Editor's Note: This story has been updated to reflect the location of next week's meeting and information about residents speaking on the issue.
Woodland Hills School Board will hold a special meeting at 7 p.m. Wednesday, Jan. 23, to discuss a proposal to sell the administration building in Churchill and move district administrators to new, leased offices in Braddock.
The meeting will be held in the Woodland Hills High School auditorium. To register to speak, call and/or email Tomeka Billingsley at 412-731-1300, ext. 0124 or billto@whsd.net. This is now being billed as a special legislative meeting where the board has the ability to vote on the sale and move to Braddock.
The board decided to postpone voting on the sale Wednesday night after hearing a wide difference of opinion among both residents and school board members—and finding there was misinformation circulating about the proposal.
TREK Development Group of Pittsburgh has offered to buy the administration building at 2430 Greensburg Pike for $625,000. The group would raze the former Churchill Elementary School building and construct a senior citizen apartment building with about 48 units.
TREK is also offering to lease office space to the school district in a new building being constructed on the site of the former UPMC Braddock Hospital. In a letter to the board dated Jan. 15, TREK estimated the total of savings and revenue to the school district over the next 10 years would be $2,036,976.
Currently, the district has no presence in the Braddock community.
Though a motion to approve a sales agreement with TREK was on Wednesday's agenda, school board President Regis Driscoll noted that board members did not yet have the agreement in front of them.
Board members were split on whether to move ahead with the sale. A motion to retain the building was rejected by a 5-3 vote.
Board member Bob Tomasic said the building, which is adjacent to the high school campus, should be kept for future use by the district. Board member Tara Reis said the building is an asset while renting space is a liability. Holding on to the building will save the district from trying to figure out how to pay rent on office space five years from now, she said.
Board member Fred Kuhn said he wanted more information available for the public—and board members Marilyn Messina and Colleen Filiak expressed concerns about the misinformation circulating about the sale.
Messina continued that she is concerned about future revenue for the district—and said that the district will not be getting more money from the state. She pointed out mold issues and leaks in the administration building.
Messina also cautioned the board that their decision on this issue could "divide this district."
Dolores Patterson, a former Churchill Area School Board member, expressed concern about a conflict of interest if the board sells to TREK and then leases from the developer. Wilkins Township Board of Commissioners President Sylvia Martinelli, a member of the district's Ad Hoc Committee, said it was a waste of committee members' time to reject their recommendation to retain the building.
But the plan got support from two Mon Valley Initiative representatives, along with two Braddock officials.
"Businesses, investors and developers from around the country are interested in Braddock," said Tina Doose, Braddock Council president.
She said locating the administrative offices there to a state-of-the-art building would "speak volumes to the community." Mayor John Fetterman added that the offices would be directly across from the police department, offering good security.
"Please, we're asking for you to believe in Braddock," Fetterman said.
Check back with Patch for more details about the proposed sale prior to Wednesday's meeting.
What do you think about selling the administration building and the district leasing office space in Braddock? Let us know in the comments section.
_______________________
"Like" Patch on Facebook. | Follow us on Twitter. | Sign up for our daily email newsletter.
How can you justify $15 a square foot for space that is currently free? Districts are made on the quality of education you provide, not how new or shiny your administrative spaces are. I can't believe there is no space for ADMIN anywhere in any district building.
Politically, it might seem a viable proposal; however, the benefits of it clearly advantage TREK who not only would get a long-term paying tenant in its new facility in Braddock, but it would ALSO gain the marketing prestige of an address in Churchill with a wonderful view, conveniently located off the Parkway East. On the mere face of it, this is a clear conflict of interest which provides the School District with NO significant advantage whatsoever. The logistics of the current Administrative Building could not be better for the School District. The building's roof is relatively new; so, if it is in need of interior upgrades, new commerical grade windows and doors, modern security equipment, or cosmetic improvements, then focus on those isssues which benefit the administrative facility are far less expensive. Community development by private-sector risk-takers is very admirable, but this issue is about, "What best serves the interests of the WHSD?" The proposal up for debate overwhelmingly serves the interests of the developer, NOT the School District. The developer is free to develop available property in Braddock for a new senior citizen apartment buildiing. The Administrative Offices should remain on campus, and the WHSD should reject such proposals which clearly are not to their advantage as a school district.
2. I'm not sure how many of you have checked the price of property in Braddock lately, but it's cheap. Seriously cheap. So rent isn't likely to be an issue. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if rental here's cheaper than maintaining a dilapidated building elsewhere. Especially in a brand new complex in an up and coming neighborhood. And really? People are worried about the moving cost? Ha. Get a large Uhaul or two for the weekend and be done with it. 3. Speaking of, buildings are never "free." Taxes, utilities, repairs... Not all of these apply equally to a building owned by the government, but to call it free is simply incorrect. Just like a bad building isn't an asset; it can be just as much of a liability (or moreso!) than a rented building. 4. And it's not as if all members of the school board were playing evenly last night. Why, one member -- Mr. Tomasic, if I recall -- said the only routes into Braddock were through North Braddock. Not only completely untrue (I can drive from Braddock into Rankin, Turtle Creek, and North Braddock), it makes me question his motives that he'd bother misrepresenting Braddock in such manner.
I'm a Braddock resident and yes, this place is safe. I've lived in Glasgow, UK; Nairobi, Kenya; and all over the US and Braddock feels more secure than most places. It's small enough that people know each other and John and our police have cracked down on smaller crimes. As for parking, there's ample parking. We're able to handle art exhibitions, the symphony, and events like Tapped with ease. Dear RPD, Do you mean our Allegheny County? The same Allegheny County that's been taken to court and been found to be overvaluing property? Just want to make sure.
In short, from what I've seen, nothing's being done behind the public's back or in an illegal manner. Hope that helps!