|
|
Post by rew on Jun 26, 2008 20:25:32 GMT -6
I am not understanding the under/over $$$? The total for the school was $147M...on the land rec documents, that included furnishings and land and expedite...
So now the school is $102M budgeted and $42M for land and furnishings??? Does anyone have that cost sheet anymore?
Did the district ever update that cost sheet to reflect the increased AME land expense??
I just want to be current on the numbers.
|
|
|
|
Post by sluggo on Jun 26, 2008 20:37:35 GMT -6
Good question Rew.
I don't understand that either and would like to see the numbers broken out.
Honestly, I don't believe the school can/nor will be built by 2009 for the $146... million the district quoted to taxpayers, do you?
Does anyone really believe that Metea Valley will be done in time to accept students in the fall of 2009?
I don't.
|
|
|
|
Post by rew on Jun 26, 2008 20:40:34 GMT -6
Ok, so I found the paper from January...Land Report to Scxhool Board
Inbox $146,240,000
Outbox
Turner estimate $126,301,400
Land $18,900,000 changed to reflect AME price
Legal fees $ 5,000,000 on original report as a cost
Total est construction cost $150,201,400
I don't see a budget surplus here
Originally the SD added monies from the sale of the BB land
Total est cost $150,201,400
BB Land Sale $6,437,000
New total $143,764,400
with the land sale shows a $2,476,000 surplus.
Where are the articles numbers coming from??
|
|
|
|
Post by rew on Jun 26, 2008 20:48:20 GMT -6
The original bond issue was for $124,660,000
And that included $14M minimum for the BB land,
that would leave $110,660 for the school. But now we're being told that the construction est is $102M. OK maybe $5M was inflation, extra money for BB etc.
Where did the $126M construction est on the land report come from???
|
|
|
|
Post by entitled on Jun 26, 2008 21:11:15 GMT -6
What are the odds of the district being able to deliver this high school in the fall of 2009? Really? I say NO WAY! It already seems like the bids are all over the map for 2009 completion. For a total cost of $146.? million there is NO WAY the school will open in 2009. If it does open in 2009 I'd be worried about sending my child there because of the rushed construction. Isn't that why some are unwilling to bid on the project? Quality of construction will certainly be questionable. We have opened ourselves up to haste having the potential to make a whole lot of waste. Wonder if that is why Strang changed jobs? Perhaps he did not want this headache. Wonder how successful his replacement will be keeping this job on schedule??? In recent years, we have had lots of rain in August. Great for grass, not so good for construction. I appreciate progressive ideas although I haven't liked the Dash's take on community relations. But rushing construction of a 150 million dollar project is just plain dumb. I hope you prospective SB candidates won't just rubber stamp his contract. Dump the Dash. Steve, please leave. Get Metzger a new puppet. |
|
|
|
Post by lorip on Jun 26, 2008 21:24:04 GMT -6
I am totally confused by this article. On one hand they are saying that they are saving 4 million. On the other hand, they are saying that the electrical bid is 50% higher (or 4 million). So where is the savings?  ?? Also, are these companies doing the work being pushed to the max to get the job done? Will the work they do be quality or just coming in at deadline??? The project is currently under budget by $4M including the electrical bid. Even with the other 18 bids, the project is estimated to be under budget by $4M. Those 18 bids have been opened, but have not been presented to the board for approval yet. Those will be presented when it is appropriate (time-wise/closer to the date the work is needed) to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by lorip on Jun 26, 2008 21:28:29 GMT -6
Do we really believe that the building will be ready essentially one year from now? And, if it is ready, what condition will it be in? IMO it's a giant red flag that only two electrical contractors would even bid on it because of the rushed timing. In this economy, you would think contractors would be falling over themselves to get the job. What I think you may not understand is that because of the size of the project, there are actually very few bonded elec. contractors who are able to bid the job. That's why they were potentially looking at multiple contractors to bid different phases of the work. I believe that was ruled out due to the complex logistics and the increased chance of falling behind schedule. This is exactly how it was explained at the SB meeting. Also, they looked at splitting this electrical bid up into more contractors, but the work overlaps in some cases and were ending up paying more by having multiple contractors working on similar jobs. It was more cost efficient to have one contractor do all of the work, as it turns out. |
|
|
|
Post by lorip on Jun 26, 2008 21:36:56 GMT -6
I heard Daeschner state back in late January that is a going to be very hard to commit to a 2009 opening.He, when pressed, would not write in stone a 2009 delivery date. He definitely waffled when pressed on the date. He backed off the 2009 date IN JANUARY when pressed by a resident if that was realistic. Now, he has a budget of $146 million to deliver the school in 2009. What caused his shift in optimism? Was he being realistic to one audience and motivating another? One wonders why he is so confident considering the bizarre bids that are coming in related to construction. I don't think he can deliver. What happens in the district if Metea in 2009 doesn't open? Yet another BS promise, or will it be the typical "don't blame the board" defense we've heard too often? 2009 is a stretch (according to our super when questioned). When pressed on a 2009 opening Dr. Daeschner said in January of 08 it "will be really difficult, but might happen". He waffled more than an Eggo when pressed. It was telling. Was anyone else at this meeting?But then again, what does he care? When is his contract up? I would like to see the details surrounding his contract. When did you hear him say this? In all the meetings I've attended, he's always insisted that a 2009 date would happen. The only thing he has ever mentioned that might prevent this is weather, which certainly hasn't been in the district's favor lately. Any "waffling" on the issue of a 2009 opening related to legal proceddings that might have halted that time line. Even when this was happening, he was very confident in this 2009 date. He still is. As for the "bizarre bids", with the exception of this one electrical bid, the district and board has been pleased with the bids and being $4M under budget is something hey are all happy about. You asked if anyone else was at this meeting? Again, what meeting are you referring to? Were you there? |
|
|
|
Post by lorip on Jun 26, 2008 21:40:51 GMT -6
In response to the original post, Turner is being asked to answer some of these questions. John Stephens really did his homework and had a lot of pointed questiond for Todd DePaul and ultimately Turner. So did M2, for that matter. He thought it was a HUGE miss and I certainly agree. This is what we pay Turner to do and I do think they dropped the ball. I expect Turner to be called on the carpet and at least put on notice that this was unacceptable. I expect JS to lead the charge on this one from hearing him at the last meeting.
|
|
|
|
Post by lorip on Jun 26, 2008 21:53:20 GMT -6
What are the odds of the district being able to deliver this high school in the fall of 2009? Really? I say NO WAY! It already seems like the bids are all over the map for 2009 completion. For a total cost of $146.? million there is NO WAY the school will open in 2009. If it does open in 2009 I'd be worried about sending my child there because of the rushed construction. Isn't that why some are unwilling to bid on the project? Quality of construction will certainly be questionable. We have opened ourselves up to haste having the potential to make a whole lot of waste. Wonder if that is why Strang changed jobs? Perhaps he did not want this headache. Wonder how successful his replacement will be keeping this job on schedule???In recent years, we have had lots of rain in August. Great for grass, not so good for construction. I appreciate progressive ideas although I haven't liked the Dash's take on community relations. But rushing construction of a 150 million dollar project is just plain dumb. I hope you prospective SB candidates won't just rubber stamp his contract. Dump the Dash. Steve, please leave. Get Metzger a new puppet. Todd DePaul is in charge of this project, not Jay Strang. Jay was in charge of building operations - of existing buildings. Jay replaced Kathy Duncan and is in charge of Curriculum Development. Given that he's been an educator for a number of years and more recently a principal before taking on Building Operations, this might just be a good career move for him. |
|
|
|
Post by entitled on Jun 26, 2008 22:30:48 GMT -6
In response to the original post, Turner is being asked to answer some of these questions. John Stephens really did his homework and had a lot of pointed questiond for Todd DePaul and ultimately Turner. So did M2, for that matter. He thought it was a HUGE miss and I certainly agree. This is what we pay Turner to do and I do think they dropped the ball. I expect Turner to be called on the carpet and at least put on notice that this was unacceptable. I expect JS to lead the charge on this one from hearing him at the last meeting. JS? You are kidding, right. |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Jun 27, 2008 4:46:15 GMT -6
The article stated that the HS construction budget is $101.6M.
The SD put out a land report in January that est const cost at $123M.
What are the REAL numbers? What is the real budget?
We just spent $19M for the land, the BB land offer was $14M. If the bids are running $4M under the proposed amount isn't that already eaten up by the increase in the land cost?
|
|
|
|
Post by rew on Jun 27, 2008 13:55:10 GMT -6
Sorry to be a pest but I will ask again...does anyone know where the $123M construction cost on the land report versus the current $101.7M came from?
|
|
|
|
Post by specailneedsmom on Jun 27, 2008 14:17:10 GMT -6
I think that as with any construction project, smaller scale or larger scale (and especially larger scale), numbers are moving targets and there will be many "changes" along the way. That is to be expected. What we can hope to expect in return is for the SB and Admin. in charge to do due dilligence and act fiscally responsible with our tax dollars. The true day of reckoning will be when a new referendum is needed and that is when accountability with our educational tax dollars will come into question. Until then we can only hope that those we have put in the position to manage our educational tax dollars are doing just that.
|
|
|
|
Post by rew on Jun 27, 2008 15:39:33 GMT -6
My question goes a little deeper...the numbers in January were used to show why BB land was not affordable. Also to come up with a "new grand total" for the project of $147M as oppose to $124M.
I do not like the idea of using numbers to fit agendas. Numbers will go up and down, but if the SB is going to call Turner in over a $4M overage than I certainly think we can question a $20M oversetimate.
Again, is there an explanation or is the SD/SB making numbers up as needed to fit their desires?
|
|
??