I think there's a difference between simply saying "I'm against building the school" vs. "if we're making decisions through purely a cost lens, here are areas where we can possibly cut in order to close the deficit and balance the budget. If the school is one of those areas, then a comprehensive analysis of how much pausing for 1 year, 2…
I think there's a difference between simply saying "I'm against building the school" vs. "if we're making decisions through purely a cost lens, here are areas where we can possibly cut in order to close the deficit and balance the budget. If the school is one of those areas, then a comprehensive analysis of how much pausing for 1 year, 2 years, or entirely canceling the project until a time (3-5 years from now?) where we can actually map out its affordability."
The board is allowed to evaluate non-financial factors within the "menu of options", so if the juice isn't worth the squeeze on stopping the construction (compared to other proposed savings measures) so be it. But time isn't really our friend if expensive work will continue to go on while we work to define the rest of the deficit reduction options.
I think there's a difference between simply saying "I'm against building the school" vs. "if we're making decisions through purely a cost lens, here are areas where we can possibly cut in order to close the deficit and balance the budget. If the school is one of those areas, then a comprehensive analysis of how much pausing for 1 year, 2 years, or entirely canceling the project until a time (3-5 years from now?) where we can actually map out its affordability."
The board is allowed to evaluate non-financial factors within the "menu of options", so if the juice isn't worth the squeeze on stopping the construction (compared to other proposed savings measures) so be it. But time isn't really our friend if expensive work will continue to go on while we work to define the rest of the deficit reduction options.