On the surface, the transfer of the 1977 Jasper Elementary gymnasium from the school system to the county recreation department seems like a solid idea.
We encourage both parties to pursue this. There seem to be a lot of advantages for both school and county, and, more importantly, for taxpayers.
The deal satisfies the conditions for every successful real estate deal: the owner (the school system) doesn’t need the building any longer, and the potential buyer (the county) needs such a building exactly.
To expand these conditions a little further, the school system has collected sales tax and built a new gym. For an elementary school, two gyms is one too many. The green gym, which is actually separated from the campus, is not air-conditioned, but in other respects it is still a serviceable building. It would certainly be possible to convert the gym to another use, but there is already an abundance of commercial space for sale, and, if put on the free-market, somewhere down the road we could find a neighbor not conducive to an elementary school locating there.
From the rec. department’s perspective, the building would be a start for county-owned gyms.
But does the county need one? And are they ready to undertake gym ownership?
Currently, the program is so short of space that few basketball teams get practice time during the heart of the season. There is a need for the county to have a gym of its own––a place to leave material, conduct other activities and expand programs. And a gym would let teams practice without being fully dependant on the schools. It should be noted, the schools are very cooperative with the rec. program, as they should be, since the same taxpayers fund both their gyms and the county program.
But even with this gym, the recreation department will still rely heavily on the school’s facilities. No school gym access would still mean no basketball program. The single gym, even if owned by the county, would not suffice alone.
And this gym is located away from existing county facilities, so the department would be dealing with additional time/management when personnel have to shuttle back and forth between Roper Park and Stegall Street. And they could not easily incorporate the gym into a summer camp curriculum without also adding transportation issues. Not to mention, there is a middle school gym within easy walking distance from the county park on Refuge Road.
Furthermore, if the county acquires the gym through purchase or deal, it will then require more spending for new personnel or more duties for existing crews. Currently the recreation department compensates the schools for the cleaning, the opening and closing of the gyms, and they let the school handle all upkeep.
One final thought to consider is previous county-funded professional assessments recommended a completely new park at a new location as the best path for the county to pursue in recreation. In light of that, the wisdom of buying an older gym not connected to any park should be scrutinized.
None of these objections are huge, and the ways to expand the county program with camps, special events and more practice time offers a huge plus to the county. This may be a great one-time opportunity, but let our commissioner and recreation director really think through this with an eye on the long term.
If the deal goes forward, it is critical for taxpayers and others involved to remember that while the county and school board are separate entities, they both serve the same taxpayers.
The schools and county produce separate budgets, have separate offices and leaders, but in this county, they share a tax base.
If, after further study, the schools see no further use for the gym and the county believes it’s ready to manage one, let’s proceed with the idea, figuring the main winner in the deal should be the taxpayers. |
|
