[Vision2020] Mirrors--and who sees what

[Michael Curley]

Donovan:
Understanding that I am not the repository of the facilities 
committee information that has been gathered over a period of, 
really, 15 YEARS or more, and that while the question may be fair, it 
doesn't mean that there is one of those pesky "pieces of paper" that 
quickly and succinctly answers it, I will do the best I can to answer 
or point you to where you can find an answer.

> 
> Mr. Curley, where are you getting your information?
> There is not one piece of evidence out there that
> shows the High School is falling apart. If there is
> ONE document showing that the school is falling apart,
> please let us see it.

I have not said anything like "the school is falling apart."  I don't 
think i even suggested that in any of my posts, but if I did, I 
apologize and hereby correct it.  I have not heard anyone else claim 
the HS is falling apart either.  However, i do know personally that, 
for example, at one time (don't know about today exactly) the boiler 
(installed circa 1938 if I'm not mistaken) needed/needs significant 
work or replacement.  The pricetag is pretty high for that piece.  I 
don't know, but maybe $500,000?  Roofs need to be replaced 
periodically--they are expensive.  Floor coverings, plumbing, 
electrical.  Bleachers at the HS are not safe.  Restrooms not to ADA 
(as you mentioned).  No, I do not have a current breakdown of the 
maintenance necessary to any given building, or what needs to be done 
to meet Code (I know that while I was on the Board, there WAS an 
issue at the Jr. Hi. regarding a bathroom needing an update to ADA 
standards).  What I have said in this post and others is that we (the 
community) have an investment in at least 8 buildings around town.  
Like any building, they require maintenance, and for commercial or 
school buildings that maintenance can be quite expensive.  Whether it 
is better economically to continue to fix them, bring them to Code 
and ADA, improve safety, etc. AND keep elementary kids attending 
school close to home is all part of one big question.

The district does make a list each year of needed maintenance and 
anticipated maintenance as part of the budget process.  It also shows 
what was spent on maintenance the prior year--which is sometimes 
significantly different than what was budgeted of course, because a 
heavy snow storm (well, not recently, eh?), accident, etc. can cause 
significant unanticipated damage.  Or, something might just wear out 
that wasn't expected for some time.

> 
> The Matrix report shows that we would get more bang
> for the buck if we renovated the building we have now
> then to build a new one. 

>From what I understand of the Matrix report--and I did attend the 
Board meeting--as a community member--that was held at West Park 
elementary school six or seven years ago when Matrix presented its 
report to the Board, and I have looked at the report since that time, 
I do not believe the Matrix Group made any such statement.  Their 
report might be extrapolated from to support one position or another, 
but it would be a misuse of the report to do so.  It would make a lot 
more sense to actually research a specific question (such as renovate 
or rebuild) than to use the report for purposes for which it was not 
intended.  Further, the scope of the issue (renovate/rebuild) may be 
substantially larger than the scope of Matrix's task. (as discussed a 
bit below)

> 
> If you want to argue that the building needs more
> classrooms, better science labs, a media center, a
> music room, and more ADA friendliness, ok, I will
> agree. Replace the 1968 annex with a building with
> that stuff. However, let us not run around like
> Chicken Little saying the High School is falling when
> it is just fine. It is not as we someone built the
> building in 1939 and we did nothing to the building
> since then. We have put millions into that building.
> It has been made new twice. To toss all that money and
> a good building to build a new building that will be
> falling apart too in a few decades is a bigger waste. 

Again, the fallacy here is assuming that someone said the building is 
falling--except as you note the 1968 annex, which is, indeed falling, 
and is one of the prime examples I should have used in the prior 
question.  MAJOR work MUST be done there.  I don't think that's a 
good investment.  If you do, okay.  We can reasonably disagree on 
that--or continue the discussion and try to understand where we 
disagree and be sure that we are operating the same significant data. 

Another assumption is that we will "toss" the building away.  Others 
have noted that the county needs space.  And in answer to a prior 
question, yes, county officials were approached about using some of 
the building for its purposes--for which the building might be better 
suited now than it is a school.  Can any use be made that is 
economically viable?  Well, if it can in any way be made viable as a 
school--as many say--then it can certainly be economically viable for 
other purposes.
> 
> Buildings can last hundreds and hundreds of years is
> properly maintained. Fortunately, despite what others
> would like to think, we have competent people
> maintaining that building. And the school district has
> never produced any documentation saying the school is
> falling apart, unsafe, or unable to last many decades
> into the future with proper care and maintenance that
> any building needs, even the new ones. 
>
I think that there are some safety issues, some compliance issues 
(ADA, building code, etc), and certainly in the annex, a known 
structural defect that will render it unusable.  I believe, but don't 
hold me to this, that I have heard from competent professional 
sources, that that part cannot ultimately be salvaged.  It can't be 
jacked up like a house and reinforced.  If my memory is wrong, there 
would at least be a huge expense to salvage that part of the 
building.  A good investment compared to rebuilding?  I guess we'd 
have to get a professional to run us numbers on that specific aspect, 
but I know that was an issue the committee considered.


> If you build a new building because of technology
> changes and maintenance reasons, you are always going
> to be building because technology is always changing
> and buildings always need maintenance. You build
> because of needed space and structural failure. The
> school population has not increased and the building
> is fine.  
> 

Well, Donovan, I only ask, did you look at and review all the 
information in regard to the building?  Did you also evaluate the 
OTHER question under consideration.  Just because one finds a 
building to be capable of repair and continued use and maintenance, 
does not mean that it makes ECONOMIC SENSE to use that facility for 
some SPECIFIC purpose.  It might be a good office building, but not a 
good car lot, a good grocery but not a good gas station, a good 
warehouse, but not a good retail space, excellent for some purpose, 
but not particularly economical to BRING UP TO current standards for 
a high schools.  

Of course, even if you did review all those things with regard to the 
high school, you will have had to also review similar information 
with regard to the other 5 buildings used as schools in the district, 
because of course, there is an interrelationship among the facilities 
that must be considered in determining how to most effectively spend 
our tax dollars AND educate the public school children of our 
community.  If you did that and concluded that just maintaining what 
we have is the best approach, I guess I just don't understand why you 
haven't been providing the information to the rest of us in a 
persuasive and reasonable way so that we can understand and evaluate 
a differen point of view.

I thank you for your reasoned responsed.   

Mike



> Take Care,
> 
> Donovan J Arnold
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Phil:
> > You make a leap of logic that isn't accurate here. 
> > Yes, he was asked
> > to do a comparable building at the existing site. 
> > That does not mean
> > that he could not reuse anything in the current
> > structure, state of
> > the art or otherwise.  He was given no such
> > instruction.  And, to the
> > contrary of your assertion, I recall that certain
> > parts of the
> > structure would be retained.  That is, they didn't
> > plan on leveling
> > the entire structure and starting from scratch.  
> > 
> > If your point is that there should ALSO have been a
> > "remodel only"
> > estimate, okay.  But, as much as you blame others
> > for ignoring your
> > questions, I have to say that I mentioned to you
> > several posts ago
> > that it isn't quite as simple as saying "give us a
> > remodel figure." 
> > You'd have to tell the architect, just for example,
> > what you want in
> > the way of a band room, the cafeteria, and science
> > labs (all of which
> > are significantly inadequate now).  If you aren't
> > going to make them
> > consistent with current design and construction
> > standards, how do you
> > want them?  There are a practical infinity of
> > possible packages that
> > could have been requested.  
> > 
> > But, more significant than that, doing band aid
> > maintenance or half-
> > assed remodel now is just wasting YOUR MONEY and
> > mine.  I know some
> > people don't want to move the HS to another site.
> > Fine.  But I sure
> > don't want to waste my tax dollars on having to
> > continually repair a
> > building (and the HS isn't the only one of course)
> > that is
> > educationally inadequate and a money pit to
> > maintain.  I want the 
> > best
> > bang for my buck.  And a significant part of that is
> > the practical
> > longevity of the building for the purpose for which
> > it is constructed
> > or remodeled.  I would be happy to participate with
> > you in a study by
> > a competent architect to look at the HS and tell us
> > whether we get 
> > the
> > best dollar/year return by simply remodeling the HS
> > or constructing a
> > comparably "new" structure on the existing site. 
> >  And I'll make a little side wager with you on the
> > outcome if you'd
> > like.
> > 
> > In short, there was good reason economically--for
> > the sake of your 
> > tax
> > dollar and mine--to present the comparative figures
> > that were given. 
> > If you don't want to fund a new building anywhere,
> > okay.  But this
> > particular attack on the folks who donated their
> > time to bring you 
> > the
> > information is unwarranted.  By the way, you are
> > aware that there 
> > were
> > local business people just like you on the
> > committee, right?  People
> > who questioned every decision and piece of
> > information.  It wasn't
> > just educators, administrators, and school board
> > members--it was
> > pretty well balanced.  I respect your not agreeing
> > with their
> > suggestions, but I have difficulty with you
> > attacking their motives. 
> > NO ONE that I'm aware of stood to gain a single
> > dollar from any
> > possible proposal.  They all just wanted to
> > RECOMMEND what they
> > thought best for the community as a whole.
> > 
> > Phil, I appreciate your continued interest in the
> > issues.  I think
> > there is something useful that can be gained for
> > everyone to continue
> > a dialogue.  I just ask that you give some extra
> > thought to whether
> > there was really a grand conspiracy afoot here and
> > whether everyone
> > whoever participated in or observed the process  is
> > necessarily a 
> > dope
> > with nefarious ulterior motives.  (in fact, if they
> > were all that
> > stupid, do you think they could put such a
> > complicated plot 
> > together?)
> > 
> > Take care--and join the damn committee.
> > 
> > Mike
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 2 May 2005 at 21:49, cjs wrote:
> > 
> > > ....... 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."
> > > 
> > > and we want these people in charge of educating
> > our children?
> > > 
> > > Phil
> > > 
> > >
> >
> _____________________________________________________
> > >  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
> > >
> >
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> > 
> > 
> > ------- End of forwarded message -------
> > 
> >
> _____________________________________________________
> >  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
> >
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> > 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com