|
Post by blankcheck on Feb 20, 2006 9:04:02 GMT -6
My feeling from past performance is that the additional cost will be taked onto the 2009 referendum just like they did with the overrun of NV and the additional gym.
|
|
|
Post by blankcheck on Feb 20, 2006 9:16:15 GMT -6
My concern is that this will not be settled until aftern the referendum and at that point, who knows what we will pay/acre. At that point, it puts the voters behind the eight ball since construction would have begun on the footprint of the school. Any additional money needed to purchase the land will appear on the 2009 referendum.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Feb 20, 2006 9:27:42 GMT -6
My concern is that this will not be settled until aftern the referendum and at that point, who knows what we will pay/acre. At that point, it puts the voters behind the eight ball since construction would have begun on the footprint of the school. Any additional money needed to purchase the land will appear on the 2009 referendum. I did bring this up at the last Coffee with the Board....They stated they DO have an upper limit (which was substantially lower than 500/k acre). If it goes over the limit then they will revisit the other available sites, and deal with their "negative factors" if needed. I did not get the upper limit figure, nor did I ask, knowing it is not info one would reveal during negotiations. A good point which I did not bring up is the SD plan to start building on the 25 acres they now have. with this new motion it would not be prudent for the SD to proceed with this plan as it would unduely limit their positon in the negotiations.
|
|
|
Post by cantretirehere on Feb 20, 2006 9:31:07 GMT -6
Does anyone know what the SB's 2nd choice of property would be?
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Feb 20, 2006 9:44:32 GMT -6
My concern is that this will not be settled until aftern the referendum and at that point, who knows what we will pay/acre. At that point, it puts the voters behind the eight ball since construction would have begun on the footprint of the school. Any additional money needed to purchase the land will appear on the 2009 referendum. I did bring this up at the last Coffee with the Board....They stated they DO have an upper limit (which was substantially lower than 500/k acre). If it goes over the limit then they will revisit the other available sites, and deal with their "negative factors" if needed. I did not get the upper limit figure, nor did I ask, knowing it is not info one would reveal during negotiations. A good point which I did not bring up is the SD plan to start building on the 25 acres they now have. with this new motion it would not be prudent for the SD to proceed with this plan as it would unduely limit their positon in the negotiations. I sent the board an email on this topic, everyone may wish to also.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Feb 20, 2006 9:45:19 GMT -6
Does anyone know what the SB's 2nd choice of property would be? I know what I would like it to be ;D
|
|
|
Post by 204parent on Feb 20, 2006 10:30:29 GMT -6
Does anyone know what the SB's 2nd choice of property would be? The back nine at WE. Can they condemn a golf course? ;D
|
|
|
Post by refbasics on Feb 20, 2006 12:14:55 GMT -6
I can run that comparison. Does anyone have a cost estimate for the new MS / NV additions scenario? I tried to get them from the IPSD site, but all of last years info has been pulled. Can you get the info you need off Archive CFO? voteno204.org/2005/page14.html
|
|
|
Post by blankcheck on Feb 20, 2006 12:43:28 GMT -6
So everyone cuts down the CFO web site, yet they are willing to go back in and use the information they have provided?
|
|
|
Post by refbasics on Feb 20, 2006 12:47:08 GMT -6
I can run that comparison. Does anyone have a cost estimate for the new MS / NV additions scenario? I tried to get them from the IPSD site, but all of last years info has been pulled. Can you get the info you need off Archive CFO? voteno204.org/2005/page14.htmlHere is the more direct link i meant- can you find the numbers you need off this? www.voteno204.org/nvhsaddition.pdf
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Feb 20, 2006 12:55:56 GMT -6
Blank.... who has cut down the CFO site?
If they have good info then, then I say use it......
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 20, 2006 13:45:00 GMT -6
Blank.... who has cut down the CFO site? If they have good info then, then I say use it...... I believe the reference was about the thread: "Let's grow this board" in a post done on Feb 16.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Feb 20, 2006 13:58:24 GMT -6
OK...My interpretation was there was a few mentions of certain posters on the CFO Board, not the board itself. It was also qushed by Topher early on.....
|
|
|
Post by cantretirehere on Feb 20, 2006 14:08:42 GMT -6
Does anyone know what the SB's 2nd choice of property would be? The back nine at WE. Can they condemn a golf course? ;D If it was 80 acres maybe they would.
|
|
|
Post by kae on Feb 20, 2006 14:34:11 GMT -6
So everyone cuts down the CFO web site, yet they are willing to go back in and use the information they have provided? There is no reason to cut down www.voteno204.org the home of the CFO site. There is very valid information there.
|
|