Editorial on MV site

[justme]

doctorwho said:

justme said:

Totally disagree. It depends on WHO you're talking to. Absolutely everyone I have spoken to want the SB to abandon the BB site. These people reside all over south Naperville (High Meadow, Saddle Creek, Ashbury, Tamarak, & TG). It's all subjective so I don't believe that anyone of us can properly gage what the ENTIRE district feels about that site and I think it is irresponsible to speculate to the contrary.

agree there is going to be more of one look at it depedning on where you are -- let me ask you this however -- of all those areas you speak of, if the site chosen is by Route 88, and it saves the $20M - how do they feel ? Is that OK ? Is it just anti -BB ?

From my conversations,it is heavily anti-BB. Most want anything else. Some don't want the 3rd HS period. None were in favor of BB. Again, it is subjective and in no way scientific. I am only speaking of my personal experiences and can't pretend to know how other parts of the district feel.

[momof3]

wvhsparent said:

momof3 said:

Another question because I didn't live in the district when NV opened - was there a lot of backlash over NV having fewer amenities than WV?

No the backlash was at the perceived high cost and supposed opulent materials used to build it.
As far as amenities...there were very few differences

But there are differences - and it sounds like no backlash. I would expect the same for MV - there will be differences.

eta - ok, so the backlash over WV was the mistake of open concept
the backlash over NV was the materials
the backlash over MV will be land cost (or site change or both)
the backlash over the new Nap Central will be the Martin-Mitchell reconfiguration

You can please some of the people...

[doctorwho]

justme said:

doctorwho said:

agree there is going to be more of one look at it depedning on where you are -- let me ask you this however -- of all those areas you speak of, if the site chosen is by Route 88, and it saves the $20M - how do they feel ? Is that OK ? Is it just anti -BB ?

From my conversations,it is heavily anti-BB. Most want anything else. Some don't want the 3rd HS period. None were in favor of BB. Again, it is subjective and in no way scientific. I am only speaking of my personal experiences and can't pretend to know how other parts of the district feel.

That is what we'll have to wait to see as it plays out. Short of a complete census type door to door nothing is going to be scientific. Being involved with club sports, I engage parents from all over the district and I can tell you that a few from the areas you mention just want it over regardless of $-location or anything else, only 1 does not want a 3rd school, and more than a few think the school should be further south -- they would be opposed to any site up north also. When one spends 8 - 10 hours some days as a group - you can imagine this topic comes up a fair amount. 11 of the 20 from the two top teams that travel together are 204.
Again small sample - but it colors my perspective just as your feedback does for you.

If those you know are opposed to BB strictly because of cost - I don't agree but I understand the objectivity of that position. If they are opposed to anywhere BB or north of there, I have a completely different issue.

[lacy]

gatordog said:

archwinsome said:

Using an online calculator that tracks CPI,

What cost $8200000 in 1973 would cost $38173299.38 in 2006

www.westegg.com/inflation/

They do state up front that their pre-1975 CPI data is from a publication and they only calculate up to 2006, not 2007.

As a triple check all of these in todays dollars;

I used Inflation Calculator at www.bls.gov/cpi/

$8.2 M in 1973 = $38.5 M in 2007 (for the "small" original WV)
$80. M in 1997 = $104 M in 2007

With the actual CPI figures for each time period clearly being much less than the 6% figure I used, (which I was thinking was pretty conservative), I believe it blows a big whole in the construction costs will go up 10% in less than a year theory.

I think that's a big scare tactic to try to get the SB to rush their decision and choose BB.

[lacy]

justme said:

doctorwho said:

agree there is going to be more of one look at it depedning on where you are -- let me ask you this however -- of all those areas you speak of, if the site chosen is by Route 88, and it saves the $20M - how do they feel ? Is that OK ? Is it just anti -BB ?

From my conversations,it is heavily anti-BB. Most want anything else. Some don't want the 3rd HS period. None were in favor of BB. Again, it is subjective and in no way scientific. I am only speaking of my personal experiences and can't pretend to know how other parts of the district feel.

I agree - and many I've talked to aren't affected by any boundary change. The question is, will they support the 09 referendum if they feel the SB overspent for BB? They might if they thought their schools were overly crowded, but with the enrollment numbers not supporting the district's projections, they may not.

[doctorwho]

lacy said:

gatordog said:

As a triple check all of these in todays dollars;

I used Inflation Calculator at www.bls.gov/cpi/

$8.2 M in 1973 = $38.5 M in 2007 (for the "small" original WV)
$80. M in 1997 = $104 M in 2007

With the actual CPI figures for each time period clearly being much less than the 6% figure I used, (which I was thinking was pretty conservative), I believe it blows a big whole in the construction costs will go up 10% in less than a year theory.

I think that's a big scare tactic to try to get the SB to rush their decision and choose BB.

we had the figure here for the last full 12 month period - does someone remember what it was ?

[Arch]

Not every price tracks with the CPI. It's just another 'guess' like all the rest of them and something to pass the time until the board announces a decision.

[doctorwho]

lacy said:

gatordog said:

As a triple check all of these in todays dollars;

I used Inflation Calculator at www.bls.gov/cpi/

$8.2 M in 1973 = $38.5 M in 2007 (for the "small" original WV)
$80. M in 1997 = $104 M in 2007

With the actual CPI figures for each time period clearly being much less than the 6% figure I used, (which I was thinking was pretty conservative), I believe it blows a big whole in the construction costs will go up 10% in less than a year theory.

I think that's a big scare tactic to try to get the SB to rush their decision and choose BB.

Is this group in on the conspiracy ?

"BuildingTeam Forecast, a Reed Construction Data website, is the economics information portal for the construction industry. Whether you are a large general contractor or a small local subcontractor, a global building products manufacturer, a local distributor or a member of the AE community, there is something of interest on this site for you, including:



www.buildingteamforecast.com/community/908/Construction+Costs/43720.html


"Construction Labor Cost Rise Moves ahead of Materials in Latest Quarter
10/4/2007 5:43:00 AM - According to the latest measurements of construction costs calculated by RSMeans, the rise in U.S. labor rates (+2.3%) quarter to quarter in July 2007 (i.e., versus April 2007) was a little higher than it was for material inputs (+2.0%). During the latest construction cycle, material costs have almost always increased faster than the installation or labor component. The latest result suggests that contractors will have to pay more attention to labor markets in the period ahead.

[rew]

Sam 2 gave a link for nationwide increases in school construction and Gatordog said from 9/06-9/07 it showed a 9.8% increase.

Again, I just have to ask Lacy. What motivates the SB to scare us into building a HS? Aren't they paying property taxes as well?

[soon2bwvhs]

archwinsome said:

justme said:

Totally disagree. It depends on WHO you're talking to. Absolutely everyone I have spoken to want the SB to abandon the BB site. These people reside all over south Naperville (High Meadow, Saddle Creek, Ashbury, Tamarak, & TG). It's all subjective so I don't believe that anyone of us can properly gage what the ENTIRE district feels about that site and I think it is irresponsible to speculate to the contrary.

Completely agree with you. It's all relative and depends on who you talk to. Each person can really only gauge how they themselves feel about it.

I would have to agree with your statement arch. It is an individual preference. I live in what would be considered the north end of the district. I am a pro 3rd HS supported (no matter where it ends up). I have support BB until the verdict; paying twice what was expected for land is a hard pill for me to swallow.

I guess I just need to understand the options before passing judgment one way or the other.

[movingforward]

soon2bwvhs said:

archwinsome said:

Completely agree with you. It's all relative and depends on who you talk to. Each person can really only gauge how they themselves feel about it.

I would have to agree with your statement arch. It is an individual preference. I live in what would be considered the north end of the district. I am a pro 3rd HS supported (no matter where it ends up). I have support BB until the verdict; paying twice what was expected for land is a hard pill for me to swallow.

I guess I just need to understand the options before passing judgment one way or the other.

I agree with your sentiments. I guess this is exactly why we elect people to make these decisions for an entire community; if we had to do it ourselves it would not be easy as everyone has their own ideas/agendas.

The question then becomes who will accept that decision and move on? I am prepared to accept whatever decision is made as I am confident that it will be made with the best interest of ALL of our kids in mind.

[Arch]

movingforward said:

The question then becomes who will accept that decision and move on? I am prepared to accept whatever decision is made as I am confident that it will be made with the best interest of ALL of our kids in mind.

While I prefer the BB location for various reasons discussed, once the decision comes that is it. It's done. Location is no longer part of it.
After that very moment, it's all about getting it built and open for kids.

So, count me in the Yes, I will accept it 100% crowd.

[gatormom]

archwinsome said:

movingforward said:

The question then becomes who will accept that decision and move on? I am prepared to accept whatever decision is made as I am confident that it will be made with the best interest of ALL of our kids in mind.

While I prefer the BB location for various reasons discussed, once the decision comes that is it. It's done. Location is no longer part of it.
After that very moment, it's all about getting it built and open for kids.

So, count me in the Yes, I will accept it 100% crowd.

Same with me. Build the school. If it is not BB, I will not be thrilled but I do trust the SB to make the correct decision for both the district and the kids. I will support whatever location the school is built on.

[chicoryowl]

gatormom said:

archwinsome said:

While I prefer the BB location for various reasons discussed, once the decision comes that is it. It's done. Location is no longer part of it.
After that very moment, it's all about getting it built and open for kids.

So, count me in the Yes, I will accept it 100% crowd.

Same with me. Build the school. If it is not BB, I will not be thrilled but I do trust the SB to make the correct decision for both the district and the kids. I will support whatever location the school is built on.

Same exact thoughts for me as well.

[momof3]

chicoryowl said:

gatormom said:

Same with me. Build the school. If it is not BB, I will not be thrilled but I do trust the SB to make the correct decision for both the district and the kids. I will support whatever location the school is built on.

Same exact thoughts for me as well.

I have said it before - I support the 3rd hs regardless of location. (not to say I don't have an opinion, but if the board has another choice I will set that aside and not hold a grudge)