|
|
Post by doctorwho on Sept 30, 2007 16:23:51 GMT -6
Exactly. If they can build Metea for $124million (and not go to taxpayers for more monies) , they have an obligation, IMO, to move forward on BB. We voted for a third high school and it is their job to make that happen sooner than later at this point. I agree with bc that they should not come to taxpayers to raise additional funds . They need to figure that one out themselves. I am optimistic that they can. I am , however, open minded to hearing what other possibilities may be in store. I am also open to hearing what other options we have in store, but skimping on the quality of our new high school is not one of them! I am anxious to hear if we move forward with the school on BB, what will be cut out or altered and how. I don't believe anyone here has advocated a 'lower' quality high school - regardless of position on BB or any anything else. |
|
|
|
Post by macy on Sept 30, 2007 17:52:59 GMT -6
The mentality that we should stop everything to explore options to save money led to the defeat of the first referendum and it cost us millions of dollars. I didn't say stop everything but rather the situation should be reevaluated in light of the rising costs and lower than purported projected enrollment. Your mentality, I am sad to say, is consistent with the SD and SB's mentality that it is BB at any and all costs. Dpc, I'm completely agree with you that it's been BB at all costs and think we will all be paying for that mentality. That was obvious to me at least a year ago. We've heard all along they have plans B.C.D and E... Time to pull them out. Way too much money to pay for the land. Something will be sacrificed that shouldn't be if we go ahead and spend that irresponsibly. |
|
|
|
Post by casey on Sept 30, 2007 18:03:31 GMT -6
For some reason, many are choosing to think that the SD has an extra $10M lying around that they've made off of interest on the bonds. Inacurrate reporting by Britt Carson made it sound like this is what the SD has earned. Definitely NOT true.
The bonds are tax free municipals that are not permitted to earn a rate greater than the rate paid out on the bonds. If we did we'd lose the excess as arbitrage. The government doesn't want arbitrage activity on municipal bonds (a big no-no), so we probably couldn't keep a 22% return even if we could get it. Bottom-line is there's no $10M that's been earned. Again, we need accurate accounting.
Does anyone plan to go to tomorrow night's meeting? I'm thinking that it serves no purpose since it's behind closed doors.
|
|
|
|
Post by movingforward on Sept 30, 2007 18:09:09 GMT -6
Exactly. If they can build Metea for $124million (and not go to taxpayers for more monies) , they have an obligation, IMO, to move forward on BB. We voted for a third high school and it is their job to make that happen sooner than later at this point. I agree with bc that they should not come to taxpayers to raise additional funds . They need to figure that one out themselves. I am optimistic that they can. I am , however, open minded to hearing what other possibilities may be in store. I am also open to hearing what other options we have in store, but skimping on the quality of our new high school is not one of them! I am anxious to hear if we move forward with the school on BB, what will be cut out or altered and how. agree |
|
|
|
Post by movingforward on Sept 30, 2007 18:15:03 GMT -6
I am also open to hearing what other options we have in store, but skimping on the quality of our new high school is not one of them! I am anxious to hear if we move forward with the school on BB, what will be cut out or altered and how. I don't believe anyone here has advocated a 'lower' quality high school - regardless of position on BB or any anything else. exactly, I can only give a definitive opinion on moving forward on BB after revisions are presented for Metea. Cutting back is one thing, but sub-standard is certainly another. I don't want construction materials selected which could jeopardize our kids safety with respect to tornadoes for example. I am anxious to see what lies ahead. |
|
|
|
Post by proschool on Sept 30, 2007 18:48:10 GMT -6
We can use cheaper materials, carpetting etc but things may have to be rerplaced more often and it will just cost more in the long run.
Will turner cnstruction ask its subcontractors to bid the projects for a little bit less with the same materials? It might be worth a try because the construction area has been slow and the district might just have to go shopping if they don't get a better deal.
If hat doesn't work I would favor in making cuts across the board so that the Metea Valley students are not the ones who make all the sacrifices.
|
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Sept 30, 2007 18:58:23 GMT -6
I didn't say stop everything but rather the situation should be reevaluated in light of the rising costs and lower than purported projected enrollment. Your mentality, I am sad to say, is consistent with the SD and SB's mentality that it is BB at any and all costs. Dpc, I'm completely agree with you that it's been BB at all costs and think we will all be paying for that mentality. That was obvious to me at least a year ago. We've heard all along they have plans B.C.D and E... Time to pull them out. Way too much money to pay for the land. Something will be sacrificed that shouldn't be if we go ahead and spend that irresponsibly. What about sacrificing the timeliness of getting MV built to alleviate MS and HS crowding that is increasing each year? What about sacrificing building MV in a less ideal location that gives the SD less long-term flexibility? What about the sacrifice of going thru boundary wars again? We can talk about sacrifices that may have to be made to cut costs to build MV, but let's keep the above sacrifices in mind, too. I'd rather not make any of those. |
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Sept 30, 2007 19:00:39 GMT -6
We can use cheaper materials, carpetting etc but things may have to be rerplaced more often and it will just cost more in the long run. Will turner cnstruction ask its subcontractors to bid the projects for a little bit less with the same materials? It might be worth a try because the construction area has been slow and the district might just have to go shopping if they don't get a better deal. If hat doesn't work I would favor in making cuts across the board so that the Metea Valley students are not the ones who make all the sacrifices. How about a slight rename to MV: "Metea Valley High School, brought to you by Turner Construction"? And the football field could be Turner field. The naming rights ought to be worth something. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Sept 30, 2007 19:55:01 GMT -6
Dpc, I'm completely agree with you that it's been BB at all costs and think we will all be paying for that mentality. That was obvious to me at least a year ago. We've heard all along they have plans B.C.D and E... Time to pull them out. Way too much money to pay for the land. Something will be sacrificed that shouldn't be if we go ahead and spend that irresponsibly. What about sacrificing the timeliness of getting MV built to alleviate MS and HS crowding that is increasing each year? What about sacrificing building MV in a less ideal location that gives the SD less long-term flexibility? What about the sacrifice of going thru boundary wars again? We can talk about sacrifices that may have to be made to cut costs to build MV, but let's keep the above sacrifices in mind, too. I'd rather not make any of those. Amen to that ! |
|
|
|
Post by southsidemom on Sept 30, 2007 20:49:54 GMT -6
I find it hard to believe that after we pay $500+/acre that anyone is going to be motivated to negotiate with us. Why would they?  Out of sympathy that we put the cart before the horse? ? |
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Sept 30, 2007 20:58:51 GMT -6
I find it hard to believe that after we pay $500+/acre that anyone is going to be motivated to negotiate with us. Why would they? Out of sympathy that we put the cart before the horse? ? Not looking for sympathy, just exploring options for getting this done. What would going back to the contruction company, looking for cost-saving ideas or looking for corporate sponsorship have anything to do with the land price? I'd think that Turner would be motivated to help find a way to get this done - they stand to make a fair amount of money when the school gets built. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Sept 30, 2007 20:58:58 GMT -6
I find it hard to believe that after we pay $500+/acre that anyone is going to be motivated to negotiate with us. Why would they? Out of sympathy that we put the cart before the horse? ? Will a jury have full liberty to set the prices for construction too? I seriously don't think so. Do you? |
|
|
|
Post by proschool on Sept 30, 2007 21:28:49 GMT -6
I find it hard to believe that after we pay $500+/acre that anyone is going to be motivated to negotiate with us. Why would they? Out of sympathy that we put the cart before the horse? ? They will negotiate to keep our business. There is a need to cut costs and they know we might start shopping. They also know if they are replaced they could loose our future business as well. The construction industry is slow now. It just might make sense to take 3-5% less to keep the school district from looking around elsewhere. They say that construction prices went up between the first and second referendums. They said that the damage of huricane Katrina forced the price of building materials up but has anyone verified that? Did HC just take Turner's word for it? Does it even hold true anymore? I would think that the building supply industry would have adapted by now or the Katrina effect would have been offset by slowdowns in the building indusrty elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Sept 30, 2007 23:16:42 GMT -6
I find it hard to believe that after we pay $500+/acre that anyone is going to be motivated to negotiate with us. Why would they? Out of sympathy that we put the cart before the horse? ? The same reasons a lot of major construction projects have early completion clauses. Also there happens to be a housing slow down and many companies don't have enough work to keep workers as busy as they'd liike. I trust they would let common sense prevail in finding a solution as they have no axe to grind with the SD |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Oct 1, 2007 5:03:48 GMT -6
Wait...Now you're confusing me.........
"Let's pay it and get started now...cuz construction costs are going up 10% each year" is the BS mantra many have been saying before the verdict.
Now Post Verdict you expect a 3-5% reduction, because building has been slow?
It seems to me that you are saying whatever to justify BB. I can't buy into that, sorry.
|
|
Out of sympathy that we put the cart before the horse?