Sale of high school evolves

Published 12:00 am Monday, March 25, 2002

The terms of the deal that transferred ownership of the old Central High School in Albert Lea from the school district to a private developer have provoked comment from some residents.

Monday, March 25, 2002

The terms of the deal that transferred ownership of the old Central High School in Albert Lea from the school district to a private developer have provoked comment from some residents.

Email newsletter signup

Questions have been raised both about the $1 asking price and the reason for seeking out a single buyer, even if that meant turning down cash offers from people interested in buying portions of the building.

The path of decisions that led to the deal evolved over the three years the building was actually listed as &uot;for sale,&uot; according to David Prescott, district superintendent. As soon as voters said &uot;yes&uot; to a new high school for Albert Lea, school district officials started figuring out how to dispose of the now &uot;old&uot; Central High School.

Originally, the plan had been to keep district offices, storage and some other district programs in the east end of the building. So when the building was originally advertised, only the western portion was put up for sale.

During that time the district worked with a developer who was interested in possibly converting the building into residences. The district also received at least one offer in writing from Arrow Printing. Arrow was willing to purchase the shop portion of the building for $60,000, according to Dean Christianson, co-owner of the company. But they were not interested in purchasing more than the shop area, however, because of the asbestos, he said.

The district’s position on wanting someone to take over the whole building made it difficult to cut a deal, said Christianson. Now that they own the building they used to lease, they don’t have much interest in the site, he added.

The district also heard verbally from a number of people interested in purchasing just the theater or other parts of the building to use for storage, Prescott said. The city and county also looked at possible uses for portions of the structure.

The deal with the developer looked promising initially, but it fell through because no contractors were available to take on the project, said Prescott.

When the district had to make the budget cuts that led to the end of classes at Brookside, the board ended up moving its offices and the other programs to Brookside and try selling the whole high school building. In May of 2000, Sealed Bid Marketing was hired to search for a developer who would make good use of the whole building, said Prescott. That led to the deal with Ed Rymer, the developer who now owns the building,

&uot;Selling one piece of the building could have negatively impacted the ability to sell the rest,&uot; he said. And the district was not interested in making itself the &uot;developer&uot; of the property. Potential conflicts between different types of zoning for different businesses who would all be in the same building also led district officials to be cautious about selling the building off piecemeal.

An additional complication was that the heating, electrical and plumbing in the building are integrated, something that would have to be dealt with by whomever was developing the property for commercial and/or residential use.

The district was also more interested in finding the right person instead of just getting money out of the property. They looked for a person with experience with this type of project, Prescott said.

&uot;We hope something works out with those who originally contacted us, but obviously that’s up to Rymer now,&uot; he added.

The deal with Rymer allows the district to save on demolition costs, estimated at a couple of million dollars. While the district is still responsible for up to $200,000 of the costs for asbestos abatement in the building, the deal also frees up $400,000 of the money from the referendum to use for other projects in the district. Since the funds came from the construction referendum, however, they cannot be used for programs or salaries.