UWWC Campus Developments

In the Nutshell

Just a quick synopsis.  The building is zoned and built for educational purposes.  We only really have 2 proposals, one to buy the building and 1 to lease a significant portion.  Since the proposal to purchase the building appears to be a good proposal from a local, faith-based non-profit, I am very likely to support it.  I do have a few questions about it though.  Ideally, I would like to maintain some use of the building for the community, including the theater.

Quick notes

Before I get started, I do want to mention that I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.  I might correct a grammar mistake, or reword something that I realize was worded unclearly.  I might also add a few thoughts that I forgot about while originally writing this.

I should also mention this.  About 3 years ago, I switched churches, due in part to COVID protocols, but also due in part to shifting ideological priorities of the church I left, including their wholesale support of illegal immigration.  The new church I attend is supportive of Ozaukee Christian School (“OCS”), and every year OCS comes to our church to report on the good work they are doing in providing a Christ-centered primary-school education for their youth.  As such, I begin with a very favorable view of OCS.  When I learned that they were submitting a serious proposal to purchase the building, I was excited and saw it as a positive development.

I know that OCS is a growing school, and they recently bought land to facilitate that growth.  And then this possibility came around.

Last Thursday’s Meeting

Last Thursday, the UWWC Campus Task Force held a meeting to review a proposal by Ozaukee Christian School (“OCS”) to purchase the building and a portion of the property.  Cedar Lakes Conservation Fund (“CLCF”) would purchase the remaining 55 acres.

At the meeting, I was very disappointed by the behavior of several individuals who came to the meeting already opposed to this proposal.  They interrupted board members, shouted out random questions whenever they felt like it, tried to argue with board members, and in general tried to disrupt the orderly flow of business.  At one point, I admonished them for their disrespectful and inappropriate behavior. 

After the meeting, several people thanked me for challenging their behavior.  A few of them had attended the meeting to learn more about this proposal, so they could decide whether or not they thought it was a good proposal, and they were shocked by the behavior they saw from these individuals.  A few others were supporters of OCS, who were glad someone stood up against this bad behavior.  I also ran into one gentleman over the weekend who had left the meeting after only 10 minutes, due to the bad behavior he saw.  He had wanted to learn more about this proposal.  When I mentioned that I had challenged their behavior, he thanked me.

I was also surprised by how quickly this group decided they were against this proposal.  Prior to this, when Accel Learning had submitted a proposal, they had stated that they were only against Accel because they were out of state, and because they were not completely non-profit (they were only mostly non-profit, their oversight board is for profit).  OCS is a local school that is entirely non-profit, so their sudden opposition to OCS raises questions about their true intentions, at least in my mind.

I should also mention that there were individuals at this meeting, who are opposed to the sale to OCS, who did behave respectfully and with appropriate decorum.  They either sat there as quiet observers, or they raised their hand and waited to be recognized to speak.  One such person asked a very good question, and in the ensuing dialog, I learned that options to sell the property to a developer had been thoroughly explored, but that none of the developers had expressed any interest in pursuing the purchase of the property after reviewing the property in detail.

One rumor I have heard is that some of the opposition to this sale may be based on anti-Christian sentiments amongst some of the opponents.  I have also heard a lot of speculation to this effect.  Christian schools tend to do a much better job of educating students in reading, writing, and math.  In my view, a better-educated community makes a better community.  Additionally, there are laws prohibiting discrimination against religious institutions.  For all those reasons, I remain very open to the sale to OCS. 

The Current Situation

In looking at the current situation, here is what I see.  We have already invested 16 months into the process, while all of the other counties who lost UW schools have already moved forward with their plans for the obsolete campuses.  During that 16 months, there has been a ton of community discussion and outreach, and there will be more opportunities coming.

We are spending about $500k-$750k per year in regular maintenance and utilities for the building.  Previously, the lease with UWM covered those expenses.  As well, when UWM decided to vacate the building, since we didn’t know whether we would be leveling the building, keeping it, or selling it, we put a halt to some upcoming maintenance items that are rather expensive, including over a million dollars to repair the electrical system.  The building is zoned for educational/institutional.

If we want to keep the building, we need an anchor tenant who will pay about $750,000 per year in rent.  The only proposal we have received to that effect was from Accel.  If we sell the building to OCS, we will unburden the tax-payers of this recurring expense (and in government, managing recurring expenses is a critical component to keeping the tax rate low).  We have no other substantial proposals to consider, and the task force recommended selling to OCS (with some poison pills thrown in by 1 task force member).  In my mind, this makes sense.

Some things I do want to learn about:

• Is there still and opportunity to have a social capital center within that building (probably leased from OCS)?
• Will the community retain access to the theater (probably by leasing it from OCS)?
• Would OCS be willing to lease space to the public schools, or to the City of West Bend.
• I do know that OCS. in their proposal, mentioned that they would need to team up with some community partners, but I would want to learn more about what that would look like.

John Torinus brought up the idea of giving the northern third of the building to the City of West Bend (along with the land CLCF wants).  Since that would contain the gym, and every grade school needs a gym, that would essentially destroy the deal with OCS.  I recognize a poison-pill when I see one, and would oppose this idea.  His idea would also mean giving the city 40% of the value of the campus, when they are only 26% owners of the campus.  I also don’t know how the county would sell or lease 67% of a building.  What I could see the county being willing to agree to is giving the city the land CLCF wants and some cash as a way to buy out their equity.

Invalid concerns

A few concerns were brought up that I don’t put much validity in.  One of them was OCS' staffing, and whether they currently have the positions they would need to service a much larger student base.  This concern, surprisingly, was put forward by Joh Torniuus.  Of course, currently they don’t have that staff, because currently they don’t need that staff.  As they grow, they will ramp up their staffing to meet their needs.  

Another concern that was brought up revolved around whether or not they can financially support such a large building.  As Adam Williquette mentioned, that’s an issue between OCS and the bank loaning them the money.  In other words, banks have responsibility for vetting loans before making them, and they proved themselves to the bank.  As I side note, I know that OCS has deep community roots, and will likely be well-supported.

WBSD

This issue is not in any way a referendum on public schools.  I attended public schools, and got a very good education.  That said, I stand against any idea that we must reject any proposal from any private school, as a show of loyalty to the public schools, especially for property that is zoned and designed for educational use.  While I am not opposed to public schools, I reject any contrived "loyalty test" to them.

Regarding the West Bend School District (“WBSD”), the only proposal they submitted was un-actionable.  They proposed leasing around 10,000 square feet, a proposal that would leave 95% of the building vacant.  The rent on such a small lease would not provide adequate funds to the county to cover its costs associated with the building, and therefore do not qualify as an anchor tenant. 

WBSD has floated other ideas throughout this process, but has never made any actionable proposals regarding those ideas.  These options involve other school districts, with West Bend as the primary  agent, and coordinating a proposal between 5 school districts would bring its own challenges.  

It is important to realize that in the last 10-15 years, WBSD closed 1 grade school and will soon be closing 2 more.  In the upcoming years, the demographic models show a continuation of the trend of declining enrollment for WBSD.  Based on these factors, I can’t imagine WBSD being able to support the lease of a substantial amount of space within the UWWC campus building, and as such don’t see them as a viable anchor tenant.  It is also worth noting that $750,000 per year is a large line-item to add to their budget.

So given all of this, how could I or any other board member reject this proposal based on the possibility that WBSD will come forward with a proposal of their own that would meet our needs.  WBSD has had 16 months, and they’ve talked about a lot of interesting ideas during that time, but at no point have they put forward a meaningful, actionable proposal.