[Vision2020] I'm pissed. Final answer.
keely emerinemix
kjajmix1 at msn.com
Wed Apr 20 11:22:57 PDT 2005
Mike is right -- Matrix authored one report, Hummel did another, and Hummel
was embraced by some of the people who are not criticizing us because of
their considerable experience in both the remodeling of downtown sites and
the construction of new sites. Matrix is a facilities planning entity, by
the way, and the totality of their report reveals more than just the
building-by-building number scale that those who want easy answers are
quoting. It's tough work to read and understand the whole report; I began
before I was elected and still refer to it often.
Please know that I willingly chose to go out on this very public limb and
hold no resentment for how anyone else is campaigning, or not campaigning,
or spending their very busy days. The superintendent has my complete
respect; what I'm concerned about is the level to which this discussion has
sunk. If I get potshots, they're part and parcel of what I expected, and
while I cringe at comparisons between auto glass repair and facilities
planning, I understand that's part of the territory. Again, it is what I
consider part of my position, and no one left me out here by myself -- I do
what I do, and I hope I do it well. But I do it with no regrets whatsoever.
Yes, it's hard to keep up -- my husband and my sons are my first priority
and I get to Vision when I can -- but it's now a sprint to the finish line.
If the bond passes, I'll celebrate. If not, I'll know that I did what I
could.
I appreciate Mike's lending some clarity and passion to the debate and
appreciate the work he has done and continues to do in the community. And
frankly, I'm a little pissed off, too -- in a most ladylike and genteel
manner, of course.
keely emerine mix
From: "Michael Curley" <curley at turbonet.com>
Reply-To: curley at turbonet.com
To: cjs <cjs at turbonet.com>
CC: VISION2020 at MOSCOW.COM
Subject: [Vision2020] I'm pissed. Final answer.
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 09:54:25 -0700
My apologies to anyone who is offended by the subject heading, but we have
reached a
point where it's time to say that regardless of the rancor of some of the
posts here,
there ARE some people who are trying to make sense of things, and the
District leaving
Keely out here to twist in the wind to keep up is just ridiculous. Where is
our
Superintendent, whom we pay about $100,000 per year? She should have some
of
these answers. Where is the Chair of the Board--who has been there for 13
or more
years and knows, or should, the entire history. Who was appointed by the
committee to
do PR--that's public relations, not a sales job. Damn it, it's not fair to
Keely and it is not
fair to the many, many citizens who have contributed their time to the
process over the
years to come up with a plan. Phil, I don't know if you can believe this,
but there were
people on this committee with every bit the passion you have to save money
and do
what's right for the whole community. There were conservative Republican
business
people, there were liberal Democrats, there were Libertarians, educators,
ARCHITECTS, attorneys, dentists, educators, financial advisors--in short a
whole lot of
folks who have filtered through the committee, Board, and Staff who were/are
smart,
dedicated, HAD NO AGENDA, and received NO PAY (even staff for this
particular
service--it was over and above paid duties), and will receive no benefit if
the bond
passes in any form. Who is defending them? NO ONE. And I'm pissed about
that,
because much of the "information" that is circulating on this, our only
"instant" forum in
this town is just plain wrong, inaccurate, or misleading. I suspect (from
some of the
feedback I've gotten) that there are a lot of people listening and they are
probably
wondering, regardless of the rhetorical, mean-spirited, irrelevant, and
non-reasoned
posts, "where is the more complete explanation of this bond process?" It
appears to
me that our Superintendent turned her job over to CQE--another dedicated
group of
community-minded citizens (who were represented on the Committee and Board,
but all
of whom do not agree with each specific) who were not provided the necessary
information to adequately educate their fellow citizens--NOR IS IT THEIR
JOB.
Whew. Sorry for the public catharsis, but I needed to get that off my
chest.
Now, Phil, for my final answer to you:
1. The information you received about their being no architect competition
is just flat
wrong. I know that personally. Where you can document it, I don't know.
Probably the
committee minutes. Certainly some other committee members.
2. There is no "estimate on repairs to the HS." YOU have already noted
that it is an
estimate to build essentially a new HS at the current location using as much
as possible
existing structures.
3. They do not HAVE to be reconfigured. There are good educational reasons
to do
so. There are good financial reasons to do so. There are good reasons to
do so in
maintaining as much of our "neighborhood schools" concept at the elementary
level.
Yes, there are also good reasons NOT to reconfigure, but considering the
overall best
interests of all the constituents in the community, the committee apparently
decided
we'd be best served with reconfiguration. I happen to have studied that
particular point
to my personal satisfaction and I happen to agree, although I certainly can
respect the
contrary opinion.
BTW, in that regard, please don't assume you know how I'm voting or suggest
I'm trying
to get you to vote differently (re. your prior comment our votes will
cancel). I'm trying to
give you the information that is woefully missing from the people I think
should be
providing it.
4. No, it isn't sinking because of the water table. I have my opinions as
to why, but I've
called out enough folks in this post. Maybe they needed someone with your
spirit and
thoughtfulness--contained by the desire to reach consensus, not offend--on
the Board
or planning committee that handled that one. Maybe we just needed a better
architect
or contractor or land analyst--or all three.
5. Read the bond proposal. There is NO tie to the Trail dirt as you call
it. There is a
long history about just the part of the committee process trying to locate
an acceptable
site if the existing site were not used. The Trail offer is really "last
minute" to the rest of
the process. The architect had to assume certain costs of site purchase and
development (based on the research done to the time of the first cost
estimate for the
whole project). the Trails' offer gave them something more concrete from
which they
could HYPOTHESIZE those costs, but they are not a NECESSARY part.
Signing off. As Mr. Rogers would say (Roy, that is): Happy Trails.
Mike Curley
On 19 Apr 2005 at 15:39, cjs wrote:
> Phil:
> the process of choosing the architect didn't include, as best I
> recall, "> bid" for the high school--see Mark Seman's post. It was
> about things like: have you done t> his before, where, what kind of
> building, would you charge us to look into our situati> on, how
> much, etc. "Bids" would be for the actual construction. Check with
> the Superin> tendent or Facilities Committee Chair for further
> information on the selection proces> s of the architect.
> Phil, I was part of the conversation with the architect--if he used
> the wo> rd "directive" I won't complain about that. But no, it
> wasn't put it writing, but it was c> ommunicated to the
> committee--and it is probably in the notes of that meeting, but I
> can'> t tell you exactly when that was--several years ago.
So Mike, if you were present and know there is no paperwork or
directive (pieces of paper) then the estimate on the repairs of the
existing HS is just a number out of thin air? The 20.5 million dollar
"estimate" and you expect the public to accept this? Sounds like a
sales pitch tool.
> the auditorium isn't horrible, but it you want it to last another 80
> years> and hold FOUR grades, not THREE, then it might be reasonable
> to rebuild it.
Why do the school grades even have to be reconfigured? To substantiate
the sales pitch for the new HS?
> It isn't just that the high school is old, Phil. It isn't just age.
> Part > of it is sinking into the ground. It will require MAJOR
> expense to keep it going AS A SCHOOL for th> e next 70- 100 years.
> I can't detail all the reasons here. That's why there was a c>
> ommittee for ten years looking at the thing. There is information
> available somewhere that> shows WHY virtually everyone who worked
> on the committee and studied the issue agree> s that the best use of
> taxpayer money over the long haul is to do a major
> renovation/remodel/rebuild or a new high school on another site.
> Yes, the> re is disageement about "keep it downtown v. outskirts of
> town" or exactly to wh> at degree it needs to be remodeled, or if
> it's on the outskirts, is the Trail property > the best choice. But
> few who have taken the time to study it think that sinking more
> money > into the exisiting facility makes good economic sense in the
> long haul. And most i> f not all of those people will have to help
> foot the bill for whatever is done--patch, > fix, build--and have NO
> vested interest in having a new school built.
Every tax payer has a vested interest. Every tenant has a vested
interest. Every student has a vested interest. If it is sinking is it
because our water tables continue to drop? Last night city hall
approved 7 new ball fields that are going to need watering by city
water which is going to drop our water table even more. Sorry I got
out of content. Just had to tell ya.
> The architect has done a great deal for free, whether ALL of it has
> been f> ree I don't know. For example, have we paid for a plane
> ticket to come to Moscow--out> of pocket expenses of other sorts?
> I don' t know.
Mike - good question. How do I properly ask the right authority this
question? What about the architects motel room and food? Is this
public information? It should be if I am paying for it.
> This BOND (it isn't a levy folks just to keep the terminology
> straight) IS> NOT TIED TO THE TRAIL PROPERTY. I said that once
> before. Whether we buy MORE land by> the existing facility (and
> rebuild/remodel it) does not reduce the cost of reb> uilding. It
> just increases it. Maybe that's a good idea, but again, it doesn't
> seem to hav> e anything to do with whether the exisiting facility is
> adequate for educational purpose> s right now or about what makes
> the best long-term economic sense for the taxpayers.
If the Trail dirt is not tied to this levy/bond then why does all the
information I read talk about "a new high school on the Trail land?"
Seriously Mike. Look at your information from the open house. If the
trail property was not tied to this bond/levy then why are the four
tracts not mentioning a rebuild of the existing HS? Where and how did
the 29 million dollar figure come about if the Trail dirt was not
taken into consideration. In other words the 29 million includes what
we have to do to streets, etc. in conjunction w/the Trail "gift."
> I don't know where you get your information, but a quality facility
> can be> built for $20M. Sure, if we put in sueded leather chairs
> for the students and pay what the> military pays for a screwdriver,
> we might not get all the goodies we otherwise could. B> ut the
> contractor will bid the project and will know that we have $20 M and
> that'> s it. Just like if you were building a new building. Tell
> you what. If the bond passes--or > one in the future, volunteer
> your time for the committee that will submit the constru> ction RFP
> and review the responses. They will welcome your tough-minded,
> tight-fisted a> pproach to the use of the community/taxpayer money
> for the benefit of the children.
You bet Mike. Please keep me informed.
>
> Thanks for the reasoned reply. I really appreciate it. And, thanks
> for t> he invite. I want to be sure to order the friendly beer
> though. I assume you must have some> "unfriendly" beer as well as
> the "political" beer. Don't want either of those.
Well, Dear friend, looks like Jack is the answer. Tangle Ridge is my
favorite.
Thanks good buddy,
Phil
>
> Hope all is going well. Come by for that friendly beer sometime. Not
> a political beer.
>
> > Phil:
> > Until someone else answers to the contrary, I think I know the
> > answer to y> our question about the two pieces of paper. The
> > district sought architects for the pos> sible projects.
>
> Where are the other architects bids?
>
> > Once they chose a firm they TALKED to them. Yes, various district
> > personn> el or members of the committee may have sent pertinent
> > information to the archit> ects (such as the specs on existing
> > structures--sq. footage, class sizes, footprints,> etc), but as
> > hard as it might be to believe, I think the piece of paper you are
> > looking for > doesn't exist. Because I think the architects asked
> > the simple question (orally in a phon> e conversation or to the
> > Facilities Committee) "how do you want us to work up the remodel>
> > costs of the high school?" "Do you want us to compare apples to
> > apples--full scale rem> odel so there is as comparable a building
> > at that site as we could build at anothe> r site--OR, do you want
> > us to do some lesser degree of remodel--and if so what?" The ans>
> > wer, again given orally, was--"apples to apples."
>
> Mike, if you review the meeting minutes of FPC you will see indeed
> the chosen architect tells the public exactly what he was instructed
> to do. I think he used the word Directive. You, being an attorney
> could explain to me if a directive is a piece of paper or a verbal
> discussin. If it was a verbal discussion shouldn't it have been laid
> out in the minutes?
>
> There was nothing nefarious about that answer. Among other things,
> the ar> chitect said > that a remodel could include all or just part
> of the building, and even if> it included all, > were we to widen
> any classrooms, divide any space, make a different cafete> ria, etc.
> etc.
> > A multitude of choices. And, in anticipation of your next
> > question,
> of co> urse, many > remodels could be done at LESS expense than
> building a new facility. That> seems > pretty obvious.
>
> Again Mike, it is clear in the architects words what he was
> isturcted to do and how to do it. He was "directed" to give the
> school district and the FPC a tool to ram down and sell to the
> public a new high school. Don't you see the rhetoric? The audotorium
> is horrible and needs completely replaced and in the next breath it
> is a wonderful audotorium. When people speak like this on a witness
> stand it is called perjury.
>
> > In looking at the best investment of taxpayer money over the LONG
> > haul, th> e facility is going to be a quality learning environment
> > AT LESS ANNUAL COST FOR MORE YEARS if it is "remodeled" to "new"
> > standards.
>
> You made referance to my building once. It is 33 years older than
> the current high school. I have been told by the city building
> inspectors that due to my hard work and care for my building it's
> chronological age is between 8 and 20 years. There was also a
> mention about the "band aid" approach. Eventually if you keep fixing
> something that is broken you will finally end up with something like
> what I have.
>
> > If there had only been one other remodel option it would have made
> > sense t> o ask for a comparative figure. But, since there were a
> > gillion options to have "pric> ed," and none of them appeared to
> > make sense as a better long-term investment of taxpayer f> unds,
> > it didn't make much sense to ask for all of them--and the
> > architects would ha> ve required payment in all probability.
>
> Are you stating that this architect has been doing all this work for
> free? What happens when the bond doesn't pass? Yes Mike, I know your
> vote will cancel my vote. But Donovans vote will cancel that. And
> etc., etc.
>
> In summary: I think the district should have at least looked at the
> eminent domain of the 5 buildings on the west end of the school. I
> heard somewhere that Dave Trail has interest or works in or
> something like that of one of these buildings. Was this even
> addressed ina ny meeting? Don't you think the Trails could offer a
> better 40 acxes? Where all the acreage "gifted" or sold or whatever
> could all be used? It appears to me that the
> gifted/donated/whatever dirt is the worst dirt that they own. Could
> be wrong that is only my opinion. There is no way any person in
> their right mind can vote for this levy because we all know they
> can't build this magnitude for 20 million. What is the legal
> terminology if they start to build the high school and run out of
> money where the inumbrance is passed along to the tax payer
> automatically. No vote needed? Maybe the public should be aware of
> this as this would sure dampen my vot for the levy. In other words
> it is a blank check.
>
> It has been a pleasure as always,
> Phil
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > On 19 Apr 2005 at 10:10, cjs wrote:
> >
> > Thank you Mark for such a "grown up" answer.
> >
> > You are the architect and know the direct lingo. I am not. I
> > appreciate you taking the time to clarify what is the proper
> > terminology and lingo.
> >
> > What I am looking for is a piece of paper from the school board
> > and/or the facilites committee to the architect asking him for a
> > cost estimate of what the cost would be in remodeling the current
> > HS. I understand this piece of paper is called a "directive."
> > After the architect receives this piece of paper he then responds
> > by giving another piece of paper to the asking party with a cost
> > breakdown of how he arrived at the remodel cost of 20.5 million.
> > In other words, the breakdown of the 20.5 million dollars it would
> > cost to remodel the existing HS.
> >
> > If you could be so kind, since you know the correct language,
> > could you tell me how then I should be asking for these two pieces
> > of paper?
> >
> > Thanks Mark,
> > Phil
> >
> > -----Original message-----
> > From: "Mark Seman" FCS at Moscow.com
> > Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 10:00:29 -0700
> > To: "cjs" cjs at turbonet.com
> > Subject: RE: [Vision2020] bid breakdown of construction costs
> >
> > > Phil, et al;
> > > I feel a need to chime in here for a bit to provide some
> > > clarification on terminology being tossed about. Architects
> > > often develop "opinions of probable costs" or "cost estimates" -
> > > very, very rarely do we have anything to do with developing
> > > "bids." To lay people this may seem like a minor issue, but
> > > when using any industry lingo, nuances are inherent within the
> > > language and to be on the same page, people need to use &
> > > understand the same terminology. To me, a "bid" are very
> > > different from a "cost estimate" or an "opinion of probable
> > > cost."
> > >
> > > "Construction costs" are those direct costs of permits,
> > > landfill/disposal, materials, labor and equipment to build a
> > > facility. "Project costs" will include "construction costs" and
> > > many other costs - potentially: architectural & engineering
> > > (A/E) fees, land acquisition, legal fees, soils testing, etc.
> > >
> > > Also, on an earlier post you were seeking info on the
> > > "directive" given to the architect for the HS remodel. You are
> > > right that a "scope of work" would have been defined so quality
> > > and quantity could be reasonably known and an "opinion of
> > > probable cost" or a "cost estimate" could then be developed. I
> > > think you were interested in how the "scope of work" was
> > > defined.
> > >
> > > Mark
> > >
> > > Mark Seman, Architect
> > > Heather Seman, Landscape Architect
> > > 1404 East 'F' Street Moscow, Idaho 83843
> > > v 208-883-3276 / f 208-883-0112
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
> > > [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]On Behalf Of cjs
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 9:02 AM
> > > To: keely emerinemix
> > > Cc: VISION2020 at moscow.com
> > > Subject: [Vision2020] bid breakdown of construction costs
> > >
> > >
> > > Keely,
> > >
> > > Could you ask Hummel architects for the "bid breakdown" of
> > > construction costs for the "new HS" PLEASE? Please do not say
> > > ask them yourself. Many of us have and will not even get a
> > > return phone call. Should I "officially" ask the school board
> > > for it?
> > >
> > > Phil
> > >
> > > -----Original message-----
> > > From: "keely emerinemix" kjajmix1 at msn.com
> > > Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 07:33:33 -0700
> > > To: donovanarnold at hotmail.com
> > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Bond Levy for New University Of Idaho
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Donovan, please keep in mind that no one is saying that the
> > > > current HS building is falling down, decrepit or unsafe
> > > > structurally -- there are security concerns from its layout,
> > > > but I think you are confused on this point. What we're saying
> > > > is that it's educationally unsuitable for
> > > reasons
> > > > far too numerous to go into again now, at least before morning
> > > > coffee.
> > > >
> > > > You might want to check through the information that I'm sure
> > > > you gathered during the two-year facilities process before you
> > > > quite possibly make a decision on an incorrect premise. Gosh,
> > > > even the information you could
> > > have
> > > > gotten since February should be sufficient, in case I'm
> > > > mistaken regarding the level of your prior interest and
> > > > involvement.
> > > >
> > > > keely
> > > >
> > > > From: "Donovan Arnold" <donovanarnold at hotmail.com>
> > > > To: pkraut at moscow.com, vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Bond Levy for New University Of
> > > > Idaho Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:28:27 -0700
> > > >
> > > > I think you just want a new High School, even if it is
> > > > unfinished. If you cared about the safety of the kids, and
> > > > really thought the building was
> > > old
> > > > and unsafe you would not tolerate the occupancy of other
> > > > students in that buildings. If it is unsafe for the regular
> > > > teens now, it should also be unsafe for teen age alternative
> > > > high school students too. That is no brainier.
> > > >
> > > > Take Care,
> > > >
> > > > Donovan J Arnold
> > > >
> > > > >From: "Pat Kraut" <pkraut at moscow.com>
> > > > >To: "vision2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> > > > >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Bond Levy for New University Of
> > > > >Idaho Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 20:15:24 -0700
> > > > >
> > > > >What it will cost and how much needs to be changed for grade
> > > > >school children is very different from teens. I really do
> > > > >think you are just trying to be as difficult as possible. PK
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > > >From: "Donovan Arnold" <donovanarnold at hotmail.com>
> > > > >To: <pkraut at moscow.com>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> > > > >Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 3:22 PM
> > > > >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Bond Levy for New University Of
> > > > >Idaho
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Pat,
> > > > >
> > > > >I think you missed the logic bus. The "unsafe building" you
> > > > >are referring to is going to be the home for elementary
> > > > >children and later alternative
> > > high
> > > > >school students.
> > > > >
> > > > >Under your thinking are we not putting elementary children in
> > > > >harms way instead of teenagers? Who would you rather have in
> > > > >an unsafe building
> > > Pat,
> > > > >a
> > > > >6 year old, or a 16 year old?
> > > > >
> > > > >Take Care,
> > > > >
> > > > >Donovan J Arnold
> > > > >PS, for the record, I do not think the building is unsafe, it
> > > > >was Ms.
> > > Kraut
> > > > >that has stated this. I know the MSD would not permit our
> > > > >children in an unsafe HS.
> > > > >
> > > > > >From: "Pat Kraut" <pkraut at moscow.com>
> > > > > >To: "vision2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> > > > > >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Bond Levy for New University Of
> > > > > >Idaho Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:20:09 -0700
> > > > > >
> > > > > >My children attended Troy Idaho schools in the late 70's to
> > > > > >early 80's
> > > > >when
> > > > > >they had tried to 'remodel' the school. One of the boys
> > > > > >attened a
> > > 'gifted
> > > > > >and talented class' in the furnace room! But, there were
> > > > > >those who
> > > > >insisted
> > > > > >that the building was 'good enough' then. The building is
> > > > > >old in so
> > > many
> > > > > >ways that it isn't safe! We need a new school! Our taxes,
> > > > > >rents all
> > > will
> > > > >go
> > > > > >up no matter what we do. My hope is to pay for something
> > > > > >that I really
> > > > >want
> > > > > >and not another 1912 building so I will be voting for the
> > > > > >new school. PK
> > > > > >
> > > > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: DonaldH675 at aol.com
> > > > > > To: donovanarnold at hotmail.com ; vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 7:49 AM Subject: Re:
> > > > > > [Vision2020] Bond Levy for New University Of Idaho
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dear Donovan'
> > > > > > I worked at facilities as the university engineer
> > > > > > responsible for
> > > > > >reviewing new building plans for mechanical/electrical
> > > > > >installation and
> > > > >to
> > > > > >provide input on the same subjects as well as utility
> > > > > >upgrades
> > > > >(electrical,
> > > > > >water, sewer, power plant, etc.) for several years (20) and
> > > > > >if you
> > > would
> > > > > >like to check the records you will find that virtually
> > > > > >everyone of your reasons for the supposed "new University
> > > > > >of Idaho" are true. Why do you think we tore down so many
> > > > > >old buildings and opted to build new rather
> > > > >than
> > > > > >remodel? And just for starters I seriously doubt that you
> > > > > >could even
> > > fix
> > > > > >all of the deficiencies of the present buildings for the
> > > > > >amount you
> > > have
> > > > > >proposed let alone build a new campus. When I retired about
> > > > > >six years
> > > ago
> > > > > >the documented deferred maintenance list exceeded
> > > > > >300,000,000 dollars.
> > > > > > As a facilities person I would like to ask you a
> > > > > > question? Do you
> > > > >repair
> > > > > >your cars over and over and over until they are absolutely
> > > > > >so out of
> > > date
> > > > > >that they are no longer functional or do you buy a newer
> > > > > >car when the
> > > old
> > > > > >one no longer meets your needs? Buildings follow the same
> > > > > >functional obsolescence pattern and need to be replaced
> > > > > >when they no longer meet
> > > the
> > > > > >needs of the present.
> > > > > > My wife attended Moscow High School in the late
> > > > > > 50's/early 60's and
> > > it
> > > > > >was inadequate then so they remodeled. It remained
> > > > > >inadequate.
> > > > > > My children attended Moscow High School in the 80's and
> > > > > > 90's and it
> > > > >was
> > > > > >inadequate then so they remodeled. It was still inadequate.
> > > > > > My grandchildren are attending now and it is still
> > > > > > inadequate and
> > > > >people
> > > > > >still think they can fix it by remodeling. In my mind
> > > > > >taking the same action over and over and expecting
> > > > > >different results are a good
> > > > >definition
> > > > > >of delusion if not outright mental illness or maybe just
> > > > > >plain
> > > ignorance.
> > > > > > I also have some problems with the current bond plan but
> > > > > > am willing
> > > to
> > > > > >continue the mental illness with Russell and West Park (why
> > > > > >are we remodeling two ugly, functionally obsolescent
> > > > > >buildings when for
> > > roughly
> > > > > >the same money we could get a new elementary school) if we
> > > > > >get one new facility. In my opinion the only justification
> > > > > >for remodeling is a
> > > > >historic
> > > > > >example of a particular style of architecture or an old
> > > > > >building that
> > > is
> > > > >so
> > > > > >well built that the remodel can bring it to modern
> > > > > >standards of functionality.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Don Huskey
> > > > > > Captain, USMC (Ret)
> > > > > > BSEE, MPA, MBA
> > > > > > "One cannot level one's moral lance at every evil in the
> > > > > > universe.
> > > > >There
> > > > > >are just too many of them. But you can do something, and
> > > > > >the difference between doing something and doing nothing is
> > > > > >everything." Daniel
> > > Berrigan
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >---------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >-- -- --------
> > > > >---
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _____________________________________________________
> > > > > > 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
> > > > > > /////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> > > > > >_____________________________________________________
> > > > > > 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
> > > > > >/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >_____________________________________________________
> > > > > 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
> > > > >/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _____________________________________________________
> > > > 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
> > > > /////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> > > >
> > > > ______________________________________________________________
> > > > __ _ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it
> > > > now!
> > > > http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
> > > >
> > > > _____________________________________________________
> > > > 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
> > > > /////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> > >
> > > _____________________________________________________
> > > 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
> > > /////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _____________________________________________________
> > 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
> > ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯> ¯> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯> ¯¯> ¯¯¯
> >
> >
>
>
>
_____________________________________________________
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
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list