|
|
Post by macy on Oct 1, 2007 6:01:41 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. WVHSparent, I agree with you. It seems it's anything to justify BB. Last year I posted concern over the delay in construction costs and many posters told me it was a non issue. Now, it's so huge that we are forced to spend millions more for the land than we anticipated and were led to believe we would pay. |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Oct 1, 2007 6:03:42 GMT -6
I think the logic is...construction costs rise because material costs rise, whereas what people are saying here is to negotiate a lower percentage construction fee from the GC/architects etc because ,ie, 10% of $124M is more than 12% of zero, if the project is not built.
|
|
|
|
Post by rew on Oct 1, 2007 6:35:32 GMT -6
I would add, that there is that old RE saying "location, location, location". As much as we desire fiscal responsibility, twenty years from now, no one will care whether the HS cost $124 or $134M. No one will care whether the pool was completed a year after the opening of the school or what carpet went in the hall ways.
The location is the one thing we will never be able to correct.
|
|
|
|
Post by southsidemom on Oct 1, 2007 6:46:36 GMT -6
First, I know there is a residential construction slump, but when I look around, there are lots of strip malls and office building still going up. Is this commercial slow down documented?  Second, Turner Construction is HUGE. Our business is peanuts in their portfolio. Lastly, it's great to look out 5, 10, 15 years from now and guess what people will remember, but what about 2 years from now when a referendum is needed to operate the school built on the golden land. I don't think people's memories are going to be that short, especially with school board elections to remind them. |
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Oct 1, 2007 6:48:31 GMT -6
First, I know there is a residential construction slump, but when I look around, there are lots of strip malls and office building still going up. Is this commercial slow down documented? Second, Turner Construction is HUGE. Our business is peanuts in their portfolio. Lastly, it's great to look out 5, 10, 15 years from now and guess what people will remember, but what about 2 years from now when a referendum is needed to operate the school built on the golden land. I don't think people's memories are going to be that short, especially with school board elections to remind them. The more people I have talked to over the weekend, the fewer I find are concerned about the actual price of the land. It seems the biggest concern I run it to is, don't ask me for more money to build it. |
|
|
|
Post by southsidemom on Oct 1, 2007 6:52:14 GMT -6
Also, if my kids are still sweating bullets in their elementary school, I will be less inclined to want to pay more taxes for the air conditioned high school.
|
|
|
|
Post by macy on Oct 1, 2007 6:52:53 GMT -6
First, I know there is a residential construction slump, but when I look around, there are lots of strip malls and office building still going up. Is this commercial slow down documented? Second, Turner Construction is HUGE. Our business is peanuts in their portfolio. Lastly, it's great to look out 5, 10, 15 years from now and guess what people will remember, but what about 2 years from now when a referendum is needed to operate the school built on the golden land. I don't think people's memories are going to be that short, especially with school board elections to remind them. The more people I have talked to over the weekend, the fewer I find are concerned about the actual price of the land. It seems the biggest concern I run it to is, don't ask me for more money to build it. Gatormom, I found the exact opposite. More people felt as if it was ridiculous to spend that much more for land. They are very interested in hearing the other options available to us and feel it's a huge mistake to overspend. |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Oct 1, 2007 6:54:48 GMT -6
SSM
People voted for the $124M knowing there was an 09 ref coming. The costs are unrelated.
In the last SB election, there were candidates (perhaps even someone you know very well?) who spoke to looking at other locations, and were defeated. I think that says something about what voters want too.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Oct 1, 2007 6:57:49 GMT -6
Gatormom, I found the exact opposite. More people felt as if it was ridiculous to spend that much more for land. They are very interested in hearing the other options available to us and feel it's a huge mistake to overspend. Most of the people I spoke to are just anxious to build the school and alleviate the overcrowding. That does not mean they were happy with the SB, the district or the situation that we are in, just that they would rather see the district build the school. I too am anxious to hear what alternatives are available but wish to remain optimistic about the ability of the district to buy the BB land and move forward. |
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Oct 1, 2007 7:02:36 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. I want an independent accounting of the district's financial situation - especially as it relates to the income generated by the bonds, cash on hand, and attorney fees. I'm afraid what we will get is a rosy gloss-over. |
|
|
|
Post by southsidemom on Oct 1, 2007 7:05:28 GMT -6
SSM People voted for the $124M knowing there was an 09 ref coming. The costs are unrelated. In the last SB election, there were candidates (perhaps even someone you know very well?) who spoke to looking at other locations, and were defeated. I think that says something about what voters want too. That's right, rew, and incumbents who said unequivocally $257/acre was valid and look where we are? What I also heard, was candidates saying we need a plan B. I guess they were wrong |
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Oct 1, 2007 7:05:43 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. If by "less long-term flexibility" you mean tearing WVHS down at some future date, I have a problem with that mentality. It seems extremely wasteful to me, as the useful life of that building ought to be much, much longer. I am concerned that is what this SB is trying to do - build a replacement for WVHS. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 1, 2007 7:10:42 GMT -6
SSM People voted for the $124M knowing there was an 09 ref coming. The costs are unrelated. In the last SB election, there were candidates (perhaps even someone you know very well?) who spoke to looking at other locations, and were defeated. I think that says something about what voters want too. That's right, rew, and incumbents who said unequivocally $257/acre was valid and look where we are? What I also heard, was candidates saying we need a plan B. I guess they were wrong Don't forget candidates that lost and admitted not being good with numbers or candidates that couldn't follow directions of a simple worksheet or candidates that lied that they were a school board member. Imagine the outrage if a SBM had a conflict of interest with property that is in play now. |
|
|
|
Post by dpc on Oct 1, 2007 7:12:27 GMT -6
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. If by "less long-term flexibility" you mean tearing WVHS down at some future date, I have a problem with that mentality. It seems extremely wasteful to me, as the useful life of that building ought to be much, much longer. I am concerned that is what this SB is trying to do - build a replacement for WVHS. I couldn't agree with you more Lacy. I, too, sense that some SB members are considering closing WVHS in the future. What else could they be thinking in light of the much lower than projected enrollment numbers. FWIW, I never bought into the 10,000+ HS enrollment the district and 204 the kids was espousing. I am going on record as saying it will never happen in our lifetime. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Oct 1, 2007 7:12:29 GMT -6
The more people I have talked to over the weekend, the fewer I find are concerned about the actual price of the land. It seems the biggest concern I run it to is, don't ask me for more money to build it. Gatormom, I found the exact opposite. More people felt as if it was ridiculous to spend that much more for land. They are very interested in hearing the other options available to us and feel it's a huge mistake to overspend. Most ( not all ) people I have spoken to ( and mostly covers 4 ES areas since I know these people well from sports) are in line with Gatormom's -- feedback. And no not all are scheduled to go to MV before you ask. |
|
