THE SHARE CENTER - News and Events

Almost a year after a series of meetings was held to gauge community interest in the development of the old Garberville School, the fate of the building remains in limbo, and differing accounts have emerged about how the school-district administration has handled purchase negotiations for the property.

In December 2005, the Southern Humboldt Unified School District Board of Trustees passed two resolutions to offer its surplus properties – the old Garberville School on Sprowel Creek Road, and the former Alice Jewett School in Alderpoint – for sale to public entities. Due to requests by organizations interested in the properties at the time, formal notices were not posted until spring 2006, to give those groups time to raise funds. Per the state’s education code, property sold by a school district must first be offered to state and local entities, such as Caltrans or State Parks; if no such organizations show interest, bidding is then opened to not-for-profit organizations, and if none of those, in turn, wish to purchase the property, the bidding process is then opened to the general public.

To date, no concerted effort has been made to purchase the Alderpoint property, whose asking price has been reduced from $315,000 to $280,000. In the case of the Garberville School, though, one group has been steadfastly working to gather community input, garner support, and seek financing for it: Southern Humboldt Arts & Recreation, known as SHARE. Begun in 2002 via a National Endowment for the Arts grant procured through the Mateel Community Center, SHARE has faced a number of challenges since its inception, and its vision has morphed over the years. That vision had solidified, and SHARE chair Charley Custer, for one, thought the group had an excellent chance of bringing its ideas to fruition.

Community Meetings Held, Potential Plans Presented

Built in 1939, the historic Garberville School, a WPA (Works Progress Administration) project, was one of the first public buildings in the state to be constructed under the then-new seismic building codes. The school district’s original asking price was $800,000; SHARE’s original goal for the property was the development of a community center that included arts education, physical therapy, and childcare facilities, outdoor sports courts, office space for non-profits, an interpretive center, and a swimming pool. The group’s vision also included renovating the kitchen and the Redwood Playhouse Theater.

That vision proved too ambitious and was scaled back. SHARE had received a $300,000 pledge from a local businessman, but the cost of new construction remained prohibitive. Custer devised a new plan whereby workforce housing would be constructed on the back part of the property that formerly was projected to house a new sports complex. This new affordable housing would help fund the purchase and renovation of the WPA building – a symbiotic relationship that would benefit both the community at large and people who have difficulty finding housing.

Custer worked extensively with Danco Builders, and the construction company ultimately submitted a proposal that included 40 units of workforce housing, similar to a development on Orchard Street in Redway. Three model options for the property were developed, all of which incorporated housing that would complement the proposed community center. During three meetings held at the site in January 2008, community members overwhelmingly expressed support for a mixed-income plan that would include eight 1,300-square-foot homes, four 1,000-square-foot two- to three-bedroom condominiums, and 15 640-square-foot rental apartments; storage units, a sound barrier, and parking; the community center itself; and, possibly, a community pool, deli, locker room, and spa. Green-building contractor Chip Tittman highlighted the fact that the overall design featured a number of environmentally friendly features, which were well received by meeting attendees.

Negotiation Process Convoluted, SHARE Left in Limbo?

Danco offered, through SHARE, to pay $600,000 towards purchase of the property, to donate the building to local non-profit management, and to build the workforce housing in the back. On April 2, 2008, after the school district opened the bidding process to non-profit organizations (the initial bidding period, for government entities, had closed), Custer e-mailed a draft of a tentative contract between SHARE and Danco to SHUSD Superintendent Clif Anderson, along with a cover letter. Custer told The Independent the e-mail was not meant to be a formal bid, but was for explanatory purposes only; however, Anderson viewed it as a formal bid, and forwarded it to the Board of Trustees as such.

According to Custer, following an April 3, 2008 closed-session meeting, the board directed Anderson to respond to the information received from SHARE. However, Custer told The Independent, Anderson never informed him of the board’s further questions and concerns. Instead, Anderson called Custer about a month later – to inform him that the SHARE bid had been rejected. Custer countered that no formal bid had ever been submitted in the first place.

In a May 5, 2008 e-mail written to Anderson and copied to the board, Custer wrote: “I look forward to receiving this information in writing, so that I can initiate informed discussions with Danco preparatory to making our bid to you. I’m glad we had the opportunity to correct your memory from a month ago that ‘the board rejected SHARE’s bid.’ We have not yet made a bid. I am very eager to receive from you the directives needed to move our bid forward, and hope to receive the written board perspectives shortly.”

On May 6, Anderson sent a response to Custer via e-mail, which included the board’s “initial offer to SHARE regarding the purchase of the Garberville School.” Meanwhile, Custer had indirectly discovered that the school district had entered into negotiations with another non-profit group when Dotti Russell, who heads the Phillipsville-based Artful Children,* mentioned – after a community meeting that both she and Custer attended – that the board “was firm on $705,000” for the property.

On January 5, Anderson told The Independent that he did, indeed, “send a letter with a deadline for making a bona-fide offer for the property... in response to what Mr. Custer was saying ‘wasn’t really an offer.’” However, “when it became apparent at that time that an offer wasn’t coming from SHARE,” the district was forced to move forward.

Custer maintains that he spoke to individual board members about the SHARE proposal, and that he tried repeatedly to contact Anderson, to no avail. Board members’ most pressing concern was the agreement with Danco: first, $600,000 was far less than the original asking price, and second, the construction company was not going to provide the funds for a year and a half to two years. According to Custer, as soon as he received the school board’s response, SHARE “was in the process of getting a bridge loan to pay the school district,” and was working with several prominent community members towards that goal.

Custer added that SHARE wanted to get a loan for a higher amount than $600,000: “At that point, we were looking at the full price or going into negotiations. We wanted to get every penny to the district. God knows they need it.”

Another Organization Enters the Fray

According to Russell, Artful Children prepared its own proposal for purchase of the Garberville School “as a backup, in case they [SHARE] didn’t get it.” By her account, after Artful Children placed a bid, the school district “put in a counterbid” to both entities: “We were both given the same opportunities, and the time lapsed for SHARE to accept the counteroffer... At that time, Artful Children did accept the counteroffer.” The group’s vision for the property is similar to SHARE’s: Artful Children also seeks to establish “a community center for the arts,” with the land behind the building becoming available for either housing or mixed commercial and residential use.

At the November 13 SHUSD meeting, Russell chided the board for not having supported her project publicly, “because other people have been applying for grants, and have a website about ‘their’ project, and it’s made it impossible to get funding.” When asked to clarify that statement, Russell told The Independent, “SHARE is very interested in purchasing the building, and there’s a third group [which she declined to name] that’s interested in it too. It’s an interesting piece of property that draws a lot of attention because of its location.”

Like SHARE, though, Artful Children has also encountered difficulties raising funds, and the group has been granted several extensions – the last one in November, in a closed session prior to the regular meeting, when the board voted in favor of extending the escrow period for 45 days. “We’re looking to get some different funding,” Russell said on January 3. “There’s going to be an amendment to the escrow, so we should have it closed by the end of January.” She added that she had planned on completing the paperwork prior to the holiday season, but was unable to do so; however, she expects to be “receiving disclosures soon, and both parties will sign amendments to the escrow.”

On another note, Russell told The Independent that Artful Children “has discussed partnering with other non-profits,” and has also contacted Humboldt State University to explore the possibility of offering satellite classes in Garberville. “Once escrow closes, we can start new dialogue with new players, which is what I think really needs to happen.” When asked if Artful Children had considered partnering with SHARE, since the two entities share similar ideas about the property, Russell responded, “We actually explored that, but having two different boards that don’t necessarily interact together makes for a challenge. I think once escrow closes, that might be easier.”

‘We Must Meet Our Fiduciary Responsibility’

Russell also opined that the board ultimately chose to negotiate with Artful Children, rather than SHARE, because her offer was more generous than SHARE’s. SHUSD Board President Susan Thompson said money was indeed a major consideration – and she emphasized that by the time the bidding process was opened to non-profit entities, the property had already been declared surplus for a year and a half.

“The period for the non-profits to present a legitimate offer had been extended far beyond what was reasonable,” Thompson said. “They [SHARE] may claim they didn’t make a ‘legitimate’ offer, but from our point of view, they didn’t make an offer, period – and we had already waited so long, we felt we weren’t meeting our fiduciary duties. We had a certain interest in seeing that community needs were met, so we were very liberal in our timetables so they could raise their funds.”

Anderson confirmed Thompson’s story: “We did exercise patience and extended that period for the non-profits way beyond what it needed to be,” he said, “so they could come up with community support and funding. When it became apparent that SHARE was not going to be able to make an offer, we had to move forward. As you know, we’re in pretty serious need of funding in our district.”

Custer’s memory was a different one. “We did ask for a timetable – any timetable – again and again,” he told The Independent, “so that we could build fundraising momentum and tell Danco and others what to expect. Clif told us when he expected early benchmarks to occur, such as the open of bidding, and we’d plan for that, then he’d delay the benchmark past what he said, month after month. There were unexpected delays and uncertainties like when they’d get sign-off on cleanup, all sorts of stuff... It was terrible for the morale of the project.”

Thompson confirmed that Custer had spoken to several board members about SHARE, and asserted that they did everything in their power to support the project for as long as they felt they could: “We had very intensive discussions regarding SHARE and what appeared to be a legitimate offer from Artful Children,” she said. And, having already spent several months negotiating with the latter, “the board felt it was no loss to grant an extension while we put feelers out to other options, in the event the offer fell through.” While the board cannot accept another offer during the extension period, “we felt it would not be a disadvantage to us to offer that extension.”

The extension period ended on December 19, Anderson explained, but it has been extended “until the district’s attorney completes the paperwork for the current purchase offer. We are currently in negotiations for solidifying a purchase agreement that’s agreeable to both parties; ee expect that to be finished in the next two weeks.” Should the sale fall through, the district will move on to the next step: opening the bidding process to the public.

And SHARE? “The board felt that they performed due diligence,” Thompson stressed, “and acted appropriately in putting the building out on the marketplace and giving the community time. I can tell you it was very well discussed – it was certainly not a decision made by any one person.” Custer disagrees: “Clif has prevented anyone else from doing anything, by refusing to let the [Artful Children] idea die,” he concluded. “Meanwhile, the property is just losing value. Every month it’s worth less money.”

For his part, Anderson expects good news for the district later this month. “We don’t expect the sale to fall through,” he said on January 5. “There is a deposit in an escrow account, and there is every indication that there will be a successful sale of the property to Artful Children.”

The next regular meeting of the SHUSD Board of Trustees will be held at 4:30 p.m. this Thursday, January 8 at Redway School. The agenda was not available at press time; however, time is always provided for public comment near the beginning of each meeting.

*Writer’s note: In a letter to the editor in the December 30 edition of The Independent, Phillipsville resident Loreen Eliason wrote that Artful Children “has not been tax exempt since December 21, 1999.” A search of Artful Children on the Internal Revenue Service’s website yields no results; however, in two phone calls to the IRS, The Independent was informed that the organization was granted tax-exempt status in April 1996, and that the ruling remains in effect. In a separate telephone conversation, Ms. Eliason told The Independent that the IRS agent with whom she spoke informed her that, while Artful Children is indeed tax exempt, the organization has not filed annual financial statements on a timely basis. The two IRS agents with whom The Independent spoke would only verify Artful Children’s 501(c)(3) status.