Metea site getting costlier

[lacy]

$4.5 Million is the amount M2 is on record as saying he thought it would be - IIRC. I will look for the back up on that as I believe I saved it.

[doctorwho]

southsidemom said:

Is the 2009 ref to supplement operational funding or support it entirely? Arch, your question "for how long does that pay operating costs in the district?" is puzzling.

If Macom provides water retention, are those costs then subtracted from the cost to build on that land?

Are land/cash donations specifically for building/land or are they available as needed? Like for AC. Note the temps today - 85+, October 7, 2007

Separate questions, not linked.

I asked that question yesterday when you went down this path - and you did not respond - if you know then share that information.

The question was - does that mean some of the 62 acres will be free ? Will we then own that acreage or do we not ? Who pays to maintain that land if we do not own.

It's pretty straightforward - are we paying for all 62 acres ? If we are at $334K per, then the price stays the same. If you are saying that maybe 10 acres will be water retention areas and MACOM will put that in and donate that land - then when we see that in writing it does change the cost of the land - yes.

[southsidemom]

doctorwho said:

southsidemom said:

Is the 2009 ref to supplement operational funding or support it entirely? Arch, your question "for how long does that pay operating costs in the district?" is puzzling.

If Macom provides water retention, are those costs then subtracted from the cost to build on that land?

Are land/cash donations specifically for building/land or are they available as needed? Like for AC. Note the temps today - 85+, October 7, 2007

Separate questions, not linked.

I asked that question yesterday when you went down this path - and you did not respond - if you know then share that information.

The question was - does that mean some of the 62 acres will be free ? Will we then own that acreage or do we not ? Who pays to maintain that land if we do not own.

It's pretty straightforward - are we paying for all 62 acres ? If we are at $334K per, then the price stays the same. If you are saying that maybe 10 acres will be water retention areas and MACOM will put that in and donate that land - then when we see that in writing it does change the cost of the land - yes.

The reason for the path/question is there is a lot of information floating around and I am not sure what is fact or fiction. I was of the understanding that 62 acres was offered for purchase as buildable land and additonal land was not needed as Macom was going to provide the land and development for water retention.

[macy]

At the time of the 06 referendum, the district determined the incremental cost of the third school to be $4.5 million. This number includes things like the administrative staff, utility bills, librarian, nurse, extra curriculars and athletic programs. This number (as I understand it) does not take into account teacher cost.

[Arch]

macy said:

At the time of the 06 referendum, the district determined the incremental cost of the third school to be $4.5 million. This number includes things like the administrative staff, utility bills, librarian, nurse, extra curriculars and athletic programs. This number (as I understand it) does not take into account teacher cost.

What you wrote seems to have a different meaning than what was posted:

"$9 million would be potentially double what IMRC we were told the 2009 referendum would be."

Obviously, no school is free to operate.. but to say 9 million dollars is double what the 2009 referendum would be seems a bit misleading; at best .

[macy]

archwinsome said:

macy said:

At the time of the 06 referendum, the district determined the incremental cost of the third school to be $4.5 million. This number includes things like the administrative staff, utility bills, librarian, nurse, extra curriculars and athletic programs. This number (as I understand it) does not take into account teacher cost.

What you wrote seems to have a different meaning than what was posted:

"$9 million would be potentially double what IMRC we were told the 2009 referendum would be."

Obviously, no school is free to operate.. but to say 9 million dollars is double what the 2009 referendum would be seems a bit misleading; at best .

I'm not the best at math, but, 4.5 X 2 = $9..... I think... can someone grab a calculator for me?

[Arch]

macy said:

archwinsome said:

What you wrote seems to have a different meaning than what was posted:

"$9 million would be potentially double what IMRC we were told the 2009 referendum would be."

Obviously, no school is free to operate.. but to say 9 million dollars is double what the 2009 referendum would be seems a bit misleading; at best .

I'm not the best at math, but, 4.5 X 2 = $9..... I think... can someone grab a calculator for me?

Are implying that the 2009 operating referendum is ONLY for the third HS and nothing else???

Or are you stating that entire operating referendum we will vote on come 2009 is ONLY for 4.5 million dollars... then why is anyone worried about it being voted down?

The original statement did not qualify things specific to the 3rd HS, it said the 2009 referendum. My understanding is that referendum is for ALL of the district for operating costs for ALL of the schools.

I could be wrong, and I admit it.. so what are we voting on in 2009? Just a 3rd HS operating referendum or ALL of the district's operating referendum. Please clear that up for us.

[macy]

archwinsome said:

macy said:

I'm not the best at math, but, 4.5 X 2 = $9..... I think... can someone grab a calculator for me?

Are implying that the 2009 operating referendum is ONLY for the third HS and nothing else???

Or are you stating that entire operating referendum we will vote on come 2009 is ONLY for 4.5 million dollars... then why is anyone worried about it being voted down?

The original statement did not qualify things specific to the 3rd HS, it said the 2009 referendum. My understanding is that referendum is for ALL of the district for operating costs for ALL of the schools.

I could be wrong, and I admit it.. so what are we voting on in 2009? Just a 3rd HS operating referendum or ALL of the district's operating referendum. Please clear that up for us.

I took my information from a response from a school board member responding to CFO claims that the 2009 referendum would be in excess of $15 million dollars.

The response was well written and clearly argued against CFO's prediction that the referendum would never be $15 million as CFO predicted. I took the $4.5 million figure from that response.

Maybe we all need some clarification on what the 2009 referendum will include. I am under the impression from reading this response that it will not be anywhere near the $15 million CFO predicted.

ETA: and wow, if the 2009 referendum will be more than that $4-5 million dollar number I anticipated, we really need cheaper land.

[Arch]

macy said:

archwinsome said:

Are implying that the 2009 operating referendum is ONLY for the third HS and nothing else???

Or are you stating that entire operating referendum we will vote on come 2009 is ONLY for 4.5 million dollars... then why is anyone worried about it being voted down?

The original statement did not qualify things specific to the 3rd HS, it said the 2009 referendum. My understanding is that referendum is for ALL of the district for operating costs for ALL of the schools.

I could be wrong, and I admit it.. so what are we voting on in 2009? Just a 3rd HS operating referendum or ALL of the district's operating referendum. Please clear that up for us.

I took my information from a response from a school board member responding to CFO claims that the 2009 referendum would be in excess of $15 million dollars.

The response was well written and clearly argued against CFO's prediction that the referendum would never be $15 million as CFO predicted. I took the $4.5 million figure from that response.

Maybe we all need some clarification on what the 2009 referendum will include. I am under the impression from reading this response that it will not be anywhere near the $15 million CFO predicted.

ETA: and wow, if the 2009 referendum will be more than that $4-5 million dollar number I anticipated, we really need cheaper land.

Ok, after some digging I think there's a little bit of misrepresentation.

The 4.5 was the added cost for operating the HS, however in that same questions/answers part it also said that they would need to seek a referendum with or without a new high school due to rising expenses in excess of the Consumer Price Index which is the limiting factor on the tax cap.

The additional expenses that need funding because they outstrip the CPI is the part we don't know. Add to that 4.5 million for the HS to operate.

So, as originally stated, the 9 million figure being 'double' the 2009 referendum is not correct because that statement does not take into account the 'rest' of it anyways. The referendum could be 11 million for all we know (or 15 is CFO was right pulling that number from some place), and the 9 million could actually be LESS than the 2009 operating referendum and not DOUBLE like it was stated.

[macy]

Well, then the response I am reading to the CFO claim of $15 million dollars was deceiving (that's my opinion)

here's a quote:

"Where the Tax Alliance came up with its $15 million figure is anyone's guess, but it's $10 million more than is needed to use a third high school in this district."

ETA: Maybe, I read it wrong, but I've read it many times as many others have. I came to the conclusion that CFO's claim that the 2009 referendum would be $15 million or more was completely false.

If we know the $4.5 million needed to operate the third school, can't we get an estimate on what the balance would be?

No reason to speculate here . I do not mean to do that. I could have read it wrong (although I've read it many times). Can't we somehow find out what the estimate for the balance of what the referendum entails is?

[casey]

archwinsome said:

Or are you stating that entire operating referendum we will vote on come 2009 is ONLY for 4.5 million dollars... then why is anyone worried about it being voted down?

Gee, I'm glad that you think $4.5M is such an insignificant number. Why is "anyone worried about it being voted down?" Umm, maybe because many have lost all confidence in our SB? Maybe because they don't trust anything the SB says? Maybe because they got fed up with the whole BB debacle? Maybe they don't think it's right that our SB is choosing to pay over double for BB land.

I would not make any assumptions about the 2009 Referendum being a slam-dunk. I think that this whole 3rd HS mess will be very fresh in everyone's memory. No one that I know will just vote for it because the SB says so. IMO it will take some serious marketing/PR work on the SB's part to get that Referendum passed. We'll probably pay for the services on an outside company again to assure that it will pass. We can add those additional costs to our BB legal costs. Hey, maybe we can just add that small cost to the Referendum. Personally, I'll be shocked if that 2009 Referendum comes in anywhere near $4.5.

[Arch]

casey said:

archwinsome said:

Or are you stating that entire operating referendum we will vote on come 2009 is ONLY for 4.5 million dollars... then why is anyone worried about it being voted down?

Gee, I'm glad that you think $4.5M is such an insignificant number. Why is "anyone worried about it being voted down?" Umm, maybe because many have lost all confidence in our SB? Maybe because they don't trust anything the SB says? Maybe because they got fed up with the whole BB debacle? Maybe they don't think it's right that our SB is choosing to pay over double for BB land.

I would not make any assumptions about the 2009 Referendum being a slam-dunk. I think that this whole 3rd HS mess will be very fresh in everyone's memory. No one that I know will just vote for it because the SB says so. IMO it will take some serious marketing/PR work on the SB's part to get that Referendum passed. We'll probably pay for the services on an outside company again to assure that it will pass. We can add those additional costs to our BB legal costs. Hey, maybe we can just add that small cost to the Referendum. Personally, I'll be shocked if that 2009 Referendum comes in anywhere near $4.5.

In the scheme of things, to keep the district operating, 4.5m is a small number.

It's not pocket change as a whole, but if the difference works out to about $20 more a year in taxes to keep the district operating, I would say that's small because that's a single yuppie food stamp that comes out of an ATM. Put another way, that's about 5-6 gallons of gas. One could probably save that in a year by keeping their tires properly inflated.

(It actually works out using previous math of 15 mil for AC = 55/year tax increase... so extrapolate 4.5 from that and we are at about $18/year increase to keep the district operating on the 4.5 million figure).

[dpc]

casey said:

archwinsome said:

Or are you stating that entire operating referendum we will vote on come 2009 is ONLY for 4.5 million dollars... then why is anyone worried about it being voted down?

Gee, I'm glad that you think $4.5M is such an insignificant number. Why is "anyone worried about it being voted down?" Umm, maybe because many have lost all confidence in our SB? Maybe because they don't trust anything the SB says? Maybe because they got fed up with the whole BB debacle? Maybe they don't think it's right that our SB is choosing to pay over double for BB land.

I would not make any assumptions about the 2009 Referendum being a slam-dunk. I think that this whole 3rd HS mess will be very fresh in everyone's memory. No one that I know will just vote for it because the SB says so. IMO it will take some serious marketing/PR work on the SB's part to get that Referendum passed. We'll probably pay for the services on an outside company again to assure that it will pass. We can add those additional costs to our BB legal costs. Hey, maybe we can just add that small cost to the Referendum. Personally, I'll be shocked if that 2009 Referendum comes in anywhere near $4.5.

Well said Casey. Also, we will have a few more years of actual enrollment data at that time. If the actual continues to be significantly below the district's projections, many will question the need for the third high school. Other districts built schools that sat empty and were closed because they couldn't pass the op ref.

[Arch]

dpc said:

casey said:

Gee, I'm glad that you think $4.5M is such an insignificant number. Why is "anyone worried about it being voted down?" Umm, maybe because many have lost all confidence in our SB? Maybe because they don't trust anything the SB says? Maybe because they got fed up with the whole BB debacle? Maybe they don't think it's right that our SB is choosing to pay over double for BB land.

I would not make any assumptions about the 2009 Referendum being a slam-dunk. I think that this whole 3rd HS mess will be very fresh in everyone's memory. No one that I know will just vote for it because the SB says so. IMO it will take some serious marketing/PR work on the SB's part to get that Referendum passed. We'll probably pay for the services on an outside company again to assure that it will pass. We can add those additional costs to our BB legal costs. Hey, maybe we can just add that small cost to the Referendum. Personally, I'll be shocked if that 2009 Referendum comes in anywhere near $4.5.

Well said Casey. Also, we will have a few more years of actual enrollment data at that time. If the actual continues to be significantly below the district's projections, many will question the need for the third high school. Other districts built schools that sat empty and were closed because they couldn't pass the op ref.

Out of curiosity, what is your opinion on this?

If D204 builds it, should people vote down operating it?

[casey]

I'm not implying that people should vote down operating it. I'm simply saying that there's no guarantee (just like in life). There are plenty of 204 taxpayers that will vote NO to anything 204, a few taxpayers that will vote YES to anything 204-related, a few educated ones that may be fed up and not support it as well as a few educated that will support it. Maybe there should be a back-up Plan B .

I hate when people refer to the 2006 Referendum and act as if it was overwhelmingly supported. Yes, the Referendum passed but there were plenty of persons that voted NO.