District walks fine line with budget information

[macrockett]

Mar 11, 2010 13:49:47 GMT -6 @steckdad said:

Mar 11, 2010 12:47:24 GMT -6 macrockett said:

My calculation on NVHS, if built today, would go something like this: NVHS was opened in 1997, at at a cost of $62 million. Using the Turner Cost Index above, the oldest year they have for the index is 1997 (so we will use that but should be using 95-96). Anyway, take 2009 index of 832 - 525 (1997 index) = 307%, which is the inflation in construction costs (labor and materials) between 1997 and 2009. So multiply $62 million x 3.07 = $190.34 million. (add land and you would have the total cost).

If you look at table 5 in the other pdf, the avg 2500 seat school currently costs $100 million, so grossed up to 3000 capacity would be approximately $121 million. So, imo, either NVHS was over the top in price or the construction index doesn't take into account all adjustments that can be made to reduce the final cost of a 3000 capacity HS.

mac...isn't NV a 4500 seat school, or is that with the extra buildings that were added on?

thanks for the research btw....

yw

my understanding 3000 main + 1200 gold

district #s winsome.cnchost.com/MAC/buildingcapacity2008.pdf 3000 + 1200

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuqua_Valley_High_School

As an aside, STR determined that Neuqua Gold capacity was 1623 and that illusive "functional capacity", i.e. 85%, was 1380.

winsome.cnchost.com/MAC/strrpt.pdf

I think I have a similar doc for WVHS, from Doc or Arch's vault, but i have to look for it.

So I take the districts capacity figures with a grain of salt. I have a feeling that capacity is more than they will admit.

You can read these 2 thread to see all of the confusion created by JC with the 85%, etc. To me, it is all a joke. I like facts and JC was used to throwing things out like the 85% was the number used to show that "functional capacity" used by the state. The 85%, however was used by the state to curtail unnecessary building by Districts (I imagine it was used when they were paying for a portion of the schools built).

ipsd204.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=erm&action=display&thread=2776

ipsd204.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=bidc&action=display&thread=2616

(these were part of my search for the "smoking gun"

[asmodeus]

Mike,

I believe your analysis of the index is incorrect. Here is what the Turner site shows as the change per year:

2009 -8.4
2008 6.3
2007 7.7
2006 10.6
2005 9.5
2004 5.4
2003 0.3
2002 1.0
2001 3.0
2000 4.4
1999 3.8
1998 4.6
1997 4.0

If you start with $62m in 1997, and factor in each year's change, you come up with the following:

Start 62,000,000
1997 64,480,000 (up 4.0%)
1998 67,446,080 (up 4.6%)
1999 70,009,031 (up 3.8%)
2000 73,089,428 (up 4.4%)
2001 75,282,111 (up 3.0%)
2002 76,034,932 (up 1.0%)
2003 76,263,037 (up 0.3%)
2004 80,381,241 (up 5.4%)
2005 88,017,459 (up 9.5%)
2006 97,347,310 (up 10.6%)
2007 104,843,053 (up 7.7%)
2008 111,448,165 (up 6.3%)
2009 102,086,519 (down 8.4%)

Alternatively, you can take the $62m divided by the 1997 index (525) and then multiply it by the 2009 index (832), and come up with about the same amount (around $100m).

[macrockett]

Yes, Asmodeus, I think you are correct. Due to the compounding you have to divide then multiply v subtracting the two. I should have looked at that more closely (got lazy rather than figure out why it didn't seem right). Thanks for figuring it out.

[Arch]

So, does that then mean we overpayed on MVHS for what NVHS would cost today ? I admit, I don't remember the land costs of NV as that was before my time (with or without the vapor-mall mentioned before ; HA, just what the area needs.. MORE RETAIL for people to not buy anything)...

[macrockett]

Well MVHS construction is 125 million so you would just reverse the process. In 1997 construction dollars, it would be 125/832*525 = $78.87 million! Lets see if asmodeus would agree.

If that is correct, I would say we were screwed!

[doctorwho]

Mar 11, 2010 21:38:26 GMT -6 macrockett said:

Well MVHS construction is 125 million so you would just reverse the process. In 1997 construction dollars, it would be 125/832*525 = $78.87 million! Lets see if asmodeus would agree.

If that is correct, I would say we were screwed!

and that's if we had only spent $125M- we spent $150

but asa our Super has been quoted- hey, it's not like we're spending here -- no we're spent BLINDLY

remember Plainfield East just opened what 2 years ago ( 1 year ahead of MV ) and they build it for under $80M ( and it's closer to my house- LOL !)


And it looks like a school- very nice

you tell me what looks better

www.learningcommunity202.org/PEHS/construction_photos_page.htm

[asmodeus]

If the $62m for NV included the land, then yes, I would say that we overpaid for MV. However, if the buildings/labor alone cost $62m, then I suppose MV would be about right at $100m or so, plus $24m for the land. (Which was probably how they came to the $124m for the ref.)

(Of course, all the shenanigans that have pushed the cost to over $150 are icing on the cake.)

I guess my point about the costs was that although I believe the 3rd HS was NOT necessary, since we apparently had to build it for $124m (or more), we should have ended up with something that we at least we could look at and be proud of. To paraphrase Arch (I think), we paid for a Mercedes and got a Chrysler.

[macrockett]

Now I have to go back and look at my Plan B alternative to constructing a third HS. I used the current square footage of approx $200/sp foot on the HS addition portion which is correct, but inn adding a MS I might have grossed up the cost of the middle school since I didn't have a total square foot number. If so, the plan B alternative costs even less, creating an even larger gap that the $100 million.

[macrockett]

No, NVHS cost 62 without the land and MVHS is 124 without the land, so should be apples to apples. So taking mvhs back to NVHS construction dollars would be 124/832*525=78M, so MVHS looks more costly that NVHS, No?

[doctorwho]

Mar 11, 2010 21:51:51 GMT -6 macrockett said:

No, NVHS cost 62 without the land and MVHS is 124 without the land, so should be apples to apples

agreed - thanks

[macrockett]

Maybe we should start looking for the smoking gun. Such as lets see how much Turner profited on MVHS relative to other recent jobs.