Boundaries with MS-North

[gatordog]

rew said:

What I would say is the SBs definition of "no addtl costs" may not reflect the true cost of a different site to the community. If your kid passes your nearest school to go to another one...that is a cost, a cost to you and your family.

It doesn't show up on the SD balance sheet, but it's real, and the community needs to think very seriously about that "cost" when considering the alternatives.

Addt'l monies to build at BB eventually go away. They are real as well, but they go away. Other sites have costs that may be lasting and may worsen over time.

The SB needs to recognize all the costs to the community as it proceeds.

Good points, rew. Time for some back of the envelope figuring:

From new Oswego HS bldg construction notes posted some months ago, I recall their bldg cost est for 3000 seat HS was $105. I believe this was 2006.(same time frame as our referendum) Assume 5% const cost incr, then 2008 price would be about $115 mil.

For BB land, cost is $31 mil.

Then Tot Cost = $146 mil

Available funds are $125 mil from ref. Also $17 mil from various land-cash, int, etc (per MM in paper as I recall), which I will assume is all available.

Avail funds = $142 mil.

Thus, shortfall ~$4 mil

Very approx of course. I wonder if the starting point for price est was more of a "boxy Oswego East style" constr, not the "multiple wing" MV artists concepts. You might add a couple more million for the archetectural flair.

Are we then talking about shortfall for BB of ~$5-6 million ?

[warriorpride]

doctorwho said:

warriorpride said:

is this relevant?

no , except in the sense you are saying people just want to get the 3rd HS and 7th MS open because of the overcrowding - regardless of site -- well that didn't appear to be true there then, what's changed ?

One can't have that argument both ways - now areas that voted no 'just want the school built to relieve overcrowding' where before they were no voters
- that said, I agree with GM in that the school is for everyone regardless of how anyone voted, IIRC no kids voted, only parents and other adults.

Nothing's changed - I am not aware of anyone not wanting the school to be built ASAP, are you?

[rew]

WP - I have emailed the SB as well and in regards to BB, only get the vague responses as in the paper, (except on steroids) "we cannot build on BB without a pool , all outdoor athletic facilities and minus 500 seats" (the shortfall has mushroomed exponentially)
I'm sure their laundry list will grow and soon include no washrooms or doors and windows.

And when I have emailed my concerns about the northern site they have been met, not with answers, but with admonishments that any concerns are really veiled "I don't want to go to WVHS" sentiments. It has been quite frustrating for me.

[rew]

Wp, if the SB has responded to your boundary questions I would really love to hear. What are their answers?

[gatordog]

rew said:

(the shortfall has mushroomed exponentially)....

Not to take you literally on the shortfall mushrooming ....but let me throw out another estimate:

A quick work backwards....assume we budgeted in 2006 $15 mil for land originally, which implies we thought bldg was going to cost $110.

Then 2008 cost est would be ~$121 mil. (maybe worst case...since presumably a little padding in the budget)

Then shortfall with BB is (121+31)-142 = $10 mil.

Concl: Shortfall in range of $4-$10 mil. Maybe its a number in middle here. Best guestimate you can get from me.

[warriorpride]

rew said:

WP - I have emailed the SB as well and in regards to BB, only get the vague responses as in the paper, (except on steroids) "we cannot build on BB wihtout a pool , all outdoor athletic facilities and minus 500 seats" (the shortfall has mushroomed exponentially)
I'm sure their laundry list will grow and soon include no washrroms or doors and windows.

And when I have emailed my concerns about the northern site they has been met, not with answers, but with admonishments that any concerns are really veiled "I don't want to go to WVHS" sentimients. It has been quite frustrating for me.

Many accused the SB of hanging hopes onto BB way too long. Does anyone not think that they would have built on BB if at all possible?

I think that the SB is right, in some cases - but probably not all

[warriorpride]

rew said:

Wp, if the SB has responded to your boundary questions I would really love to hear. What are their answers?

2 members replied - It was basically an acknowlegement of my sentiments.

[doctorwho]

rew said:

WP - I have emailed the SB as well and in regards to BB, only get the vague responses as in the paper, (except on steroids) "we cannot build on BB without a pool , all outdoor athletic facilities and minus 500 seats" (the shortfall has mushroomed exponentially)
I'm sure their laundry list will grow and soon include no washrooms or doors and windows.

And when I have emailed my concerns about the northern site they have been met, not with answers, but with admonishments that any concerns are really veiled "I don't want to go to WVHS" sentiments. It has been quite frustrating for me.

I guess I'd say I would be surprised by the last part of the response. The first part is true - I am sure we don't have the money today to build on BB - the delays have driven up the cost of the building itself ( regardless of where built )- as well as the higher cost for the land. There was a buffer built into the ref. for land cost going up - but it also was based on the fact we would be builing already. I truly believe that if there was any way we could build on BB, it would be being done right now -- just my opinion.

As for the second part of the response I would hope you would address it back and state your points - now I agree that there are a small number of people in the area that the sentiment likely fits - ( there are plenty of 'camps' in the district - but if you feel differently - state your case back with facts ) -
For my area this would not be true because we prefer WV -

[doctorwho]

warriorpride said:

doctorwho said:

no , except in the sense you are saying people just want to get the 3rd HS and 7th MS open because of the overcrowding - regardless of site -- well that didn't appear to be true there then, what's changed ?

One can't have that argument both ways - now areas that voted no 'just want the school built to relieve overcrowding' where before they were no voters
- that said, I agree with GM in that the school is for everyone regardless of how anyone voted, IIRC no kids voted, only parents and other adults.

Nothing's changed - I am not aware of anyone not wanting the school to be built ASAP, are you?

What's changed is if an area voted no - they voted no for the HS period - if now someone wants it built ASAP to relieve the overcrowding - that is not a change in stance ?

Of course no one wants to wait untold time - but just like when I built my house, I wanted it built ASAP, but not at the cost of putting it somewhere that did not work.

[doctorwho]

warriorpride said:

gatormom said:

What does that mean? Should the high school should be built only to benefit the areas who voted for it? I just don't understand that. I thought Metea was for the benefit of the entire district, whether one voted yes for the referendum or not. After all, whether you voted yes or not, you are still paying the taxes on it.

Here's way-out-there comparison: suppose you didn't vote for President Bush, but he pushed through a tax cut. Do only the people that voted for Bush get the tax cut?

Sorry, but I am not interested in hearing what areas "deserve" or don't "deserve" the site or boundaries to be more or less benefitial than any other area based on how an area voted for the last Ref, or what they've "gone though" in the past. All areas have "gone through" the growing pains of 204 in variuos ways. And the there are people in all corners of the SD that HAVE and HAVE NOT supported past referendums.

That is your opinion and I respect it -- my opinion is NO area deserves to get the worst possible scenario either -- the longest commute in the district and opening a new school - that is my opinion and I think I am entitled to it after 20 years here also.

So my premise is really very simple - I agree that everyone cannot get the 'best' possible scenario - just doesn't work that way - but no one should get the worst either.

If a site can accomplish that - move forward. If it can't - then no, keep looking.

[warriorpride]

doctorwho said:

warriorpride said:

Nothing's changed - I am not aware of anyone not wanting the school to be built ASAP, are you?

What's changed is if an area voted no - they voted no for the HS period - if now someone wants it built ASAP to relieve the overcrowding - that is not a change in stance ?

Of course no one wants to wait untold time - but just like when I built my house, I wanted it built ASAP, but not at the cost of putting it somewhere that did not work.

I am not claiming to speak for any specific area - doesn't pretty much everyone want the darn school built & opened soon?

[warriorpride]

doctorwho said:

warriorpride said:

Here's way-out-there comparison: suppose you didn't vote for President Bush, but he pushed through a tax cut. Do only the people that voted for Bush get the tax cut?

Sorry, but I am not interested in hearing what areas "deserve" or don't "deserve" the site or boundaries to be more or less benefitial than any other area based on how an area voted for the last Ref, or what they've "gone though" in the past. All areas have "gone through" the growing pains of 204 in variuos ways. And the there are people in all corners of the SD that HAVE and HAVE NOT supported past referendums.

That is your opinion and I respect it -- my opinion is NO area deserves to get the worst possible scenario either -- the longest commute in the district and opening a new school - that is my opinion and I think I am entitled to it after 20 years here also.

I agree that everyone cannot get the 'best' possible scenario - just doesn't work that way - but no one should get the worst either.

I think (just a guess) that they thought they were getting the 'worst' deal with BB and the selected boundaries. So, maybe there's always going to be an area that will feel that way.

[casey]

warriorpride said:

I am not claiming to speak for any specific area - doesn't pretty much everyone want the darn school built & opened soon?

Of course everyone wants the darn school built and opened soon but not at the wrong location. We only get one chance to get it right and choosing the wrong one will have permanent implications.

I'm still hoping that when everything is said and done the SB goes back to the public with choices: Here's what it costs at BB, here's what it costs at Macom, here's what it costs at AME, etc. Lay out the pros/cons - walk away costs, legal costs, environmental issues (train tracks, power lines, etc.), traffic issues, etc. Let the public share their input. Do people still want BB at a higher cost/lesser amenities, etc.? Do people think it makes sense to save $ on land going north but adding "other costs". How does Macom play into the picture - cost, timing, etc. Let us have a voice!

IMO, I think the SB should be recognizing that 2009 isn't possible. Sure there are those that believe a school can be built in 18 months but at what cost? We can't afford to pay any extra $$$ to expedite the building schedule. Focus on 2010 and put the money into getting it right. It's crowded in the district all right but we've made do. Don't spend the extra money forcing us to have a barely finished school at a higher cost. It makes no sense.

[doctorwho]

warriorpride said:

doctorwho said:

That is your opinion and I respect it -- my opinion is NO area deserves to get the worst possible scenario either -- the longest commute in the district and opening a new school - that is my opinion and I think I am entitled to it after 20 years here also.

I agree that everyone cannot get the 'best' possible scenario - just doesn't work that way - but no one should get the worst either.

I think (just a guess) that they thought they were getting the 'worst' deal with BB and the selected boundaries. So, maybe there's always going to be an area that will feel that way.

they were keeping the deal they already had since inception - and they did not have to commute to the furthest school - so the facts did not support that. There needs to be an objective way of looking at the case scenario - but I hear what you're saying.

[yeson321]

casey said:

warriorpride said:

I am not claiming to speak for any specific area - doesn't pretty much everyone want the darn school built & opened soon?

Of course everyone wants the darn school built and opened soon but not at the wrong location. We only get one chance to get it right and choosing the wrong one will have permanent implications.

I'm still hoping that when everything is said and done the SB goes back to the public with choices: Here's what it costs at BB, here's what it costs at Macom, here's what it costs at AME, etc. Lay out the pros/cons - walk away costs, legal costs, environmental issues (train tracks, power lines, etc.), traffic issues, etc. Let the public share their input. Do people still want BB at a higher cost/lesser amenities, etc.? Do people think it makes sense to save $ on land going north but adding "other costs". How does Macom play into the picture - cost, timing, etc. Let us have a voice!

IMO, I think the SB should be recognizing that 2009 isn't possible. Sure there are those that believe a school can be built in 18 months but at what cost? We can't afford to pay any extra $$$ to expedite the building schedule. Focus on 2010 and put the money into getting it right. It's crowded in the district all right but we've made do. Don't spend the extra money forcing us to have a barely finished school at a higher cost. It makes no sense.

I totally agree!! I don't want the school built ASAP, I want the school built in the best location. If it happens to be built in 2009 then great, if not, it is worth the wait.