How many people think...

[wvhsparent]

warriorpride said:

wvhsparent said:

Someone will be around to remind everyone. That's a guarantee.
I also see the 09 Operating funds Ref in serious jeapordy....people will be pissed...won't be thinking clearly

Hang on, WVHSP, we don't know the true financial impacts of buying vs. not buying BB. If there has to be an additional referendum to complete the construction of MV, then yes, there will be a backlash. If BB can be purchased with the least impact to taxpayers of all the other options, why would there be a backlash on an 09 Operating Funds referendum?

Because the average voter only usually sees the big numbers...not the workings of how they got there....They will remember that the SB said it should only be 257, but came in at 518...That is what they are going to remember. And I am sure someone will try, and probably succeed, in making it seem that part of the 09 ref will be a bailout because of higher cost.....even if not true...

[doctorwho]

wvhsparent said:

warriorpride said:

Hang on, WVHSP, we don't know the true financial impacts of buying vs. not buying BB. If there has to be an additional referendum to complete the construction of MV, then yes, there will be a backlash. If BB can be purchased with the least impact to taxpayers of all the other options, why would there be a backlash on an 09 Operating Funds referendum?

Because the average voter only usually sees the big numbers...not the workings of how they got there....They will remember that the SB said it should only be 257, but came in at 518...That is what they are going to remember. And I am sure someone will try, and probably succeed, in making it seem that part of the 09 ref will be a bailout because of higher cost.....even if not true...

I have to disagree. If you did a Jay Leno type man on the street in 204 - I am willing to bet a large majority of the voters would never come up with the $257 figure. I am not sure what% could quote the $124M.

However, they will remember if they are asked for more after approving the first building referendum - that they will remember.

[Arch]

I'd rather pay 15+ more for land and get a school then pay another 10 for legal fees and have NOTHING YET to show for it.

Any money spent without getting land and a HS now just adds to the cost of the HS when it eventually does start on whatever land does get acquired at whatever unknown price and it's delayed whatever unknown amount of time further.

Now, do your math.

[warriorpride]

archwinsome said:

I'd rather pay 15+ more for land and get a school then pay another 10 for legal fees and have NOTHING YET to show for it.

Any money spent without getting land and a HS now just adds to the cost of the HS when it eventually does start on whatever land does get acquired at whatever unknown price and it's delayed whatever unknown amount of time further.

Now, do your math.

Thanks again Arch - I can see we're on the same page. This is what I'm trying say about unknowns that can't show up on any spreadsheet. We'll have a full cost picture of BB & probably a realistic schedule now, too. It might be easy to complain about the total cost (but, again, let's see what the SB pulls together), but if you try to do a purely financial comparison between BB and any other options, there will be a lot of ? in all but the BB column - all we'll really know is the financial penalty for NOT going with BB (more legal fees, more architecture fees, perhaps we have to pay the BB legal fees, etc).

Add in plus the scheduling unknown of any other option, plus the fact that we're running out of options to me means it's time to with with BB. The SB should be able to come up the additional funds - it might not be easy, and they might not want to do it, but given that fact they put there eggs in one basket, it's just something that they need to get out there an do. We put our faith in them by voting for them & voting for the referendum, and they need to show us that they deserve it.

And, finally, I don't want to hear anything about revisting the enrollment numbers to determine if a 3rd HS is warranted. There's no significant difference in the numbers. Every grade has higher enrollments. The HS's will be bursting in a few years without MV.

[lacy]

archwinsome said:

I'd rather pay 15+ more for land and get a school then pay another 10 for legal fees and have NOTHING YET to show for it.

Any money spent without getting land and a HS now just adds to the cost of the HS when it eventually does start on whatever land does get acquired at whatever unknown price and it's delayed whatever unknown amount of time further.

Now, do your math.

Why throw more money after bad money? Just because they've spend alot of time and money to aquire this land, doesn't mean it's a good decision to continue down this path.

It's like a gambler who's losing and just can't stop. An intervention is necessary.

[warriorpride]

lacy said:

archwinsome said:

I'd rather pay 15+ more for land and get a school then pay another 10 for legal fees and have NOTHING YET to show for it.

Any money spent without getting land and a HS now just adds to the cost of the HS when it eventually does start on whatever land does get acquired at whatever unknown price and it's delayed whatever unknown amount of time further.

Now, do your math.

Why throw more money after bad money? Just because they've spend alot of time and money to aquire this land, doesn't mean it's a good decision to continue down this path.

It's like a gambler who's losing and just can't stop. An intervention is necessary.

Again, let's see what the true financial cost of walking away and BASICALLY STARTING FROM SCRATCH is. I just want the SB to consider the intangibles & the unknowns, too, because there's plenty.

[Arch]

lacy said:

archwinsome said:

I'd rather pay 15+ more for land and get a school then pay another 10 for legal fees and have NOTHING YET to show for it.

Any money spent without getting land and a HS now just adds to the cost of the HS when it eventually does start on whatever land does get acquired at whatever unknown price and it's delayed whatever unknown amount of time further.

Now, do your math.

Why throw more money after bad money? Just because they've spend alot of time and money to aquire this land, doesn't mean it's a good decision to continue down this path.

It's like a gambler who's losing and just can't stop. An intervention is necessary.

It's not a gamble. The end of the game is an open high school. It's not good money/bad money. Any money to accomplish the objective (a new high school) as close to schedule as possible and as close to budget as possible is all good money.

[lacy]

They really need to look at all options at this point before forging ahead.

But the feeling I get is that they are so stuck on BB, that they aren't going to be able to take an objective look at the situation.

So far, nothing IMO has gone the way they predicted it would. IMO, we were reassured in a very patronizing way that everything would go completely differently than it has. That's the part that really gets me. People raised good questions about how quickly we could get BB, how much would it really cost, and whether QT was a responsbile thing to pursue, but all along the way, we were treated like complete idiots or "not caring about the kids."

Now I get the feeling they will provide us with some fuzzy numbers in an effort to convince everyone they can really afford this and we'll get the same patronizing "don't worry - the building will be like the others," blah, blah, blah.

What I would rather see is hard financial numbers, hard numbers about the enrollment (where the heck are the enrollment numbers - school has been in session for a month now - that alone is suspcious), and a really thoughtful review about all viable options. Not another sales job from people who I believe have no credibility at this point.

[Arch]

If you have so little faith in the SB, what makes you believe they will get better with any other location?

Public voted to build a 3rd HS. 15 million in the scheme of things is pocket change (55 a year tops on the tax bill if necessary). Wow, I'll skip one night at Sushi House for the year.

[lacy]

archwinsome said:

If you have so little faith in the SB, what makes you believe they will get better with any other location?

Public voted to build a 3rd HS. 15 million in the scheme of things is pocket change (55 a year tops on the tax bill if necessary). Wow, I'll skip one night at Sushi House for the year.

Being $16 million richer sounds somewhat appealing to me.

[doctorwho]

lacy said:

archwinsome said:

I'd rather pay 15+ more for land and get a school then pay another 10 for legal fees and have NOTHING YET to show for it.

Any money spent without getting land and a HS now just adds to the cost of the HS when it eventually does start on whatever land does get acquired at whatever unknown price and it's delayed whatever unknown amount of time further.

Now, do your math.

Why throw more money after bad money? Just because they've spend alot of time and money to aquire this land, doesn't mean it's a good decision to continue down this path.

It's like a gambler who's losing and just can't stop. An intervention is necessary.

since we're using analogies - there is also the person who refuses to stay on target and jumps around from plan to plan - never completing any.

There's no intervention needed - what is needed now is the few days to investigate if this is workable or not. Get input from builders / and financial experts - not board posters - on what can be done or not done.

It's not like there is any guarantee any of the other sites is going to work any quicker or in the long run be any cheaper. There is so much walk away money here, it has to be factored in. If they go somewhere else and have to pay all of that - then people will start the 'fiduciary ' screaming again.

Sometimes ( and again until we see the options Monday we don't know this)- it is prudent to stay focused on the goal. I know you find it very hard to believe but a lot of people ( and obviously the SB and SD ) believe BB is still the right piece of property.

To me- changing course before reviewing all the options would be irresponsible. If the absolute best plan is to change sites after reviewing ALL costs, potential costs on other pieces of property ( all of which have open issues) - and some leigh way for intangibles (like starting construction very soon on BB) - then so be it.

There is a deadline on this decision now, so it's not like it's open ended - you will get your answer soon. So often the criticism of reacting by the SB without thinking things through - and this time they want to investigate the options now that we have a $ figure - and of course that is wrong too.

[lacy]

doctorwho said:

lacy said:

Why throw more money after bad money? Just because they've spend alot of time and money to aquire this land, doesn't mean it's a good decision to continue down this path.

It's like a gambler who's losing and just can't stop. An intervention is necessary.

since we're using analogies - there is also the person who refuses to stay on target and jumps around from plan to plan - never completing any.

It's not like there is any guarantee any of the other sites is going to work any quicker or in the long run be any cheaper. There is so much walk away money here, it has to be factored in. If they go somewhere else and have to pay all of that - then people will start the 'fiduciary ' screaming again.

Sometimes ( and again until we see the options Monday we don't know this)- it is prudent to stay focused on the goal. I know you find it very hard to believe but a lot of people ( and obviously the SB and SD ) believe BB is still the right piece of property.

To me- changing course before reviewing all the options would be irresponsible. If the absolute best plan is to change sites after reviewing ALL costs, potential costs on other pieces of property ( all of which have open issues) - and some leigh way for intangibles (like starting construction very soon on BB) - then so be it.

There is a deadline on this decision now, so it's not like it's open ended - you will get your answer soon. So often the criticism of reacting by the SB without thinking things through - and this time they want to investigate the options now that we have a $ figure - and of course that is wrong too.

Then we agree that a complete and objective review of all options is necessary at this point.

What I'm saying is I don't want another sales job or patronizing "don't worry, trust us" speech.

[doctorwho]

lacy said:

doctorwho said:

since we're using analogies - there is also the person who refuses to stay on target and jumps around from plan to plan - never completing any.

It's not like there is any guarantee any of the other sites is going to work any quicker or in the long run be any cheaper. There is so much walk away money here, it has to be factored in. If they go somewhere else and have to pay all of that - then people will start the 'fiduciary ' screaming again.

Sometimes ( and again until we see the options Monday we don't know this)- it is prudent to stay focused on the goal. I know you find it very hard to believe but a lot of people ( and obviously the SB and SD ) believe BB is still the right piece of property.

To me- changing course before reviewing all the options would be irresponsible. If the absolute best plan is to change sites after reviewing ALL costs, potential costs on other pieces of property ( all of which have open issues) - and some leigh way for intangibles (like starting construction very soon on BB) - then so be it.

There is a deadline on this decision now, so it's not like it's open ended - you will get your answer soon. So often the criticism of reacting by the SB without thinking things through - and this time they want to investigate the options now that we have a $ figure - and of course that is wrong too.

Then we agree that a complete and objective review of all options is necessary at this point.

What I'm saying is I don't want another sales job or patronizing "don't worry, trust us" speech.

absolutely - I expect to see options laid out that either show this is still somehow workable - or that it isn't. I have already said I do not want a stripped down school - even on the BB land which I still consider far and away the best location for that school in the district.

There is a strict time limit - now less than 30 days - to commit to that price. I would not want any commitment unless there was a solid plan that would work .

But now is not the time to knee jerk react without investigating what can be done. The huge intangible upside to BB is that work can begin soon if it can be secured and there is a workable plan. I have no faith any other parcel is going to go smoothly through all phases and I do not want to be here 1 or 2 years from now talking about how we are close to resolving all issues on the plan B land. I do not want the crowding situation I have already lived through once in this district - and listened to people complain then also that building an entire new high school was the wrong course..and how it would be 25 more years before build out - etc.

[warriorpride]

lacy said:

archwinsome said:

If you have so little faith in the SB, what makes you believe they will get better with any other location?

Public voted to build a 3rd HS. 15 million in the scheme of things is pocket change (55 a year tops on the tax bill if necessary). Wow, I'll skip one night at Sushi House for the year.

Being $16 million richer sounds somewhat appealing to me.

Let's be a little more clear here.

1) As far as the $16M number goes - the real number that should be discussed is the difference between what the SD determined it could easily mange, and what it couldn't, as far as the BB price goes. They publicly said about $13M, but their contingency must have at least allowed them to go up to the $16M-$18M range. So when talking about BB costing more than planned, it's probably more like $8M-$10M.

2) It's not your money, you don't get to keep it and you wouldn't get to decide how it got spent. You might even not like how it was spent if it was spent on some other project/facility, etc.

3) Building the school is a 1-time big expense, with annual operating expenses. It seems like people are starting to combine the construction cost and the operating cost in this discussion and it is not fair to do so. The discussion needs to be focused on what the SB can do to reduce construction costs and/or to come with more $ from other sources. NOTE: I agree the MV should have all of the amenities that the other HSs have. When I talk about reducing costs, I'm talking about looking at things that don't impact the amenities.

[Arch]

An ex COO had a great plaque on his desk that read:

"Never Confuse Activity With Accomplishment."