Turn down the offer based on not receiving $14,000 in tax revenue? Really?? To read the entire proposal that was presented to the Pickens County School Board from The Dream Center, visit makinadifferencetoday.blogspot.com

"Money is not always important, but it is when you don't have it," Saitta said.

EXACTLY!!! HOW DO YOU THINK THOSE NEEDING SHELTER, FOOD, &OTHER ASSISTANCE FEEL?! OH, YOU'RE NOT THINKING OF THEM...YOU'RE CONCERN IS GREED, IN THE COUNTY'S POCKET! THE COUNTY HAS THE ABILITY TO BOUNCE BACK MUCH FASTER THAN A PERSON, AND THEIR FAMILY, THE COUNTY GETS TAX MONEY, GRANTS, FUNDING ETC... GOD BLESS THE MEMBERS WHO VOTED FOR THE SHELTER PROPOSAL...

Pickens County is the only county without a shelter for homeless residents.

THAT STATEMENT SHOULD BRING SHAME TO THOSE NOT IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSAL, FOR HELPING OUR FELLOW MAN, OUR NEIGHBORS, OUR COMMUNITY...BUT AT LEAST YOU'LL HAVE THAT $14,000/YEAR IN THE COUNTY POCKET RITE, Saitta, Dr. Herbert Cooper, and Trotter?

A homeless shelter was not talked about

Thank you, Christine, for the clarification. This story included information from an earlier version of the Dream Center project proposal which stated the facility would be used as a transitional housing shelter, soup kitchen, and job placement center. The transitional housing program will now be facilitated by United Way and Family Promise in collaboration with local churches.

If I understand correctly, The school district gets quite a bit of money from the state and federal government for each child that attends their schools. It seems like simple math would suggest that If kids are encouraged to stay in school by programs that help them and their families become self sufficient, that would result in fewer drop-outs and more money in the coffers of the school district. Why is this not a plan that the school district would embrace and want to see succeed by simply accepting the highest bid for the property ? I believe the other schools that have been sold so far have been to government entities that also would not add to the tax base. Why the sudden change.

Jeff- i accidently deleted my previous comment from my phone but you are correct. Thanks for the article!!

I don't know if you have all the facts. The reason I didn't vote for this sale was we had an equal bid from a private bidder who will pay the same price and would generate tax revenue for the school district every year. This non-profit will not generate tax revenue each year. Actually, it would not pay any taxes. In the case of the other building sales, the district had no other bidders.
Do you realize the district has added 450,000 new sqf? It has added zero custodians. It lacks the revenue stream to pay for them. We'll add 300,000 more sqf the next two years.
The district is adding a second middle school in Easley. To staff it and operate it will cost $700,000 a year. Again, we don't have the money for that. What do you suggest, eliminating teaching positions to pay for all that? Gosh we already have 32 students in some high school core classes. Maybe cutting coaches supplements for the third time. No. Bad choices in my book. I'd rather trying getting the the most we can for these properties. Greed? You call that greed. That is putting the teachers and children we educate first. That's our responsibility. This proposal was given to us and we'll look at it. There is also another bid on the table.
Alex Saitta

I didn't vote to keep expanding the costs. Heck, 5 of the 6 board members didn't vote for this building program. It was the board of six years ago and most of those trustees are gone. However, it is now our responsibility to deal with their decision and all the costs those buildings are now generating, while we still try to find a way to education our children. You wrote I'm putting profit before people. No one is making a profit here or reaping a personal gain. I'm trying to get the most out of what the district's surplus properties in order to generate money (which is short supply) so we can use it to educate students -- that is to pay their teachers, pay for their textbooks, pay for the lights in their classrooms. That's not trying to make a profit. To get the most for the properties to then use the money to educate students is not greed. I may vote for it in the end. At this point, it is a close call. We are getting more information from the bidders and I'll see where that leads me.

No. Let me explain why. Dacusville Elementary had no private interest and the school was about to become vacant so we hit the county's bid for $150,000 just so we wouldn't be stuck spending education dollars to maintain a vacant school. We spun off 7 acres across the street that the county probably would have wanted us to give to them, but we sold it to a private buyer for $50,000 -- money that will be used to education children, plus future tax revenue for the kids. We had one private buyer interested in Liberty Middle and had a handshake deal with them, even though the county wanted the building for much cheaper. We were going to sell it to CVS, but CVS backed out. There was no other bids for the property, and it will become vacant in May so we hit the county's $160,000 bid. It would have been unwise to table that because me might then get stuck with a vacant building that we don't have the money to maintain. Pickens Middle will become vacant in June of 2013. We have time to think about this one. Give it some time. We are seriously looking at the options.

Based on the extensive reading and research we have done regarding the reasons kids drop out of school and the correlation to poverty and our work every single day with people in this community living in crisis poverty, I am puzzled that tax revenue dollars carry more weight than our offer to help families and students at zero cost to the school district. Given Pickens County is leading the area in high school dropouts, what is the district's plan for reducing dropout rates and how much do you think that will cost you? With all due respect, I am unable to understand the thinking behind wanting to turn down the offer and many other people feel the same way.

You can read all about the graduation effort at www.PickensPolitics.com. I think you are puzzled because you haven't been able to connect how the school district uses the tax dollars it receives. The district uses its tax dollars to educate students in K-12, so they graduate, get jobs so they can buy their own homes (and not be homeless). That is, the district is working at this problem every second of every day. If the district has an opportunity to get more money by selling such and such property to XYZ buyers, then shouldn't we do that and use the money to educate the kids? I'm all for helping the homeless, but tasked with first helping our K-12 students. Really, if we educate them there, the homeless problem will solve itself. I'm glad you are interested in the building. I'm sure all board members are seriously looking at your bid. If it works out and the building is sold to the Shine, wonderful. If not, there are plenty of buildings in the county for sale. Either way, once in I'll do what I can to help you.

You need to ask those who voted for the Greenville Plan that purchased those TV's. Five of six of those who voted "yea" are gone. I didn't vote for it. I don't know if I voted my conscience. I looked at the facts, our needs, the cost, weighed it all and voted "No". I've answered your questions. How about answering this one because it cuts to the heart of the issue in my mind.
I can pick a lot of costs that we don't have the money to cover, but let me pick this one. You are in Easley. The people of Easley wanted a second middle school. That school will cost $700,000 a year in the extra staff, utilities, insurance, etc. At this point, the district doesn't have a revenue stream to cover that cost year after year. How do you suggest we pay for that each year?

You wrote: I'm thinking that if a kid stays in school a couple of years longer at say, Daniel High, those dollars that you get for him (that you wouldn't have gotten if he dropped out) can help fund another school, correct? No. We receive an extra $1,880 per student from the state (EFA). We get some additional ACT 388 money per student about $1,500 per student. We receive no extra money from the local government or the federal government that is tied to enrollment changes. It costs on average $10,000 to educate each student, of which about $4,000 of that is variable cost. Your "thinking" that the district somehow generates all this extra money or profit each time a new student enrolls or stays in school is flawed. Who is telling you that? Keeping kids in school is a great idea because we need to educate all we can, but your "thinking" that growing enrollment is going to solve our financial problems doesn't add up.

I wrote: At this point, the district doesn't have a revenue stream to cover that cost year after year. You said growing enrollment was the answer. No, it is not. See above.
Right now the school district faces various operations costs it doesn’t have a revenue stream to fund. Such costs include needing more maintenance people for all this new square footage -- $550,000; a second middle school in Easley $700,000, rising medical costs of $550,000, rising retirement costs of $450,000; annual laptop refreshes of $1 million. To some degree these things will have to be funded. If the extra money is not there, the money will have to come out of the classroom to pay for those things. That’s the problem.
Act 388 states the school district can not tax homes people reside in for operational needs. Hence, if ABC group buys PMS and builds thirty-four $1 million homes on the 20 acres behind the school, the school district will not receive one dime of tax money that it can use to pay any of those above expenses.

Continued below

However, the school district receives operational tax dollars for every non-residential property that is added in the county. For example, if XYZ company puts in a $5 million nursing home at PMS and the land behind it, the school district will receive about $32,400 a year to help cover those expenses above.
How much cost does that generate for the school district? Assuming none of those old folks will enroll children in our schools? Zero. All that money can be used to cover those costs above.
In sum, the district receives tax revenue for operations from commercial enterprises while incurring little to no costs. For this reason the district needs to foster commercial development where it can. That is the long run solution to the district’s financial woes.
Mike you want what you want. Got it. Beyond that, with all due respect, I don’t think you understand the problem the school district faces, nor how to solve it.

One problem I think we do have an understanding of is the 1,464 kids classified as "homeless". The primary reason kids dropout isnt because you havent spent enough $ on resources to educate them. It is because they live in the culture of extreme poverty. That is why 80% of them will not graduate. And no, unfortunately, homelessness will not fix itself. Each board member has each bid and it is your responsibility to decide what is best not ours. I am praying for wisdom for each of you as you consider the options.

Mike, your facts are incorrect. It is not the highest bid. Both the private bidder and the non-profit bid $275,000. The private bidder will pay taxes, the non-profit will not. Hence, the private bidder will result in more money to the SDPC which as many bills to pay.

Second I am not leading a coalition. I cast a vote and someone posted on this website my vote was driven by greed. I got on here to refute that. No one is personally reaping any gain in the sale.

You have written a few times I need to do some soul searching, and vote my conscience, sort of like I know the right thing to do (what you want), but for some reason I have some evil motive that is stopping me from doing it. None of that is true.

Money matters when you don't have it. I listed all sorts of bills the district doesn't have th money to pay for. Many of those things need to be paid for no matter what. If we don't get extra money, funds will have to be taken out of the classroom to pay for them. That's bad and needs to be avoided. We need new revenue streams to pay for all of this.

I'm all for what they are doing. Wonderful, but I'm also trying to consider what the school district is up against too.

Alex, your posts have more twists and turns than a bag of curly fries. Almost nothing that you posted has anything to do with the sale of the Pickens Middle School.
At worst, SDPC receives the same upfront money regardless of the buyer, and will receive at most $9,720 per year from property tax if a private party buys it. That $9,720 pays for about 10 minutes of operating expense for the school district.

If SHINE fails there is almost no effect on SDPC. If they fail, then we're out $9,720. However, if they succeed, SDPC have greater state funding.

The SHINE offer (and residual financial affect to SDPC) can never be less than zero. At worst, SDPC receives the purchase price. At best, SDPC will receive additional state revenue for each child that does not fall out of the system and is counted on the 135th day. SHINE’s goal is 25% of the homeless population, but could be applied to other students living in poverty that aren’t considered homeless. Here’s a scale to show the positive financial effect. SDPC receives about $4500 per student annually from the state of SC:

Students retained SDPC Financial gain
0 0
1 $4,500
2 $9,000
3 $13,500
10 $45,000
100 $450,000
200 $900,000
300 $1,350,000
400 $1,800,000

And these amounts pay for a lot more than 10 minutes operating costs.

With all do respect Alex it is all about the money, and that You are to some point being greedy! 14000 will not cover the cost that the school district has already spent. If you had been reading the material from Shines offer the school would have more "money"! The two options you have to look at here, is one will be paying taxes and kids will contuine to drop out and schools will lose more money, and the other options is one that is not required to pay taxes due to 5013 C status and helping kids to continue their education and the schools will continue to receive the $1,800 per child! There are atleast 135 kids out there who could benefit from having this daycenter to help with educational needs every year. So if you do the math 135 X 1,800 is greater than the 14,000 from the tax amount on the property! From this point you have two offers and one can help the school with two different problems which are drop out rates and the purchase of the empty school building.

Jim,
Thank you for confirming my point. You wrote: SDPC receives the same upfront money regardless of the buyer, and will receive at most $9,720 per year from property tax if a private party buys it.

OK let me ask you this. If you have a house for sale, and Buyer A bids $275,000 and Buyer B bids $275,000 plus agrees to pay you $10,000 a year forever also, who would you sell it to?

I'd sell it to buyer B given all the expenses the district has but doesn't have a funding stream to cover. Most would.

All the rest you are leaning on are promises or estimates from programs, that aren't funded or up and running, but just on the drawing board. If we play the what if game, what if the private investor builds a $5 million nursing home. Then the school district will get $32,000 in income each year.

Jim, you are only looking at the revenue of the student. The students have a cost too. In general the revenue from a student equal to the cost, so there is no gain or loss for the district. For instance, if you add a few students the state gives more money, but you also have to pay for more teachers, supplies, etc. It is a breakeveven.

For my vote, I'd like to see the seed money for these programs to know that one day they have a chance to become a reality.

Amanda greedy? Do you call trying to get the most we can from school district assets so we can use the money to educate children who need to learn to read, write and add, greedy? Explain how that is greedy?

Alex, there you go again. A classroom with 20 students has little if any additional costs than a classroom of 19 students. The teacher isn’t paid more, the principal isn’t paid more and there’s no additional cost to the facility. The only additional cost is the student’s books and supplies. A good financial manager knows that. Your logic is flawed and misleading, and is not based on sound financial management. And I’m certainly not going to play some silly “what if” game that has no bearing on the issue. Selling to SHINE has better financial impact to the school district, and most everyone posting here gets that. They also get the benefits provided by SHINE which are difficult to quantify, that being the welfare and success of the students in our schools. And I believe that is our mission as a school district and as trustees. I see clearly the benefit of SHINE, and that far outweighs the 10 minutes of revenue we’d get following your lead.

What if we add 4 students to a class of 27? That goes to 31 and we have to hire another teacher by law. That's $50,000 divided by 4 students or $12,500 per student cost. A whopping loss. On balance it is a breakeven. It isn't like it cost 80 cents to make a widget and it is sold for a $1, so there is 20 cents profit so it make sense to have as many widgets as possible. The school district is a non-profit. The revenue equals the cost. In the long run no profit or extra money is freed up if you keep adding students.
The notion this $10,000 a year in future revenue just funds the school district for 10 minutes so it shouldn't be pursued makes little sense. If a company has only 20 employees calls Alliance Pickens, does the secretary just hang up thinking, unemployment is 10%, what's 20 employees. No, they talk to the company because that's a start. The $10,000 a year is a step in the right direction when you have hundreds of thousands in obligations you don't have annual revenue for.
Selling this building to the Shine is not a bad idea. It is a good idea. However, the
private buyer has a better offer on the table that will put more money in the pocket of the school district, that has committments it can't fund. My point of view may not be what is best for the world, but taking the highest offer that puts the most money in the pocket of the school district is best for the district's financial situation and hence the students that money will be spent on.

In sum, the bids are very close. If I had to make a choice, and I may have to, I'd vote for the one that certaintly yields the money we can count on because with that we can pay bills that must be paid to keep our schools functioning/ and teachers educating students. It seems you'd rather forgo that certain $10,000 a year because it is not as much as you anticpate in future savings. That's a reasonable disagreement. If the Shine can show they have seed money for their programs and and handle the cost of that building that they'll have to pay year in and year out, that would lend more credit to that point of view that one day these Dream Center programs will be a reality. It is still early. We are gathering information

Hi my name is Cory Odom , and in the last couple of weeks I have become involved with SHINE . This program has helped our ministry in the West Gate Apt complex , which is a government housing authority . I am apart of a group of volunteers that have been in place for over two years here . We are a non profit group called Pure Grace Ministries that reach out to kids and adults in need . I have encountered first hand what a bad situation is on many occasions here. It's not always the best place but it's home for all of the kids here. There are groups of people that tutor these kids each week , with no monetary gain . We as a ministry meet each Wensday night to offer a time to fellowship and introduce kids to God , with no monetary gain . Our ministry takes money from our own pockets every day to make this possible and we get very little contributions outside of our volunteers . But SHINE has become a resource for us to use and possibly a life saver for less fortunate kids that eat with only " what's left " after all other expenses are paid. I'm sure anyone who is reading this was able to provide just fine for your family tonight , but for some it's not the case . We need such groups so that our kids here can be given hope or DREAMS.

Our kids here eat each week at The Soup kitchen and it truly is a blessing for them . I can only imagine the money it would cost to keep this school district going . I can not see that the tax revenue will create or saves jobs for any school employees . I do feel teachers are a gift from God for our community and especially the kids lives they impact and I can't imagine what some of these kids would turn to without them . But the SHINE group is the same type of people that these kids so badly need but in a much larger complex to contain such groups as our ministry or the many other outreach organizations . I couldn't explain to a child or family that the tax money is all that's holding us back. I serve on Boards myself and understand the group effort it takes and the fact that most are people that just want to help make a difference and I pray that this is a decision that will be prayed about with a Christ-like heart . I applaud you all for being a community that cares for both the families and kids of Pickens County . Although I am a resident of Anderson County , I have plenty of ties to your community through sporting events and community relationships . I plan on continuing growing inside your community with our ministry and have plans of planting another ministering site really soon , but if we cannot get the help of the SHINE group and others we will fail .

Not only will we fail ourselves but the kids and residents of your community . Please consider the fact that we are one of the many that will grow and bring revenue to you as we spend our time , money and ideas in Pickens County . That is tax dollars unaccounted for on a regular basis . I wish all of you the very best in your decision and we look forward to being a part of such a great place as Easley S.C.    Sincerely Cory Odom Pure Grace Ministries .

Alex you repeatedly speak about not receiving tax revenue from us and that is your reason for not supporting us purchasing Pickens Middle. And, in your words, "these bids are very close". You do realize that you will not receive tax revenue from any property we purchase in Pickens County, right? Whether it is Pickens Middle or another property, we will remain a 501c3 non-profit and that will be tax revenue not received by the district either way. This property, however, will help us maximize our programs with a commercial kitchen for SHINE, (we will have the ability to service satellite feeding locations throughout the County), a gym for after school programs and summer camps for at risk students, classrooms for mentoring, tutoring, counseling; offices for a dozen other non-profits who have already expressed interest in being on site with us to collaborate on these issues. So, if these bids are close, and if you will lose tax revenue regardless of where we locate; why in the world would you not be in support of us maximizing the impact we can have to help families and potentially be the district's biggest resource and support system at a time where children are suffering all over this county and when Pickens County leading the area in high school dropouts??

I do not agree with you either. Any property that I try to buy, the seller sells it to the one that gives him the most money for it. That's universal. Reading all this your offer was not the highest. Why should you buy it?
If you all feel so strongly about the property why not open your checkbook and help the group and put in a higher offer? Mr. Barnes, Mr. Shelton. Ms Wilson. You want to do all these good things with other peoples' money.

(cont. from above) There are five generally accepted business decision strategies that apply in this case: A) Average payoff, which in this case is neutral; B) Aggressive, which seeks the “best of the best” payoff potential; C) Conservative, which seeks the “best of the worst” payoff potential; D) Opportunity Loss, which compares the two possible outcomes to find the “loss” associated with choosing the lower option; and E) Expected Monetary Value, which selects the best expected payoff. Each decision strategy depends on risk analysis.

(cont. from above) I applied option “E”, which compares the payoff from each offer, and calculates the corresponding expected value. Also, one must consider that the first offer only has one outcome, while the second offer has multiple outcomes, ranging from zero (worst case) and 100% enrollment (best case). The probability of either extreme in the SHINE offer is almost non-existent, since it is safely assumed that some measure of success will be realized from their effort, and that effort will yield a success rate which never will be less than one, and it is highly doubtful they will ever achieve a 100% success rate. If you reference the table I posted above, you will see the expected monetary value at milestones reached by SHINE. A success rate of one student yields $4500, a rate of three students yields $13,500, and so forth. Comparing SHINE’s outcomes to the fixed outcome of the first offer (which never varies from $9,720), the Expected Monetary Value leads to the conclusion that SHINE’s option offers the greatest yield to the seller. This was the basis of my decision.

Mr. Chappell, thank you for your comment. It is with merit. For that reason I would like to let you know that I too from the very start of the process pledged my own personal money that I worked very hard for, to see this project succeed.

It is pretty easy to manipulate the outcome in a decision-making model if you use hypothetical outcomes which can never be proven to have occurred as a result of the particular decision you're trying to make (in this case, the benefits of the use of the middle school as a homeless shelter). How would it even be possible to attribute a reduction in the dropout rate, if it were to occur, to the existence of this shelter? You could never know whether kids who elected to stay in school and graduate did so because of such a shelter, anymore than you could know whether kids who decided to drop out did so because there WASN'T such a shelter. What if the dropout rate were to get worse after such a shelter were opened? Would you attribute that to the shelter? What it looks like to me that you've done, (Mr. Shelton) is work your assumptions so that they support the decision you want to make. How do you respond to Alex's questions about the utility expenses to maintain the property, and the extensive work maintenance work needed on the building? How about the ongoing maintenance to the building and the grounds? Is Shine going to have the funding necessary to provide all of the services you are saying they will AND maintain everything, or will the building and grounds eventually deterioriate into an eyesore that, because of its tax-exempt status, the county will be prohibited from seizing?

Now, there are some assumptions and hypotheticals in this discussion, but they aren’t coming from me. For instance, $200,000 in ops cost and $1 million in upgrades assumes that the SHINE will use the building exactly as the school district did. SHINE will turn on every light every day, SHINE will flush each toilet 3,000 times a day, SHINE will run HVAC at capacity every day. And, SHINE will also make upgrades and repairs to the building that cost an estimated $1 million. None of that is true, and it is offered for shock value to support a position. Part of the ops cost is $15,000 to $20,000 for cutting grass and grounds maintenance. It is doubtful that SHINE will contract this function, since they are volunteer driven, and most likely they’ll show with the own mowers and clippers. They won’t occupy the entire building from day one, switching on every light and flushing every toilet. So there ops cost will be far less than that of operating a fully functioning school. Also, the repairs estimated are required for SCHOOL occupancy, and that’s a mandate from the state of South Carolina. So SHINE is not facing the same costs as would SDPC if it maintained occupancy of PMS. Much of the building will be unused at the start, and will only be used as their services require expansion. So you weren’t told the truth about those costs.

You were told what a school district would pay, and the poster very cleverly led you to believe SHINE is facing the exact same thing. Those numbers were spun to make you think SHINE’s cost would be out of their reach. There is life beyond a balance sheet.
Now, is there a chance that SHINE could fail, and all the gloom and doom written by several posters in this thread come true? Absolutely. But what is the likelihood of that happening? Given that SHINE has demonstrated success with their mission, given that SHINE has momentum, given that SHINE is manned and funded from well-resourced individuals, I conclude that failure is far less likely than success.

This is a good time for some history relative to this issue. Last fall, SHINE approached SDPC about buying the current Simpson Academy, which was not and is not for sale. However, during a conversation with Easley’s mayor, Mr. Saitta mentioned that the school district may be interested in selling the Simpson property. This was not divulged to the rest of the board, and Mr. Saitta was acting on his own accord. Somehow this information made its way to SHINE. After that, Mr. Wilson and other members of SHINE’s leadership met with the school board’s property committee to bid on the Simpson property. It was during this meeting I learned of Mr. Saitta’s conversation, and I told Mr. Wilson then that we could not accept any offer for the property unless we could cover the costs of moving Simpson to the Pickens Middle School location. The SHINE offer at that time was for $100,000. That offer was rejected, and the board committee advised SHINE that we would find out the cost estimate for moving the alternative school and would relay that information back to them. It was during this meeting that we estimated the cost of the move would exceed $1 million, but at that time we did not know for sure the cost estimate.

(cont. from above) A few weeks later we did receive a cost estimate of just over $1 million to move the Alternative School from its current location to the Pickens Middle School. It was clearly conveyed to SHINE that we could not accept their offer and bear the remaining cost of a move. Sometime later SHINE increased their offer to $200,000, but that still did not cover the cost to move, and that offer was rejected as well.
I was contacted by SHINE again about the property, and by this time a formal offer of $275,000 had been made for the property by another bidder. SHINE’s informal offer was still at $200,000, and I was asked by SHINE if the board would consider their offer over the standing offer of $275,000. My advice to them was I did not think the board would accept a lower offer, but that if they could present a matching offer that showed a financial benefit to the tax base, I felt it at least would be considered. SHINE then increased their offer to match the $275,000, as well as presented a plan that matched the scope and mission of the school district.

(cont. from above) At any time through this entire process I could very easily have recommended to the board that SHINE’s offer be accepted, but their offer left considerable gaps to be filled in by tax dollars. As much as I think their organization will benefit the needy of the community, I was reluctant to ever agree to a deal that left the school district and the tax base exposed. The leadership at SHINE knows this, and they’ve responded in kind. Their offer has the greatest potential benefit for SDPC, and my decision is based on a sound business model. If some can’t understand that it’s not my place to educate you. I’m also in a unique situation in that I know both potential buyers, so it’s not a matter of friendship or familiarity with one side over the other. Had SHINE not upped their offer, nothing you’ve read here would ever have been discussed. They did and it’s now the best offer on the table.

Mr. Shelton's overview of events is very accurate. Thank you

Jim or Christine you don't know what was said in the conversations I was in because you weren't there. First, I think Judy Edwards and I visited the city of Easley. It was there I said I would support selling Simpson. I said would you be interested? They said maybe. I then went to Dr. Hunt about it and we talked about the idea of possibly moving that program to the old Career Center. That is a building we were going to keep, but it was vacant. I shared my idea with other board members at some point then. Dr. Hunt later realized that the old Career Center was too small. So the idea didn't make sense. I think Shine heard about it from the city, and Wilson said Shine would be interested. I said, I would vote to sell it for $200,000 and I would even today. That was not supported by the majority of the board I later learned, My feeling is having added 450,000 sqf and adding no custodians, we have too many buildings.
Then I floated the idea of maybe moving Simpson into Pickens Middle and doubling the size of the Simpson program. So we talked with the city about it again and Wilson too. When we got an estimate about how much it would cost to get Pickens Middle fit ($1 million), that idea died. That $1 million cost wasn't to move the Simpson program, but to get PMS fit given we've done no upgrades to it in 6 years given it has been slated for abandonment. Then I guess Shine got an interest in buying Pickens Middle.

Board members, councilmen or congressmen don't need authorization to speak. If board member Mr. Jones says he would vote to sell ABC building, would like to sell ABC building or will work to sell ABC building, he doesn't need authorization. He doesn't need authorization to ask, what would you pay?
If the district is going to actually sell the building, the majority of the board needs to vote to approve the contract terms and authorize someone to sign it. In sum, you need authorization to act on behalf of the board, but a board member can say anything he wants without the approval of others.
This is how proposals start. Board members talk to citizens. If an idea makes sense they'll talk to other board members and the administration and if the idea gets traction, it grows into a plan and hopefully a resolution the board will vote on.
If board members had to get approval just to talk about ideas, this democratic process would stop. Mr. Citizen would call me and I would say, I'm not authorized to speak to you, you'll have to talk to so and so who is.
Reading these comments, frankly, the notion of Shine coming into my district is scaring me. Is this how the organization operates? Is this what my constituents will have to deal with when things don't go your way? The process is simple. Bid on the property. Make the high bid. Buy it. Really, on this one we should probably have a bid period that opens and closes and see what comes in, then make a decision.

Alex, here’s how you do it, and it’s very clever and very subtle. Go back and see one of your previous posts. It reads “I got the yearly utility cost on Pickens Middle is $200,000 a year. As you know the building needs $1 million in repairs because the district has not put any money into it given it has been slated for abandonment since 2006. Where is this money going to come from? First they have to cover the $200,000 before they put $1 into creating the programs you are touting will help the school district.” Now, the utility cost estimate I saw yesterday was $141,529. Somehow between yesterday and today the cost to operate PMS increased 41%. Not sure how that happened, since you gave me the figure of $141,529. But since you’ve used $200,000 here, we’ll just carry that number forward, only because the readers of this thread did the same, and to them it’s the truth. A subsequent poster then posed a question to me, saying “How do you respond to Alex's questions about the utility expenses to maintain the property, and the extensive work maintenance work needed on the building? How about the ongoing maintenance to the building and the grounds? Is Shine going to have the funding necessary to provide all of the services you are saying they will AND maintain everything, or will the building and grounds eventually deterioriate into an eyesore that, because of its tax-exempt status, the county will be prohibited from seizing? “

(cont. from above) You planted the seed in the minds of many that SHINE would face the exact same costs as SDPC in the operation of the building. Your quote “they have to cover the $200,000 before they put $1 into creating the programs you are touting will help the school district.” That’s a pretty direct statement. You also omitted the fact that there are a number of portable classrooms which SDPC pays to heat, cool and maintain, and that cost per square foot is greater than a permanent building. Those portables aren’t part of the equation, yet you included them anyway to inflate the cost that SHINE would face to run the building. So the readers here are thinking how will SHINE come up with $200,000 per year? You led them in that direction, and did so to support your position. Now, a good financial manager, and a good public servant dedicated to openness and honesty, would point out those differences and give people a clear picture of what SHINE would face to operate the building. You didn’t do that. Even so, whatever the cost is of no consequence to us. The taxpayers aren’t paying the bill. SHINE assumes that cost. But somehow it became part of the discussion, and I contend it was planted to make your point. Misleading, deceptive and not germane to the matter, but clever nonetheless. Now, did you tell the truth about ops cost for PMS? Yes, you did. But the transitive property doesn’t apply in this case, yet you applied it anyway. That’s misleading.

(cont. from above) Here’s another example no one caught yet. You stated “What if we add 4 students to a class of 27? That goes to 31 and we have to hire another teacher by law. That's $50,000 divided by 4 students or $12,500 per student cost. A whopping loss. On balance it is a breakeven. It isn't like it cost 80 cents to make a widget and it is sold for a $1, so there is 20 cents profit so it make sense to have as many widgets as possible. The school district is a non-profit. The revenue equals the cost. In the long run no profit or extra money is freed up if you keep adding students.” A good example of the “what if” game. OK, I’ll bite. Not only is this a misleading statement, it’s also an example of poor financial management and bad math. So adding four students at $12,500 per student equals $50,000, right? By itself, the equation is correct. But using your logic we now have a class with 27 students and a class with only 4 students. And, using your logic, the cost for the 27 student class is only $1,852 per student. How would the director of finance at SDPC withstand your scrutiny by making such a statement? Not too good. You’d grill him.

Most likely we’d distribute that cost over several classes, but again, let’s just use your numbers. With 31 students, we would have a class of 16 and a class of 15. Fixed cost for the teachers is now $100,000. Now the cost per student for this example is $3225 for both classes combined, or $3125 for class 1 and $3334 for class 2. These costs are nowhere near the $12,500 you referenced, and are also less than the approx. $4500 per student received from the state. Now, as students are added, no additional teachers are added until the class size gets to a certain point. The cost per student for that classroom diminishes with each additional student, not increases as you said here “Jim, you are only looking at the revenue of the student. The students have a cost too. In general the revenue from a student equal to the cost, so there is no gain or loss for the district. For instance, if you add a few students the state gives more money, but you also have to pay for more teachers, supplies, etc. It is a breakeveven”. OK, let’s test this theory. Add one student to class 2 (above), and SDPC receives $4500. Did cost go up by $4500? No. OK, now add two students. That’s $9000. Still no increase in cost. Yet SDPC just received an extra $9000. That curve will continue (and the cost per student will decline) until the threshold is met that requires an additional teacher.
There are other examples, but we’ll save those for later.

Alex Saitta:
Alicia I see it a bit differently. The purpose of the school board is to educate students, so they'll get good jobs and be able to put a roof over their heads and not be homeless. But right now our schools don't have the money to serve students like we did 3 years ago. Did you know classroom supplies have been cut 50%? Did you know that 25% of our students don't read at grade level and we don't have enough money for the reading teachers for them? What should the school board do when we have a building for sale? My feeling is we should get as much as we can for it, and use that money to educate students. This other buyer will lead to more revenue for the school district which will help us educate more students in the long run, and help avoid the problem (homelessness) that you are so passionate about. Dear Alex, in response to the above: Yes I'm aware of the goal/purpose of education, I have one, received it in Pickens County.

And am also aware of budget cuts, as I have two children in Pickens County schools...also know some good teachers/faculty lost their jobs past couple of years due to impact of these budget cuts. And it is unfortunate, and we (me&my family) kept them in our thoughts & prayers.You asked: "Did you know that 25% of our students don't read at grade level and we don't have enough money for the reading teachers for them?" No I didn’t know that...
Did you know back ten years ago or so all the teachers were ‘reading teachers’ (as they could all read), and gave more of their time for less pay? They stayed after to help students because they were dedicated to the success of each student. And I’m not implying teachers now aren’t equally dedicated, or are paid too much...I have two children in Pickens County schools, and I have nothing but respect & appreciation for every teacher they were blessed to have.

If no money to pay ‘reading teachers’ present, and concerned with future revenue etc.,
wouldn’t it benefit the children you’re “so passionate about” educating & who you claim to be top priority, to have other options/opportunities outside of school when needed?
Perhaps tutoring program, help with homework &other services SHINE mentioned to be provided..?!
And education does not realistically render you invincible against homelessness. You seem to have the opinion that only un-educated people can end up homeless...
There are educated people out there struggling too, or that have lost everything due to circumstances which bearing no relation to a diploma, degree or any level of education!

I mean really, you come across in a condescending manner that insults my intelligence yet I’m pretty sure I am not the one who ‘doesn’t get it’. Again, (and I am proud to say) your feelings & my feelings are very different with this issue (along w/many more I’d imagine). And for the record, my passion is for people, not ‘homelessness’ or a ‘cause’. I simply believe when given the chance to make a positive impact to someone’s life, and certainly an entire community, (that includes the children who attend schools in Pickens County) that you should do it...every time. You don’t have to agree, but you won’t convince me I’m wrong.