be a good deal. Also agree that it would be great if downtown businesses or developers would donate land or part of a building. I would think anyone planning to sell downtown residential real estate in the next decade would have a vested interest in seeing a quality public school open its doors.
Zeb
Maybe if they paid SPS to take the building it could have worked?
Maybe they could have had it “pay for itself” ala the John Stanford Center?
Is failing to take on a building worth $16.5 million nonfeasance, misfeasance or malfeasance?
I am being as civil and constructive as possible, given the situation.