April 2011

Citizen Oversight Committee Meeting: 4-11-11

Attendees: Dick Jones, Ginny Markell, Todd Caldwell, Yvonne McVay, Renee King, Rein Vaga, Ron Stewart, Garry Kryszak, Julie Volpel, Tim Mills, Joe Krumm, Durelle Singleton, Linda Moraga, and Leslie Robinette.

Members voting by proxy: Heather Hobson and Kristin Mitchell

History of the Wichita site: Leslie Robinette

Proposal to close Wichita School

November 9, 2005             Discussion of moving Wichita students to a larger school within 5 years.

Discussion of the need to take care of this facility through bond improvements.

June 10, 2009                    Wichita School closes with a community celebration

School Board discussions of Wichita:

October 2, 2008
Board presentation by Assistant Superintendent Matt Utterback on proposed boundary changes, including closure of Wichita (243 students)

October 16, 2008
Unanimous board vote on school boundary realignments, including the plan to move Wichita students to Campbell and Lewelling.

April 16, 2009
Superintendent Ron Naso discussed potential use of Wichita as acommunity center that could include Head Start, the Family Support Center, etc.

June 4, 2009
Further discussion of development of a community center at Wichita, and the potential this would bring to the Overland Park community. This would be similar to the Gladstone Center for Families & Children, run by the Gladstone School District.

October 15, 2009
After a recommendation from a community committee, the Board votes to rename Wichita School the Wichita Center for Family & Community.

February 4, 2010
Community Services Supervisor Durelle Singleton reported on responses to the RFP for partner organizations at Wichita Center.

Wichita Center opens: August 2009

Public announcement: front page of Community Newsletter, August 2009 edition

Community Services Department moves to Wichita Center, saving money because they no longer need to lease office space.

Family Support Center moves to Wichita Center, serving 250 families before the start of the school year and 500 families in August2010. The move enables program expansion to include the Clothes Closet (formerly at New Urban High School, where the vacated space becomes a school library), and a food pantry. It also greatly increases the program’s visibility and access, located on bus routes.(Formerly, it was housed in a small portable office on the Whitcomb campus.)

Update on Operations at Wichita Center: Durelle Singleton

Handout: Wichita Center Business Plan

In creating Wichita Center, the district discussed the need for community services, not just early childhood services. The long-term vision was to build a one-stop community service center.

Early partners in the project included: --Family Support Center --WIC --Early Head Start --Metropolitan Family Services

The district is considering a number of different possibilities to fund center operations, with the goal of breaking even on costs. A business plan has been developed to detail these strategies.

Were the district to close Wichita Center and move district programs elsewhere, the net cost to mothball the building would exceed the present cost to operate the building because we would need to lease space for the district staff housed there.

The social services provided at Wichita help keep kids in school.

The challenges for expanding use of the center are marketing and staff time.

Wichita served more than 500 families before school opened this fall. Headstart serves 80 kids per term. Community need is increasing with the down economy.

Dick Jones is concerned that $600,000 is not a “minor amount” to invest, and that this is not a school facility. Is this a breach of faith with voters?

Today we have $18 million in backlogged maintenance district wide, so comparatively speaking, the amount to be invested is small.

The district is expanding use of the center district wide. A plan is in place to market the center, and then consider whether transportation could be provided. Currently, for example, students from Concord Elementary are bused to Wichita twice a week to use the computer lab after school.

At this time, staff is moving forward to develop Wichita as a district asset and community asset. Ginny’s question: Are we still being true to the language of the bond? What is the long-term plan for this building? Ginny is OK investing in Wichita if its current purpose is long-term.

Renee votes No: changing the role of the building does not pose an issue.

Handout: Bond Projects list for Wichita.

Question: What is the capacity? 35,000 to 40,000 square feet. Currently 15,000 is available for leasing, and 60% is filled (4 empty classrooms)

Feedback to the School Board: Ron Stewart

On April 11, the Citizen Oversight Committee met to provide feedback to the Board regarding proposed renovations at the Wichita Center for Family & Community. Here is the COC's response to three discussion topics:

a) Bond promises were made when Wichita was a school, with the community knowing the school (with a small and declining population) would likely close within five years. The building now serves as a service center for family and community. Does this pose an issue for bond spending at that site?

Yes: 1 vote No: 7 votes --5 votes in person + 2 votes by email

Comment: "In my opinion, no. This is still a building owned by the school district & used by the community members of the district. The community voted to have the building maintained. As 'landlords' of this building, I believe the district has the responsibility to provide maintenance of the building." --Heather Hobson

b) If the Board, to the best of their knowledge, is planning to maintain Wichita as a District facility for many years into the future, does the COC recommend using bond funds to complete a portion of the Wichita promises to repair and preserve the asset as recommended by staff?

Yes: 8 votes --6 in person + 2 votes by email
No: 0 votes

Comment: "I vote yes: to complete projects listed on the bid agreement: $648,640. In my opinion the facility is the property of the District, being utilized by the community, and should therefore be maintained --I believe maintenance now avoids higher maintenance costs in the future." --Heather Hobson

Comment: "It merits discussion, but I believe we should invest the money to upgrade the facility whether it's being used as a school or being used as another resource within the district." --Kristin Mitchell

c) If the Board, to the best of their knowledge, is uncertain about the future of Wichita being maintained by the District in the next several years, does the COC recomme3nd using bond funds to complete a portion of the Wichita promises to repair and preserve the asset as recommended by staff?

Yes: 4 votes --2 votes in person + 2 votes by email Uncertain: 3 votes (would need more information to decide) No: 1 vote

Comments from those who expressed uncertainty or a No vote:

  • "If the site is not to be used for District services, we should not spend as much." --Yvonne McVay
  • "If Wichita Center will be here for less than two years, spend a minimal amount." – Ginny Markell
  • "Why replace windows other than in the parts of the building that will be used?" – Dick Jones

Staff recommendation is to continue the use of Wichita as a community support center. – Tim Mills

Rein wants the COC to provide their feedback to the community on the Web on the proposed investment at Wichita. Include how the center is used and the number of students currently using it. We are not spending more—we are spending less than planned. We will still return funds to taxpayers.

Copyright | Site Map | Contact