| Welcome to Livonianeighbors.com. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. To ensure your privacy, never use personal information in your screen name or email address ("janedoe@hotmail.com" or "Billysmom" for example). Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Soccer Complex at Cooper; Livonia Observer | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 22 2009, 11:10 AM (10,429 Views) | |
| Deleted User | Jul 22 2009, 11:10 AM Post #1 |
|
Deleted User
|
New soccer complex eyed for old Livonia school site By Karen Smith • Observer Staff Writer • July 22, 2009 Acting on its “last best chance” to use state grant money to develop part of the old Cooper school site into something positive, the Livonia school board directed Supt. Randy Liepa on Monday to continue negotiations with a company that wants to lease the property for a $2.8 million soccer complex. Under the terms of a cooperative agreement, Oakland County-based Breeze Management would lease about half of the 40-acre site for 30 years, paying the school district about $2 million over that time period. The complex would include four outdoor soccer fields, a couple of training fields and a dome for indoor soccer. The school district would use the remaining $800,000 from a Michigan Department of Environmental Quality grant and about $1 million from the district’s sinking fund to improve the property, a former landfill. Those improvements would include grading the property, capping the landfill, planting grass, building a retention pond for drainage, installing an irrigation system and adding a parking lot and lights, Liepa said. The company would provide the dome, maintain the property and operate the facility. The school district would be able to use the facilities at no charge. Trustee Patrice Mang said she is concerned about using sinking fund money for the project and then asking voters to renew the sinking fund in the near future. “It’s a huge investment up front,” she said. Other board members had questions about the agreement they want Liepa to investigate, but agreed he should move forward with negotiations. Liepa said the clock is running out on the MDEQ grant. Calling it the district’s “last best chance to do something over there,” he said the district will lose the grant money if it doesn’t have a solid plan by Sept 30 when the grant expires. The school, built in the 1960s on a landfill, was closed and the property fenced off in 1991 because of contamination. The district has since torn down the building, using an initial portion of the MDEQ grant. A fence sits around the approximate 40-acre site located across from the new Cooper Upper Elementary School at 28550 Ann Arbor Trail in Westland. Over the years, three different developers have come up with three different plans for the site, Liepa said. Those plans have included a senior center and a larger soccer complex than the one currently proposed. Those plans fell through, primarily because of problems obtaining financing as the economy declined, Liepa said. He said the district has been working since about 1997 to find a “positive reuse” for the site. ksmith@hometownlife.com | (313) 222-2098 http://www.hometownlife.com/article/20090722/NEWS10/90722005/1027/New-soccer-complex-eyed-for-old-Livonia-school-site |
|
|
| Whatever | Jul 22 2009, 12:24 PM Post #2 |
![]()
Veteran
|
Why does this district always make important decisions at the 11th hour? We have to do this now or else! |
![]() |
|
| Ms. AK | Jul 22 2009, 02:32 PM Post #3 |
|
Veteran
|
The below comment is from the O/E site. I agree that $65-66,000 a year is not a good return on a cash investment of 1 mil--especially when the district is in the red (what is the deficit now--I can't tell anymore?). We should save not spend in this environment. And, how interested will they be to let us use their facility for "free," when they can get money from others? Maybe they'll allocate 3 am for our kids to practice. Too bad the contract won't be available online before it is approved. I don't really trust LPS to be so hot at business negotiations. I see a lot of contractors getting happy, though! http://www.hometownlife.com/article/20090722/NEWS10/90722005/1027/rss18/New-soccer-complex-eyed-for-old-Livonia-school-site livonia1 wrote: What!!!!!!!! Spend 1 Million of our childrens educational funds on a risky business venture? And what if it fails? Who eats the cost? What happens to the so-called "profit"? and why such a small return over 30 years? What does that add up to - about 65K a year? LPS won't be able to save one teacher from layoffs for that little profit. What if the contamination returns? Who is liable? What about the children in school across the street when you start moving & trucking around contaminated dirt? What kind of superintendant would think this is a good idea? Does he beleive that the taxpayers are that naiave? Just because you don't want to lose money that was never yours (that also belongs to the taxpayers - it comes from state environmental funds). Spend money on a risky business venture and then what?, turn around and ask taxpayers for millage increases and to approve bond sales putting us deeper in debt that we already are? Why don't you spend money on kids and not on boondoggles? |
|
Krome on Cars | |
![]() |
|
| Spanky | Jul 22 2009, 02:45 PM Post #4 |
|
Veteran
|
Well gee, Whatever, that's so the public doesn't have time to investigate or research Randy's plans to spend down the sinking fund $$. Now, someone please explain this to me in case I am reading it wrong, but do we have to spend $1,800,000 to sell it for $2,000,000? Doesn't this mean that, in the end, we are only making $200,000 on this property? The school district would use the remaining $800,000 from a Michigan Department of Environmental Quality grant and about $1 million from the district’s sinking fund to improve the property, a former landfill. Those improvements would include grading the property, capping the landfill, planting grass, building a retention pond for drainage, installing an irrigation system and adding a parking lot and lights, Liepa said. Why are WE responsible for all this stuff? I can see grading the property and capping the landfill, but the rest should be the resposibility of the company that wants to build the soccer complex since everything else has to do with soccer. Someone please explain how spending A LOT of money to make a little money is good??? |
![]() |
|
| Ms. AK | Jul 22 2009, 03:02 PM Post #5 |
|
Veteran
|
Right on there, Spanky. Some are moved by sentiments, such as "the clock is ticking"--which Mr. Liepa uses a lot. Cooper was a unique school set in the woods. Behind the former school is a beautiful and healthy Rouge River tributary and Hines Park. Many don't see stuff like "return on investment" or "risk." Edited by Ms. AK, Jul 22 2009, 08:07 PM.
|
|
Krome on Cars | |
![]() |
|
| IDK | Jul 22 2009, 03:38 PM Post #6 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Do we currently spend any money on the Cooper sight? Any maintenance costs? |
![]() |
|
| Whatever | Jul 22 2009, 04:27 PM Post #7 |
![]()
Veteran
|
Reminds of an another plan.......spend 10 million to save 1.5 million over 5 years. That one worked out really well......I aqree with the O & E poster. They shouldn't be spending $1 million from the sinking fund. Instead of leasing it, they should sell it!
Edited by Whatever, Jul 22 2009, 04:34 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Ms. AK | Jul 22 2009, 05:51 PM Post #8 |
|
Veteran
|
I'd say yes, but there are no financials online, detailing the cost of maintaining LPS properties. Edited by Ms. AK, Jul 22 2009, 06:54 PM.
|
|
Krome on Cars | |
![]() |
|
| Hopeful | Jul 22 2009, 09:01 PM Post #9 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Wouldn't the $1,000,000 from the sinking fund be better spent on improving the facilities that are currently used to educate our children? Wouldn't $1,000,000 cover the cost of adding air conditioning to all of our old buildings? "Those improvements would include grading the property, capping the landfill, planting grass, building a retention pond for drainage, installing an irrigation system and adding a parking lot and lights, Liepa said." This sounds like a LOT of money for these minor changes/upgrades to the property. After all these years of being paid consulting fees for development of this property, is this the best that the Kirksey consulting team could negotiate? |
![]() |
|
| LPS Reformer | Jul 22 2009, 09:17 PM Post #10 |
|
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
|
Depends on who is on the receiving end of all that money.
|
|
“Child Abuse” means different things to different people.... ----Randy Liepa 8/9/12 | |
![]() |
|
| Ms. AK | Jul 23 2009, 01:30 PM Post #11 |
|
Veteran
|
We need many more details. This appears to be more wasteful government spending with no clear results for the kids. If the kids are not benefiting from spending 1 mil in cash, who is? |
|
Krome on Cars | |
![]() |
|
| Ms. AK | Jul 23 2009, 05:00 PM Post #12 |
|
Veteran
|
Just for my own FYI: I inquired if the mayor was still a consultant on the Cooper property. I am told by his office that he is not. Is this the same soccer concern that was rumored to want the 96/Middlebelt former Wal-Mart? I hope the O/E does more than just report what the administration tells them on this one. I hope they will look into this more. Edited by Ms. AK, Jul 23 2009, 06:13 PM.
|
|
Krome on Cars | |
![]() |
|
| Momof4 | Jul 24 2009, 11:35 AM Post #13 |
|
Veteran
|
This deal is much better than the old Bryant property which, if I have been informed correctly, our geniuses on the BOE leased to St. Mary's Orthodox Church for 99 years at $1 per year. Now St. Mary's can collect fees for the soccer fields that LPS should be collecting. in the words of Lynda Scheel, "UNBELIEVABLE!" |
![]() |
|
| Lucas McGrail | Jul 24 2009, 02:56 PM Post #14 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Good afternoon everyone, Please see my comments to questions from some parties interested in this issue as well as a point by point response to the article that started this dialog. As always, feel free to email me with questions. 1. LPS is spend 1 mil of LPS' savings to recoup 2 mil in rent over 30 years for a soccer concern. If they pay rent yearly, that's a return of about $66,000/yr, if the soccer concern lasts that long. -- This seems like the soccer concern is getting too good of a deal. We spend the equivalent of 15 years rent upfront and hope that they last at least 15 years so we can get it back. That is a big leap of faith to take. 2. LPS' use of a state grant ($800,000) to "improve" a former (no longer toxic) landfill, which is to expire in Sept. -- I'm all for site remediation but 800 K doesn't go very far in site abatement. They are probably proposing to dig up the site to about negative 10 feet, dispose of the contaminated soil at a type 2 landfill and the place a geo-textile fabric over the entire site and then build this complex. Depending on the type of contamination and abatement practices, that money might go really fast and the project will still come up short. What happens then? The project will stall since there is no additional money for further abatement and the soccer concern will probably not spring for clean up since they are being told that Livonia will handle it. He might be getting Livonia into an environmental jamb that the LPS can't afford to bail us out off. Has their been an environmental report done of what type of contaminates are on site and a design of a containment plan? 3. LPS has a debt of 4 mil at this time, but the numbers seem to fluctuate. They are also planning to put a bond issue to the public next May to raise money for the sinking fund--which is very quickly being spent. Speculation is that a new school might be proposed, so the spending all of the savings makes things look more dire to the public. -- I believe what is going on is what goes on in the Pentagon. The five branches of the military are given a yearly budget and if they spend that money by the end of the year they get that same amount next year. If they don't spend it all, then their budget gets reset the following year to the new, lower amount which means the military loses money. but if they spend everything, then put in a request for additional funds and get it, then their budget goes up next year by how ever much they spent, plus the requested extra funds. So perhaps the reason he is spending it so fast and seemingly so blindly, is that he wants to say "oh look, we came up short this year. We need more money for these other projects. Oh, think of the children." then people will just figure that since its for the kids they should agree. Based on this information it does sound rather suspicious. Perhaps he has some logic to this strategy, but based on the information available, I don't see it. 4. What do you think of this? Is it good for the taxpayer? In this economy, does it make more sense to save money--than to take a risk like this? -- I think they are deliberately leaving out several aspects of this situation such as agreements that leave Livonia on the hook for environmental clean up and property management. I also think that it could be good for tax payers but not as it is spelled out now. It might make sense to save the money, but I will tell you this, usually it cost money to save money or make money. I think this could be a good reuse of property but at the same time I think that if it goes forward and THIS is the deal that gets worked out, Livonia is being short changed. New soccer complex eyed for old Livonia school site By Karen Smith • Observer Staff Writer • July 22, 2009 Acting on its “last best chance” to use state grant money to develop part of the old Cooper school site into something positive, the Livonia school board directed Supt. Randy Liepa on Monday to continue negotiations with a company that wants to lease the property for a $2.8 million soccer complex. Under the terms of a cooperative agreement, Oakland County-based Breeze Management would lease about half of the 40-acre site for 30 years, paying the school district about $2 million over that time period. The complex would include four outdoor soccer fields, a couple of training fields and a dome for indoor soccer. What happens to the other half of the property? Does it get abated and contained in some way? They don't say. That is a concern for health and safety. More over, its a poor design ... FOUR out door fields, TWO training fields and a indoor field. How much possible use could this thing get? Don't most schools in Livonia have athletic fields already for soccer? How about two soccer, one training, one for lacrosse and field hockey, one for indoor soccer or ice hockey? That could be more than a soccer facility, that would be a Sports COMPLEX. That is a solid idea. But what they are proposing sounds awfully redundant for Livonia not to mention it sounds like a white elephant. Why would all schools go to the soccer center when they have the ability to play and train at their schools and campuses? OR is this a way for colleges like Madonna and Schoolcraft to have access to them? Is this Breeze Management proposing to bring in a MLS team as well to occupy this facility? We don't know and until we as citizens are told more we should say no deal. The school district would use the remaining $800,000 from a Michigan Department of Environmental Quality grant and about $1 million from the district’s sinking fund to improve the property, a former landfill. Those improvements would include grading the property, capping the landfill, planting grass, building a retention pond for drainage, installing an irrigation system and adding a parking lot and lights, Liepa said. - This is a vague statement. Capping the landfill? What type of contamination are we talking about in the former landfill? If there are built up gases, how are they going to be relieved if the thing gets capped. Will the whole property be capped or just the half that is being used for this building. They talk about planting grass, big deal. The property should have grass now, if it doesn't already and if it does get redeveloped it should should get grass anyway. That's like say "I'm going to build you a house and guess what I am going to do for you... I am going to GIVE you a front door. Isn't that great?". Then he goes on to talk about the retention pond for drainage, irrigation for landscaping and parking lots and lights.... big deal. any redevelopment will have to have that anyway. He doesn't talk about the project itself OR how this is a financial boon to the city. I think the reason he doesn't, is because its not a good deal and he knows it. Why else would he mention the things that any project that was suggested for the property need in order to be built? He might as well have said 'this is a great project for Livonia. its going to have steel and block, it will have windows, heat, AC and electricity. Isn't it wonderful?' Based on that kind of misleading statement and boast, I would be very cautious. I think that the 800 K should be used for environmental items such as further clean up on the site but if it runs out and the site is not cleaned up to the standards agreed to by LPS and the soccer concern, who is responsible for the difference? Livonia? The company would provide the dome, maintain the property and operate the facility. The school district would be able to use the facilities at no charge. Trustee Patrice Mang said she is concerned about using sinking fund money for the project and then asking voters to renew the sinking fund in the near future. “It’s a huge investment up front,” she said. -- Oh, that's nice. The LPS would be able to use the facilities at no charge. After they shell out 800 K in environmental clean up and 1 million up front. For that kind of investment, we should not only get to use it but be equal or no less than 45% partners / owners in the property. To me it sounds like Livonia is taking all the risk and doing all the "heavy lifting" and the soccer concern reaps all the benefits. So what is Livonia's incentive to get on board with this? I don't see the advantage, especially not for a 5 soccer field building. However, if it was a soccer, lacrosse, field hockey, and ice hockey sport complex, and Livonia was a minority partner in the venture, then I could very easily get on board. But of course a sports-plex is not what we are talking about. Other board members had questions about the agreement they want Liepa to investigate, but agreed he should move forward with negotiations. - he should move forward with negotiations but not alone. I don't believe he has the requisite experience or knowledge about environmental impact and the related development or construction background to ask the right questions. That's why if I were on the city council I would be happy to sit in with him and act as a consigliare. Liepa said the clock is running out on the MDEQ grant. Calling it the district’s “last best chance to do something over there,” he said the district will lose the grant money if it doesn’t have a solid plan by Sept 30 when the grant expires. - This is probably true that they will lose the grant money, however, I have worked with the MDEQ and if LPS meets with now, within the next 2 weeks and explains what the situation is, that no matter what happens with this soccer project, that the LPS wants to use the money to do environmental abatement on a toxic landfill, the MDEQ will in all likelihood give them a time extension. I have seen it done, I have done it on one of my projects. The MDEQ would rather us keep the money to clean up the environment instead of taking it back and having a toxic site in Livonia. So the idea that we'll lose money is true from a certain point of view, its true, if we don't ask for at least a 3 month extension if not a 6 month extension. Spending this money in a frenzy is the WORST thing that LPS could do. Edited by Lucas McGrail, Jul 24 2009, 09:42 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Hopeful | Aug 4 2009, 11:43 PM Post #15 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Has the BOE voted on this? When do they have to make a decision? |
![]() |
|
| Ms. AK | Aug 13 2009, 08:37 PM Post #16 |
|
Veteran
|
In a city where many of our 50-year-old schools are in need of repair, Mr. Lessard suggests that old Cooper is an eyesore. Yes, it is. But do we need to spend 1.8 MILLION dollars of taxpayer money to cut the grass? Shouldn't we save this money to repair our schools? http://www.hometownlife.com/article/20090813/NEWS10/908130543/1027/NEWS10/Board+to+vote+on+soccer+complex Board to vote on soccer complex BY KAREN SMITH • OBSERVER STAFF WRITER • AUGUST 13, 2009 The Livonia school board will vote Monday on a controversial agreement to allow a company to lease the old Cooper School site for a soccer complex. Under the terms of the agreement, the school district would use $800,000 from a Michigan Department of Environmental Quality grant and about $1 million from the district's sinking fund to improve the property, a former landfill. The school district would grade the property, cap the landfill, erect a soccer dome provided by the company, plant grass, build a retention pond, install an irrigation system and add a parking lot and lights. Oakland County-based Breeze Management would lease about half of the 40-acre site for 35 years, paying the school district about $2 million over that time period. The company would manage the complex, which would include four outdoor soccer fields, a couple of training fields and a dome for indoor soccer. If the company defaults, the school district gets to keep the dome. If the agreement is approved, construction may begin in December or January, Supt. Randy Liepa said. Trustees Steve King and Patrice Mang said this week they are concerned about using sinking fund money. “There are a lot of (other) ways we can spend $1 million out of the sinking fund,” said King, who plans to vote no. The sinking fund is used to make repairs on school buildings. Mang, who hasn't decided how she will vote, is concerned voters won't renew the sinking fund millage, expected to be on the November ballot, if the district uses $1 million for a soccer complex. “I hope this doesn't bite us,” she said. King said he thinks the agreement is lopsided. “They have a huge advantage,” he said, adding that all Breeze is responsible for is “bringing an inflatable dome.” Trustee Dan Lessard said he expects to vote yes. “That place has been an eyesore for 15 years. We have an opportunity to do something about it.” The school, built in the 1960s, was closed in 1991 because of contamination. The district has since torn it down. A fence surrounds the site, located across from the new Cooper Upper Elementary School at 28550 Ann Arbor Trail. Over the years, different developers have come up with three plans for the site, Liepa said. Those plans have included a senior center and a larger soccer complex than the one now proposed. Those plans fell through, primarily because of the economy. The district will lose the grant money if it doesn't have a plan by Sept. 30, when the grant expires, Liepa said. Lessard said if the grant money goes away, “we're going to be stuck with that fence and weed pile forever. There's not a big market for contaminated property.” Liepa said the agreement will provide revenue to the district's general fund, which faces a $7.5 million deficit. Several terms in the agreement protect the district, Liepa said, including a limit on how much the district will spend to improve the property. “It's not an open blank check,” he said. ksmith@hometownlife.com | (313) 222-2098 I looked into who Breeze Management is. I believe the company was formed right before this big plan was introduced. Why are we investing 1.8 MILLION dollars with an Oakland-county "concern"? No Livonia company is available? Someone help me. Is the Sinking Fund allowed to be used for building a soccer complex? |
|
Krome on Cars | |
![]() |
|
| mmmmkay? | Aug 13 2009, 09:15 PM Post #17 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Not coincidental that the company was formed just to do business with the shady LPS administration. My guess would be "somebody knows somebody who has a friend who..." As for using the sinking fund to build a soccer complex... well, you know that they have already paid the lawyers hundreds of thousands of dollars to give them the right answers when questioned on the legalities of the deal. That's how LPS rolls.. and on your taxpayers dime folks! mmmmkay? |
![]() |
|
| Ms. AK | Aug 13 2009, 09:34 PM Post #18 |
|
Veteran
|
I need to say I could be wrong about Breeze Management and their operation start. |
|
Krome on Cars | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Aug 13 2009, 10:12 PM Post #19 |
|
Deleted User
|
I don't think so, state of Michigan records show that they began only as of late fall last year, probably about the same time randy & company began scheming to shove this deal thru. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Aug 13 2009, 10:16 PM Post #20 |
|
Deleted User
|
Remember this one? Randy leased part of Dickinson to a broadcast school. He never looked into the individuals background. LPS spent money to prepare for this lessee and ended up that the company was not viable. Legal fees, etc. and then we had to pay attorney's to evict them. He gave them key to the building before they checked them out. It shows a clear example of how LPS does business with outside so called "partners". Do we really need to end up in court and paying huge legal fees again to find out Randy made another mistake like this one? Will we be stuck with a still contaminated property that is mismanaged to the point that the so called "partner" bails out and goes defunct and we get stuck with what it currently is, a useless piece of land? |
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Livonia Neighbors Forum · Next Topic » |









![]](http://z6.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)