Temperature control in our elementary schools

[southsidemom]

As a taxpayer, I would think the SB would want to have something else to show for the delay in acquiring the land to build Metea.

If we use the interest that has been accumulating to put AC in the ES then build the high school without paying for expedited costs, open it in 2010 then it seems like a win/win for the entire district. Spending beaucoup dollars to rush Metea will look wasteful.

It's not taking anything from Metea and it seems more responsible to accomplish multple objectives with money voters have already approved.

[EagleDad]

As another taxpayer, I'd prefer they focus on building Metea, not showing off by wasting 15 million on A/C to make you happy.

I'd hope you'd agree that taking any monies from the funds designated by the taxpayers for building Metea to do anything else would be reprehensible. Time and time again you've called for the SB to listen to (serve) the taxpayers, now at the first chance to divert from what the taxpayers mandated (and yes, 60/40 is a mandate) you want them to change course without taxpayer voting? Sorry, it doesn't add up.

[warriorpride]

southsidemom said:

As a taxpayer, I would think the SB would want to have something else to show for the delay in acquiring the land to build Metea.

If we use the interest that has been accumulating to put AC in the ES then build the high school without paying for expedited costs, open it in 2010 then it seems like a win/win for the entire district. Spending beaucoup dollars to rush Metea will look wasteful.

It's not taking anything from Metea and it seems more responsible to accomplish multple objectives with money voters have already approved.

When was the last time you've seen construction costs, or any other costs for that matter, go down from one year to the next? At a minumum, there's inflation - and the increase can be higher in various sectors, like construction. To assume that the costs to build MV for completion in '10 would be lower than expediting for an '09 opening is nothing more than a guess and a gamble - and it's a gamble that I bet some people would not want the SD to take.

[southsidemom]

eagledad said:

As another taxpayer, I'd prefer they focus on building Metea, not showing off by wasting 15 million on A/C to make you happy.

I'd hope you'd agree that taking any monies from the funds designated by the taxpayers for building Metea to do anything else would be reprehensible. Time and time again you've called for the SB to listen to (serve) the taxpayers, now at the first chance to divert from what the taxpayers mandated (and yes, 60/40 is a mandate) you want them to change course without taxpayer voting? Sorry, it doesn't add up.

Well Hello ED. It has been so long since I have had the pleasure of hearing from you. Happy to see you have flown back in from wherever you were hiding. Hope all is well! ;D

[EagleDad]

It's off topic, but I'll respond. I've posted 40 times over the last 3 weeks (roughly 1/2 your total posts). If you consider today to be a return, than I will thank you for the welcome, while refraining fromm comment on your observations skills, I guess

[bob]

southsidemom said:

As a taxpayer, I would think the SB would want to have something else to show for the delay in acquiring the land to build Metea.

If we use the interest that has been accumulating to put AC in the ES then build the high school without paying for expedited costs, open it in 2010 then it seems like a win/win for the entire district. Spending beaucoup dollars to rush Metea will look wasteful.

It's not taking anything from Metea and it seems more responsible to accomplish multple objectives with money voters have already approved.

Advising the SB to break the law, good idea.

[doctorwho]

southsidemom said:

As a taxpayer, I would think the SB would want to have something else to show for the delay in acquiring the land to build Metea.

If we use the interest that has been accumulating to put AC in the ES then build the high school without paying for expedited costs, open it in 2010 then it seems like a win/win for the entire district. Spending beaucoup dollars to rush Metea will look wasteful.

It's not taking anything from Metea and it seems more responsible to accomplish multple objectives with money voters have already approved.

Have to disagree on a number of counts:

1/ the money was earmarked for MV not A/C -
2/ we keep saying the SB needs to be responsible to the taxpayers wishes - yet here they would ignore a 60 - 40 vote because some want A/C
3/ You have no idea if a majority would even agree to pay for A/C) - and based on the blog in the SUn - I doubt it
4/ MV will no tbe cheaper to build in 2010 than 2009 -
5/ potentially delaying the school that will help overcrowding makes no sense at this time

you are right the voters already approved monies - but NO ONE approved for A/C
for many voters -if the SB used monies they approved for one thing on another project - it would be the last time they voted for a referendum

[southsidemom]

eagledad said:

It's off topic, but I'll respond. I've posted 40 times over the last 3 weeks (roughly 1/2 your total posts). If you consider today to be a return, than I will thank you for the welcome, while refraining fromm comment on your observations skills, I guess

I was simply welcoming you back....had not chatted with you in quite some time. Seemed that you just vanished off the board and I often looked forward to reading your posts. Many said you had to fly the coop, but I knew you would return one day. ;D

[gatordog]

Something caught my eye in a magazine renewal advertisement yesterday. Having been following this thread....this made me laugh ;D

From Dec 1998 Harper's Index:

Rank of “office too hot” among white-collar employees' most common workplace complaints: 2
Rank of “office too cold”: 1

[doctorwho]

gatordog said:

Something caught my eye in a magazine renewal advertisement yesterday. Having been following this thread....this made me laugh ;D

From Dec 1998 Harper's Index:

Rank of “office too hot” among white-collar employees' most common workplace complaints: 2
Rank of “office too cold”: 1

well many corporations have taken care of those white collar office complaints of 1998 - in the last 8 years, unfortunately they off shored over 7 million of those jobs to Brazil - India etc. where no one complains.
a sad but real fact.

[Arch]

doctorwho said:

gatordog said:

Something caught my eye in a magazine renewal advertisement yesterday. Having been following this thread....this made me laugh ;D

From Dec 1998 Harper's Index:

Rank of “office too hot” among white-collar employees' most common workplace complaints: 2
Rank of “office too cold”: 1

well many corporations have taken care of those white collar office complaints of 1998 - in the last 8 years, unfortunately they off shored over 7 million of those jobs to Brazil - India etc. where no one complains.
a sad but real fact.

Thanks for the sobering dose of reality this morning.

Makes me think of it in a Zen-style question format:

If an office is hot in another country but there isn't a US citizen around to hear about it, is it still complaining?

[southsidemom]

doctorwho said:

southsidemom said:

As a taxpayer, I would think the SB would want to have something else to show for the delay in acquiring the land to build Metea.

If we use the interest that has been accumulating to put AC in the ES then build the high school without paying for expedited costs, open it in 2010 then it seems like a win/win for the entire district. Spending beaucoup dollars to rush Metea will look wasteful.

It's not taking anything from Metea and it seems more responsible to accomplish multple objectives with money voters have already approved.

Have to disagree on a number of counts:

1/ the money was earmarked for MV not A/C -
2/ we keep saying the SB needs to be responsible to the taxpayers wishes - yet here they would ignore a 60 - 40 vote because some want A/C
3/ You have no idea if a majority would even agree to pay for A/C) - and based on the blog in the SUn - I doubt it
4/ MV will no tbe cheaper to build in 2010 than 2009 -
5/ potentially delaying the school that will help overcrowding makes no sense at this time

you are right the voters already approved monies - but NO ONE approved for A/C
for many voters -if the SB used monies they approved for one thing on another project - it would be the last time they voted for a referendum

Dr. Who, if construction can start in Spring 2008, you are saying that it will cost the same to open in fall 2009 as it would in fall 2010? That doesn't make sense because crews will need to be doubled, overtime, expediting everything, etc.

Voters approved $124M to build a school. That money is sitting somewhere earning interest, so why can't the interest be used for other buildings? Voters did not approve purchasing the 25 acres but the SD did with monies left over from something else.

[Arch]

southsidemom said:

doctorwho said:

Have to disagree on a number of counts:

1/ the money was earmarked for MV not A/C -
2/ we keep saying the SB needs to be responsible to the taxpayers wishes - yet here they would ignore a 60 - 40 vote because some want A/C
3/ You have no idea if a majority would even agree to pay for A/C) - and based on the blog in the SUn - I doubt it
4/ MV will no tbe cheaper to build in 2010 than 2009 -
5/ potentially delaying the school that will help overcrowding makes no sense at this time

you are right the voters already approved monies - but NO ONE approved for A/C
for many voters -if the SB used monies they approved for one thing on another project - it would be the last time they voted for a referendum

Dr. Who, if construction can start in Spring 2008, you are saying that it will cost the same to open in fall 2009 as it would in fall 2010? That doesn't make sense because crews will need to be doubled, overtime, expediting everything, etc.

Voters approved $124M to build a school. That money is sitting somewhere earning interest, so why can't the interest be used for other buildings? Voters did not approve purchasing the 25 acres but the SD did with monies left over from something else.

By the same logic, the crews will not work for free from 2009 to 2010.

It's the same number of man-hours to build it.

As for the interest, I am not certain if legally that falls back into the general fund or must still be earmarked for what was voted on to spend the funds from the 'proceeds' of the bond sales. I believe it may come down to whether 'proceeds' is defined to also mean 'interest resulting from' with regards to the funds raised via the sale of bonds.

[lacy]

And how much is the BB land going to cost anyway? Where is that money coming from if it's more than what the referendum provided for?

[doctorwho]

southsidemom said:

doctorwho said:

Have to disagree on a number of counts:

1/ the money was earmarked for MV not A/C -
2/ we keep saying the SB needs to be responsible to the taxpayers wishes - yet here they would ignore a 60 - 40 vote because some want A/C
3/ You have no idea if a majority would even agree to pay for A/C) - and based on the blog in the SUn - I doubt it
4/ MV will no tbe cheaper to build in 2010 than 2009 -
5/ potentially delaying the school that will help overcrowding makes no sense at this time

you are right the voters already approved monies - but NO ONE approved for A/C
for many voters -if the SB used monies they approved for one thing on another project - it would be the last time they voted for a referendum

Dr. Who, if construction can start in Spring 2008, you are saying that it will cost the same to open in fall 2009 as it would in fall 2010? That doesn't make sense because crews will need to be doubled, overtime, expediting everything, etc.

Voters approved $124M to build a school. That money is sitting somewhere earning interest, so why can't the interest be used for other buildings? Voters did not approve purchasing the 25 acres but the SD did with monies left over from something else.

How can you count any money as being left over yet when construction hasn't started ? That $124M and all tied to it belongs to MV whether everyone likes that or not - after the project if there is money left over ( doubtful) then the determination can be made what to do with it.

No I am not saying it will cost the same - but any further delays also effect the kids -- remember them, the reason we are building the 3rd high school ? But I also am saying we have a better handle on what the costs will be over the next year, than any crystal ball can see for the following year. It certainly will NOT get cheaper pushing it back - and in the meantime crowding will get worse another year down the line.

the A/C is not a life or death proposition here .....

also, please read responses on SUN blog. How can you ask for them to spend the money on A/C when it appears it would never pass from the majority of voters ? That would be shirking their fiduciary ( haven't seen that overused word here in a while) repsonsibility to the taxpayers.