Dist. 204 can't afford Metea site

[macy]

warriorpride said:

macy said:

I think that wouldn't be fair to those that supported the referendum who were of the opinion that the high school would be equitable in terms of facilities.

Also, don't you think most people would be very angry if they built Metea without those facilities?

What about building a magnet school? Talked about, but not agreed upon because it wasn't "equitable".

If they went ahead and build a school that was not equal to WVHS or NVHS in terms of facilities, wow. I would think there would be lawsuits, extreme displeasure throughout the district.

I think a majority of people wouldn't care at all, just as it's always been. As I mentioned before, no matter what the solution, there are going to be unhappy people. How about I sue the SD for not getting a school opened in 2009? That was pretty much promised, too.

ETA: and how about some people sue because they thought they were voting on boundaries? or sue because an inferior location will be picked?

"Fair" is a subjective term - it means something different to each person

Go for it. Sue them for not opening in 2009, and the boundaries and the inferior location.

You won't get anywhere.

But, I think (my opinion), if the school ends up without the same amenities as the other two. All bets off the table. Bring on the class action suits.

Wow. Do you really think that's a possibility? Not at all what was presented to the voting public. Well above and beyond boundaries and location, "equitable" high school was presumed by all.

That kind of switch goes beyond "unfair". I'm sure there's a better legal term to describe that outcome.

Just my opinion.

[macy]

archwinsome said:

The promise was to not come back to the taxpayers for it... Spending more money was not out of the question... just coming back to the taxpayers for it was.

All in all though, I'd still open up a little wider to just get it done.

I've had people underestimate a job and apologize about it and admit they messed up the estimate.. I still payed them the proper amount (what it should have been) because we all make mistakes. I know that's not the norm of behavior around here, but that's the way I am about it. We need the school, build the ()#*&$ school and make it as equal as possible in the best location possible. Duh, things go over budget.. Welcome to reality. At the end of the day, the kids need the school.

Arch,

are you okay with a school without a pool or athletic fields?

Are you okay with a school that's not "equitable" in terms of facilities in comparison to WVHS or NVHS?

I'm not. Hell no.

[Arch]

macy said:

archwinsome said:

The promise was to not come back to the taxpayers for it... Spending more money was not out of the question... just coming back to the taxpayers for it was.

All in all though, I'd still open up a little wider to just get it done.

I've had people underestimate a job and apologize about it and admit they messed up the estimate.. I still payed them the proper amount (what it should have been) because we all make mistakes. I know that's not the norm of behavior around here, but that's the way I am about it. We need the school, build the ()#*&$ school and make it as equal as possible in the best location possible. Duh, things go over budget.. Welcome to reality. At the end of the day, the kids need the school.

Arch,

are you okay with a school without a pool or athletic fields?

Are you okay with a school that's not "equitable" in terms of facilities in comparison to WVHS or NVHS?

I'm not. Hell no.

Personally, I don't care if it has either of them. But I know to others it means a lot, so for that reason, no they should not build the school without those facilities. What I was saying was if its going to take some extra scratch to build it the way it's supposed to be built then woopty do, just build it the way it's supposed to be.

Taxes are there no matter what. This whole notion that people try to hold onto about having no taxes is an unrealistic goal. So, with that in mind, I would rather we have something damn fine to be proud of for our money than a stop-short / half-a$$ solution.

The longer we wait the more likelihood it will be that no matter WHERE it is located, it will need more funding. That's a very plausible scenario the longer this takes to get underway.

There's an old business rule:

Money, Time and Features. Pick two.

[gatordog]

I am trying to understand the pool/stadium thing. For starters...I wouldnt be up in arms if these were deleted, or not affordable at this time. As long as clear and open access is worked out at other facilities around district.

MVHS will have a football team. MVHS will have a swimming and diving team. How can you say MV would not be "equitable" with WV and NV? The opportunities and extracurricular fun clearly will be there.

Is it now down to finding the best site to accomodate a football stadium?

Are we now trying to "build a high school that the football team would be proud of?"

[proschool]

When having to choose between settling for less and spending more money, I would choose to spend more money.

If they abondon BB for Macom and then decide it's okay to spend more money I am going to be ticked.

[gatordog]

proschool said:

If they abondon BB for Macom and then decide it's okay to spend more money I am going to be ticked.

....if they abandon BB for Macom I hope their is more justification than "but look....we have a football stadium now!"

Maybe I am missing something...but I dont see the stadium thing as a "deal breaker" for lots of taxpayers. Maybe I am wrong.

To me, staying within the $125 million ref is the "deal breaker"

[justvote]

gatordog said:

I am trying to understand the pool/stadium thing. For starters...I wouldnt be up in arms if these were deleted, or not affordable at this time. As long as clear and open access is worked out at other facilities around district.

MVHS will have a football team. MVHS will have a swimming and diving team. How can you say MV would not be "equitable" with WV and NV? The opportunities and extracurricular fun clearly will be there.

Is it now down to finding the best site to accomodate a football stadium?

Are we now trying to "build a high school that the football team would be proud of?"

I agree with Macy that it is only fair and equitable that MV have the same amenities as NV & WV. I think a pool and athletic field is something that the Board should make every attempt to include in the new school, and it appears that they are (man, I thought I'd never see the day where I made the statement "I agree with Macy").

How do you reconcile the above statement with the following one you made in a another thread:

"That is a good idea to bring WV back within design capacity in 2010-11.

I can think of three negatives, though
-Planned freshman walkers to WV would no longer be walkers for that year.
-I wonder how the WV freshman students would feel about being on a different HS campus.
-It doesnt seem right to me that NV freshman in 2010-11 have "better" experience than their WV counterparts. I think the treatment should be as indentical as possible among the schools."

You can certainly argue that if MV weren't built with a stadium or pool that the students were not being treated "identiical" and that WV & NV students will have the "better"experience.

[rew]

Of course we don't want gross inequities between the schools. But I would like to see the statement, "the increase in property costs results in an $XXX cost overrun." Now that is something the community can sink it's teeth in to and debate.

If the SB is going to walk away from BB and chose an alternate site, I hope they are prepared to defend the move with very specific numbers and exact detail.

I think the argument may not go over as well, if you said we may have to build MVHS w/o a landscape sprinkler system and fewer trees and less fancy parking lot lighting etc

I understand they might not be able to devulge the numbers now because they are in negotiations, but someday they will have to show us the numbers.

We know that the property is $17M more than they wanted to pay, we also know that they had "cushion" in the budget for a worst case scenario.

So are we walking away from BB for an $8.5M savings?? A $10M savings?? I don't get it. On a $130M project, you abandon the plan for a 6-7% cost overrun??? and all the costs you incur..the redesigns, and delays??

Stop the train, I want to get off!!

[rew]

It may be easy to label me "BB at all costs", but I can tell you that if it was 18 mos ago and the district had not done all the leg work, I would've agreed it's best to walk away.

But they waded in too deep on BB. They have a building ready for permitting, Do you know how much work that represents in a project this size, the $$$ spent??I can't see how they can afford to walk away.

[slp]

rew said:

It may be easy to label me "BB at all costs", but I can tell you that if it was 18 mos ago and the district had not done all the leg work, I would've agreed it's best to walk away.

But they waded in too deep on BB. They have a building ready for permitting, Do you know how much work that represents in a project this size, the $$$ spent??I can't see how they can afford to walk away.

These are all very valid points. I sure hope that the school board has those same sentiments as they are wading through the information at hand.

[wvhsparent]

archwinsome said:

The promise was to not come back to the taxpayers for it... Spending more money was not out of the question... just coming back to the taxpayers for it was.

All in all though, I'd still open up a little wider to just get it done.

I've had people underestimate a job and apologize about it and admit they messed up the estimate.. I still payed them the proper amount (what it should have been) because we all make mistakes. I know that's not the norm of behavior around here, but that's the way I am about it. We need the school, build the ()#*&$ school and make it as equal as possible in the best location possible. Duh, things go over budget.. Welcome to reality. At the end of the day, the kids need the school.

OK How about this then arch.......

Build the school as planned on the BB site. For all overages make a special taxing dist to encompass the MVHS attendance area to pay for those overages....Would that be OK with you?

[doctorwho]

gatordog said:

proschool said:

If they abondon BB for Macom and then decide it's okay to spend more money I am going to be ticked.

....if they abandon BB for Macom I hope their is more justification than "but look....we have a football stadium now!"

Maybe I am missing something...but I dont see the stadium thing as a "deal breaker" for lots of taxpayers. Maybe I am wrong.

To me, staying within the $125 million ref is the "deal breaker"

Although it is likely true most taxpayers don't care -- this has always been about the kids for me, not about the taxpayers.

Although neither the stadium nor the pool directly affect my child's participation in anything ( not football /track or swim team) - if they said no gym- ( volleyball / basketball) - I would be up in arms. The swim team that someitmes arive at the crack of dawn for practice shouldn't have to go to another school even earlier ( or late in the day) for practice - sorry.
No team sports draws more students to support their school than football - school spirit.
So I agree with those who say they need to be included -

Now I also agree with arch in that I would rather just pay for it now - tell me how much - as I really believe when all is said and done a school at any other site is going to cost just as much in the long run - and it will be on an inferior site. Nothing has gone our way site wise so far- why is the sun going to come out on another site - I don't believe it will - and we definitely lose the 2009 opening ( or pay similar costs to expedite it) -
toss in the increased transportation costs from opening til the end of time for one of these 'fringe district sites' - MACOM bad enough because many a long bus ride - north even worse because almost everyone will be a long bus ride, and tell me the cost avoidance doesn't seem futie?

call it BB or nothing -- or call it paying the devil we know, rather than wait to pay the devil we don't. that check we cut will likely end up being very close to the same amount

[rew]

OK, since I am the only one posting this morn, I will take advantage of the bully pulpit.

ETA Guess some sleepy heads woke up! ;D

After the 05 ref failed, those of us involved knew the ref was victimized. We were caught sleeping at the wheel. We BEGGED HC and the SB to buy BB at the price back then and give us another shot at the ref.

They didn't do it. They could have actually had land, before selecting boundaries and drawing plans. Gee, what a novel idea.

[wvhsparent]

rew said:

It may be easy to label me "BB at all costs", but I can tell you that if it was 18 mos ago and the district had not done all the leg work, I would've agreed it's best to walk away.

But they waded in too deep on BB. They have a building ready for permitting, Do you know how much work that represents in a project this size, the $$$ spent??I can't see how they can afford to walk away.

IMHO the same building could be placed on several different spots, so I am not getting my shorts in a bunch over a possible site change.

[wvhsparent]

rew said:

OK, since I am the only one posting this morn, I will take advantage of the bully pulpit.

ETA Guess some sleepy heads woke up! ;D

After the 05 ref failed, those of us involved knew the ref was victimized. We were caught sleeping at the wheel. We BEGGED HC and the SB to buy BB at the price back then and give us another shot at the ref.

They didn't do it. They could have actually had land, before selecting boundaries and drawing plans. Gee, what a novel idea.

This is news to me....really? where were the funds for this coming from? Enlighten me.