[Vision2020] thank you

Mon Apr 18 16:18:08 PDT 2005

"I remind the voters once again of the dog and pony show."

I can definetely tell you if one of my employees gave me the following criteria I would fire them. The school district and facilities committee is not looking out for our best interest. If they were they would have asked for a "remodel bid." Not what they did ask for.

> I am very hesitant to post to this list because of the hostility that is > so common here, but you hit on an important point and I wanted to add > some information to it. I hope people will be able to disagree without > being disagreeable because I think that people should be free to express > their concerns on a community forum without getting personally attacked. > However I was present at that February meeting when the cost estimates > for repairing the current high school and the instructions to the > architect were discussed and can fill in some details.
> 
>  Actually Jack Porter could probably do a better job of this than I can, > because I am still working off of my notes and memory from that meeting. >  If I am incorrect about anything that occurred, perhaps he will correct > me. However the notes that you shared from that meeting do not paint the > full picture of that important 3 minute exchange that occurred at the > facilities meeting.
> 
> From my memory and notes, Mr. Porter started out by saying that he had > looked at the cost estimates given for repairing the current high school > and they didn't make sense to him.  Why was this cost estimate so high? > (The cost figures quoted on Sept. 27 (the "39 options" presentation) > were:  $20.3 million to remodel the HS for grades 10-12, and $20.5 > million for grades 9-12.  But by Feb. 22 the estimate for remodeling for > grades 10-12 had risen to $21.8 million and the combined estimate for > renovation plus "swing space" was $27.6 million).
> 
> 
> The architect replied that he had been given the instructions to do a > cost analysis for the high school remodel that would make it equivalent > to a brand new building.  That meant that he could not reuse anything in > the entire structure that was not current  "state of the art."
> 
> A case in point is the auditorium.  In the cost estimate, more than a > half million dollars is listed for repairing the auditorium.  Why so > much, Mr. Porter asked, it seems like a pretty good auditorium now?
> 
> That was because the architect could not re-use anything, he told us. > His instructions were to make it equivalent to a new structure. That > figure was derived by gutting the auditorium to the walls, removing all > the seats, stage, sound proofing, light and sound system and replacing > *everything* with brand new, state of the art equipment.   
> 
> Mr. Porter mentioned some other things that didn't make sense in the > cost estimate (and I think he had a great deal more that he would have > liked to have asked about but did not have adequate time to address all > the issues).  There was over 3.5 million to replace the gymnasium and > locker rooms.  Mr. Porter questioned this saying that the locker rooms > need repair but the gymnasium is just fine to continue using.  There was > one million dollars to move walls and partitions (I remember Mr. Porter > asking something like why was it necessary to make classrooms bigger > when we are trying to reduce our student- teacher ratios--wouldn't it be > okay to leave the walls where they were?) and there was one million > dollars in this cost estimate just for furniture and fixtures!  He also > questioned this, saying that it made sense to have all new fixtures if > you built a new school, but if you were staying in the current school, > why all new fixtures?  Why new furnitur!
 e? To all
of these, the architect > replied that he was following the instructions of the facilities > committee, to give a cost estimate that would make it equivalent to a > new building.  A new building would have new fixtures, so new fixtures > were included in this estimate.  (He apparently couldn't re-use even the > light sockets that were already there, in the estimate that he was asked > to give).
> 
> He said that it would certainly be possible to do a cost estimate to > remodel the high school and re-use what was functional and only replace > what needed replacing, but the facilities committee had never given him > the instructions to do those estimates.
> 
> However these were the figures released to the public about how much it > would cost to remodel the current high school--all based on this initial > set of instructions.  
> 
> So now we fast-forward to recent weeks.  At the Saturday meeting that I > attended on April 9th, there was some discussion about how the Trail > high school design would not include an auditorium (this is because the > development costs to bring the infrastructure to that site are running > into the millions and they have to cut somewhere and so the school won't > have an auditorium).  Superintendent Donicht said that this would not be > a problem because we would still have the current high school to use and > it has a "beautiful, fully functional auditorium now." (!!!!)
> 
> Which then leads me to ask, if the auditorium is beautiful *and* fully > functional, then why was the public given a cost estimate that included > a half million dollars to completely gut and replace it in the high > school repair estimate? What else in the high school that is also > currently "fully functional" was included for destruction and removal in > that high cost estimate that was given to the public?    
> 
> The cost given for demolishing and replacing that "beautiful, fully > functional" auditorium is higher than what they are saying it will cost > to remodel the entire high school now.  None of this makes sense.
> 
> Also we were told that it would take 4 years to remodel--but that time > estimate was also based on this "Extreme Makeover, The High School > Edition" version of repairs.
> 
> We are told many of the problems at the high school, like the science > labs needing to be upgraded and grungy locker rooms.  What we have never > been told is how much it would cost to simply repair and replace the > things that obviously need repairing and replacing, and putting in a few > new items like an elevator, while leaving everything else that is > currently fully-functional intact.
> 
> On the other side of the balance are all the additional costs that keep > popping up for the new high school plan.  On Saturday, the architect > said that to construct the football stadium and auditorium (which are in > the plans but not on this bond) would cost an *additional* 20 million. > And the infrastructure changes that will be needed aren't all included > in this--F Street is only planned to be extended, not widened. North > Mountain View road is going to be widened, but only to *county,* not > city standards--eventually F and Mountain View will need more work to be > safe and that will come out of the tax-payer's pocket somewhere.   
> 
> Also I'm curious about the argument that we need more space in the high > school.  Enrollment is dropping.  There is the explanation given that > this is for reconfiguring, (moving the 9th graders to the high school > and the 6th graders to the junior high) but I have attended many > meetings and heard a lot of testimony and you know what?  The public > testimony was pretty much balanced on reconfiguration.  Some people > supported reconfiguration and some people did not.  Even the > superintendent has publicly (January 25th meeting minutes) stated that > the 6th grade is working well where it is.  Some problems with 9th > graders were mentioned, but nothing that couldn't be corrected in their > present location with creative problem solving. There simply is no > mandate from the public for change. And the September 27th cost > estimates to remodel the high school for grades 10-12 or 9-12 are > virtually the same. Reconfiguration simply can not be used as a > legitimate re!
 ason to
justify the expense of building an entire new > school.  
> 
> (In fact, if instead we were to focus more on all the kids who would > prefer to be in the Alternative school and found them a bit larger > space, I suspect that there would be enough kids choosing to attend this > school so that, along with the dropping enrollment, the potential of > moving the 9th graders to the current high school might sort itself out > all by itself in a couple years). 
> 
> The deeper I have dug, the more disturbing the picture has become to me. >  As a scientist, I know that it is easy to draw a wrong conclusion if > your experimental design does not include all the correct controls and > the wrong data is gathered. If you are not careful, your data will > support the conclusion that you are hoping to see and may not give an > accurate picture.   Skewed data will give skewed results.   
> 
> So to answer your question Phil, we have no idea how much it would cost > to do a functional upgrade of the current high school.  For some reason, > we were never given those numbers because that analysis was never done. > But it would likely be a great deal less than the current estimates > being given for repairing the current high school.
> 
> JW
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Shelly 
>   To: vision2020 at moscow.com 
>   Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 10:25 PM
>   Subject: [Vision2020] Brand Spanking New
> 
> 
>         Visioneers,
> 
>         I went to the school districts office today and asked for a copy > of the cost estimate worksheet of $20,500,000.00 retro fit on the > existing High School. You know the flyer we all got at the open house.
> 
>         I was told by the district, "all I know is about a $400,000.00 > retro fit."
> 
>         > http://www.sd281.k12.id.us/facilities/04-09-27ArchitectsCostEst.pdf
> 
>         This link is to: The Facilities Planning Committee Summary of > Cost Estimates, dated 9-27-04 which indeed states a "remodel" of the > existing High School to encompass 900 students at a cost estimate of: > $20,500,000.00. Now, to me this seems awfully high when you can build a > brand spanking new high school on 40 acres to encompass 900 students for > only $23,400,000.00. So, I checked further and found that the reason the > "remodel" is so close to the "brand spanking new high school on 40 acres > is because the architect was instructed by the school district to bid it > as though it were equivalent to a brand new spanking HS. NOT A REMODEL. > Kindda like, "so, bid it as though it were brand spanking new." In other > words it was a "directive" from the Facilites Committee that they are to > bid the existing HS "equivalent" to a brand spanking new HS.
> 
>         Architect: 
> 
>         I take any question that you might have and give you the backup > info you need for why we did it that way. It was a comparative analysis > - directive by the FPC. What are we going to do at the existing HS is > the equivalent at a new school. So equivalency to a new HS - as if a > brand new auditorium. So all aspects were developed under that notion. > If the FPC or Trustees want us to downgrade, we can do that. 
> 

>   _____________________________________________________
>    List services made available by First Step Internet, 
>    serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
>                  http://www.fsr.net                       
>             mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>   /////////////////////////////////////////////////////

> 
>   No virus found in this incoming message.
>   Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>   Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.11 - Release Date: 4/14/2005
> 