This statement by Sergio on behalf of the Board makes no sense:
“It is no secret that there are many aging buildings in D65 which need over $188 million in repairs and improvements. The district's average building age is 77 years, greatly outpacing the anticipated average life span of 50 years. Having a state-of-the-art facility in a cent…
This statement by Sergio on behalf of the Board makes no sense:
“It is no secret that there are many aging buildings in D65 which need over $188 million in repairs and improvements. The district's average building age is 77 years, greatly outpacing the anticipated average life span of 50 years. Having a state-of-the-art facility in a centralized location will allow for greater flexibility as the District addresses declining enrollment and the substantial capital investments needed to update our buildings.”
If I have $100, and I need $80 to fix up my dilapidated schools, if I spend $50 on a brand new school, I don’t have enough money left to fix up my old schools. Right?
Correct. Yes lease certs can’t be used for capex of existing bldgs but that doesn’t mean 1) the lease gets can’t be repaid, 2) as Tom mentions it doesn’t cover anticipated soft costs of $7m which would mostly accrue as the project moves forward (think C&C fees, attorneys, furniture for school)- most of which would be saved and would not add additional burden to the district as they have no plan for how this gets paid.
Because “ they will have a state of the art facility in a centralized location……as the district addresses declining enrollment and the substantial capital investments needed to update our buildings” Please tell me how those two ideas connect. Can anyone draw a line connecting them ?
I thought the same. How state-of-the-art is it going to be when we won't have the budget to fill the school so we will need to move old desks and furniture and equipment from all the closed schools instead.
It's easy -- the enrollment will decline so much that the entire elementary population will soon fit in that centrally located new building and they will be able to offload everything else.
I read it to mean a new building in a centralized location gives them the flexibility to close schools with significant capex requirements rather than fix them up. Consolidate students at the new school.
To me it is obvious that building a new school in the face of declining enrollment requires you to close at least one old school for it to make any sense. But it is politically easier to tout the ribbon-cuttings instead of the subsequent closures. Maybe they are right that greenfield is easier but it shows a lack of candor and transparency.
This statement by Sergio on behalf of the Board makes no sense:
“It is no secret that there are many aging buildings in D65 which need over $188 million in repairs and improvements. The district's average building age is 77 years, greatly outpacing the anticipated average life span of 50 years. Having a state-of-the-art facility in a centralized location will allow for greater flexibility as the District addresses declining enrollment and the substantial capital investments needed to update our buildings.”
If I have $100, and I need $80 to fix up my dilapidated schools, if I spend $50 on a brand new school, I don’t have enough money left to fix up my old schools. Right?
Correct. Yes lease certs can’t be used for capex of existing bldgs but that doesn’t mean 1) the lease gets can’t be repaid, 2) as Tom mentions it doesn’t cover anticipated soft costs of $7m which would mostly accrue as the project moves forward (think C&C fees, attorneys, furniture for school)- most of which would be saved and would not add additional burden to the district as they have no plan for how this gets paid.
Enough w the simple math and logic! No place for that here.
Because “ they will have a state of the art facility in a centralized location……as the district addresses declining enrollment and the substantial capital investments needed to update our buildings” Please tell me how those two ideas connect. Can anyone draw a line connecting them ?
The already cut most of the "state-of-the-art" things from this building like the robotics lab and such.
I thought the same. How state-of-the-art is it going to be when we won't have the budget to fill the school so we will need to move old desks and furniture and equipment from all the closed schools instead.
The State of the Art will be Value Engineered!
We got it scrambled, I think actually Sergio's future biography is entitled "The Art of the State Takeover"
It's easy -- the enrollment will decline so much that the entire elementary population will soon fit in that centrally located new building and they will be able to offload everything else.
Oh now I get it. Thanks
Yeah- then they can bus all the students into the school! Of course, we can afford that once all the school buildings are sold.
I read it to mean a new building in a centralized location gives them the flexibility to close schools with significant capex requirements rather than fix them up. Consolidate students at the new school.
To me it is obvious that building a new school in the face of declining enrollment requires you to close at least one old school for it to make any sense. But it is politically easier to tout the ribbon-cuttings instead of the subsequent closures. Maybe they are right that greenfield is easier but it shows a lack of candor and transparency.