Central-office real estate: can you upgrade your headquarters without looking self-serving?

School Administrator, August, 2003 by Priscilla Pardini

At the time, the building was undervalued, according to Calhoun, and was considered a bargain. The move also allowed the district to consolidate all its administrators under one roof. Yet the public saw the 14-story tower with a green glass facade as an extravagance. "I guess administrators are supposed to be in crumbling old buildings," he says.

In truth, Calhoun knows that a district's administrative headquarters has to be modern, spacious and efficient enough so workers can do their jobs, yet at the same time must not be too impressive. "It's a tough balance," he says. "You must show that you've taken care of the schools first and that [a new building] is only going to enhance the services you provide the schools. You can't build a Taj Mahal for administrators while the schools are out there crumbling."

As it turns out, Broward County may not have gone far enough, at least when it comes to size. The district already has outgrown the former bank building, officially known as the Kathleen C. Wright Administration Complex. With student enrollment increasing by roughly 10,000 students a year throughout the 1990s, the need for administrative space grew as well. Now district administrators are housed at seven additional sites, including a second bank building.

In the 160,000-student Orange County Public Schools, on the other hand, decentralization and administrative cuts have reduced not only the size of the district's central administration, but also its cost. A state report issued last February found that Orange County had the lowest administrative costs per student of any district in Florida.

Still, Superintendent Ronald Blocker proposed last year that the district sell its nine-story Educational Leadership Center. The building, which includes a parking garage, big-screen television monitor in the auditorium and views of downtown Orlando, has come under fire over the years from parents and others who contend it is extravagant. They have said officials should be embarrassed to be working in such a nice building while some teachers and students work in portable trailers.

When the building was constructed, officials billed the project as cost effective, noting it was located on land already owned by the district and built at a cost of $93 per square foot, less than comparable new office buildings in the area.

Still, complaints continued to surface over the years. The building became an issue again last fall, even as taxpayers approved a referendum that will generate $2.1 billion for school construction and renovation over the next 13 years. "People told us, 'Get rid of that building and you won't have to raise taxes,'" says Jackie Johnson, the district's director of community relations. (The referendum calls for increasing the sales tax and rolling back property taxes.)

However, Blocker, who became superintendent in 2000, says district officials worked with a real estate expert who determined it did not make economic sense to sell the building and move to a smaller central office.