|
|
Post by rew on Feb 7, 2008 14:02:43 GMT -6
The SD says a 2009 opening is likely. The building will open in phases. If construction begins, as scheduled, in April, that is 17 months to the beginnng the 09 school year.
Do you believe them?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 7, 2008 14:08:23 GMT -6
I say unlikely
|
|
|
|
Post by oldmanpotter on Feb 7, 2008 14:10:02 GMT -6
The SB has a bridge in Brooklyn to sell us too.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Feb 7, 2008 14:11:38 GMT -6
The SD says a 2009 opening is likely. The building will open in phases. If construction begins, as scehuled, in April, that is 17 months to the beginnng the 09 school year. Do you believe them? Spending quite the sum of money to try and make this happen - I think they are hell bent on opening no matter what - and already have said some of the 'big boxes' will not be done until January (est.) - Wonder how the contract will read with the contractor - I know on some construction projects the 'bonus's are only paid if the targets are met - any construction delays, weather issues - EPA type delays will likely throw it off schedule - but I do think they will try everything and anything , to open something in 2009 |
|
|
|
Post by WeBe204 on Feb 7, 2008 14:34:08 GMT -6
There are always many different ways to define complete. As the doctor mentioned, the bar has been lowered to mandatory components only to be delivered. IMO an unforeseen situation will arise outside the control of the district. The timeline is extremely tight and there are still too many undefined variables in the system. Under normal circumstances this would be an acceptable result. I think most people have experienced the reality of building and how small problems can turn into big delays. I will find the POTENTIAL delay unacceptable because the 2009 delivery date was used as one of the primary reasons for the site selection. but of course it won't really matter at that point  |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Feb 7, 2008 14:36:43 GMT -6
B204, I agree that the 2009 opening was a key component of the site selection.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 7, 2008 14:40:02 GMT -6
We could always buy one that is closer to completion from a neighboring district.  |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Feb 7, 2008 14:48:54 GMT -6
IMO, I think the 09 opening and the on budget goals are at odds. You could probably build a building within a tight time constraint, if you were willing to spend any amount to accomplish that. Otherwise, the budget constraints probably limit how much you can push the timeline...in addition to all the uncontrolled variables, weather etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by casey on Feb 7, 2008 14:49:44 GMT -6
As Dr. Who points out, MV kids in 2009 would be without a gym, auditorium, pool, etc. for much if not all of their sophomore year. They won't have varsity sports, music and theater programs won't be established, clubs will be inexperienced, they split from many of their HS friends, longer commutes for some, etc.. IMO, these kids get ripped off and I think it will be even harder on them since they had a freshman year with all the amenities. We go through all this plus spend an extra $10M just to get something open? I just fail to see the logic.
|
|
|
|
Post by WeBe204 on Feb 7, 2008 14:59:52 GMT -6
IMO, I think the 09 opening and the on budget goals are at odds. You could probably build a building within a tight time constraint, if you were willing to spend any amount to accomplish that. Otherwise, the budget constraints probably limit how much you can push the timeline...in addition to all the uncontrolled variables, weather etc. That is a good point. Typically, we talk about pulling three levers time, money, and quality. Time is fixed. Money is fixed. Therefore quality will have to shift. And in this sense I mean features, I am just going to assume the actual construction quality will be monitored and checked. I think administration will monkey with the features to meet the budget. Within reason. Then the time lever is gonna move. I think the last lever to be pulled will be the money lever. Although, as stated before BB could toss that whole program out of wack. But I think that will be seen as an unfortunate situation that was out of the administrations control. Net, Net IMO say it will probably be somewhere near to budget with the BB caveat. |
|
|
|
Post by jwh on Feb 7, 2008 15:06:12 GMT -6
They'll close in a few weeks, break ground shortly after that, and be on track.
|
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Feb 7, 2008 15:07:42 GMT -6
As Dr. Who points out, MV kids in 2009 would be without a gym, auditorium, pool, etc. for much if not all of their sophomore year. They won't have varsity sports, music and theater programs won't be established, clubs will be inexperienced, they split from many of their HS friends, longer commutes for some, etc.. IMO, these kids get ripped off and I think it will be even harder on them since they had a freshman year with all the amenities. We go through all this plus spend an extra $10M just to get something open? I just fail to see the logic. I believe that the cost was 4.5M to get an 09 opening. And pretty much everything that you state was going to be the case for the sophmores that opened MV, no matter where MV is built & what the boundaries are. |
|
|
|
Post by WeBe204 on Feb 7, 2008 15:10:27 GMT -6
As Dr. Who points out, MV kids in 2009 would be without a gym, auditorium, pool, etc. for much if not all of their sophomore year. They won't have varsity sports, music and theater programs won't be established, clubs will be inexperienced, they split from many of their HS friends, longer commutes for some, etc.. IMO, these kids get ripped off and I think it will be even harder on them since they had a freshman year with all the amenities. We go through all this plus spend an extra $10M just to get something open? I just fail to see the logic. I believe that the cost was 4.5M to get an 09 opening. And pretty much everything that you state was going to be the case for the sophmores that opened MV, no matter where MV is built & what the boundaries are. That is correct 4.5 million was the recent quote. I believe it was mentioned to be 10M to get the BB Metea built by 2009. |
|
|
|
Post by momof156graders on Feb 7, 2008 15:13:43 GMT -6
Can someone tell me if there is any truth to something I heard......? Is it true that the school board received certain monies to finance the new school that are dependant on the doors being open for attendance for the 2009-2010 school year? The gym, auditorium, pool etc could remain undone, but the doors being open for attendance would be required to receive certain financing? Is there truth to that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 7, 2008 15:15:06 GMT -6
I believe that the cost was 4.5M to get an 09 opening. And pretty much everything that you state was going to be the case for the sophmores that opened MV, no matter where MV is built & what the boundaries are. That is correct 4.5 million was the recent quote. I believe it was mentioned to be 10M to get the BB Metea built by 2009. Out of curiosity, does anyone know specifically why there is a 5.5 million dollar difference on the 'rush job' ? |
|
