Post by gatordog on Mar 28, 2008 13:02:26 GMT -5
I will spell out some of my ideas for SD action. This has been motivated by other so-called calls to action: NSFOC ("lawyer-up!") and NSFOCfraud ("email bombardment!")
First, ignore NSFOC lawsuit as an irrelevant side show. Go with whats best use if tax dollars to give our kids very best education. Decision cannot be based on either "resisting", or other side of the coin, "caving-in" to this tiny minority of idiots.
Assume that there are no grave, show-stoppers in enviro reports. (if there were, who in there right mind thinks SB and admin would still be looking to buy this land?).Technical solutions for remediation exist. This is now a bean-counter, lawyerly "who does what and for how much" issue.
Assume BB isnt calling us back with reduced land price. It hasnt happened since end of October ( that is the dead-horse issue....I will add this for completeness!)
1. Time for some final push negotions with MWgen :
Maybe we need to up our price a bit to sweeten the deal for a balky MWGen? Per the Aug 2009 budget presentation, we still are in the black w/ $4.8 mil contingency. But I think a better alternative might be....SD asks MWGen for land price discounting, and we take on the remediation costs/burden. Maybe this can be a virtually cost-neutral agreement. There may be public-assurance benefits to having this job funded by the SD, as opposed to private business, anyhow. I should note, this would be contrary to what I understand the SB voted on when they chose the site, the MWGen area specifically. So yes, they would have to back track on this Board vote. But if its a SB political cost that has to be made to make this happen, so be it. They will have to take on the leadership and tell us, that this is in best interest of the District (if they decide that is the case)
If this doesnt work out "quickly", and it sure doesnt look like it has!....
2. Time for some hardball negotiations with MWgen as reqd.
Tell MWGen a SD benefit for your property was we could get construction going quickly. There is another option out there (Macom) that we could bring back into play if its 2010 opening.
Maybe this would get MWGen to finally sign?
3. Consider planning for 2010 opening. The stark reality is if we dont start in couple of weeks, its not a choice anymore. The CON is, yes we have to deal with a really tough year of HS and MS crowding, especially at NVHS and Scullen.
PROS are:
a. without construction-expediting costs...contingency is $9.5 mil. This (easily?) covers any unexpected BB damages or remediation costs
b. MV opens with fully functional facilities. No construction activities.
c. remediation activities done before students arrive. Seems like plenty of time for this to occur AND to receive IEPA "blessing"
4. Given that 2010 opening becomes real possiblity... If all else fails with MWGen, site the school at Macom. I am assuming we cannot site the full-scope MVHS without MWGen property.
Yes, this is the district-consensus third best site for the school, as reflected by SB votes and actions and my read on broad public opinon. (Personally for me, I think its the third choice). But we voted for a new HS school, on budget. If thats what is delivered, I can and will support that, regardless of the site.
This should be enough to chew on for Spring Break week!
First, ignore NSFOC lawsuit as an irrelevant side show. Go with whats best use if tax dollars to give our kids very best education. Decision cannot be based on either "resisting", or other side of the coin, "caving-in" to this tiny minority of idiots.
Assume that there are no grave, show-stoppers in enviro reports. (if there were, who in there right mind thinks SB and admin would still be looking to buy this land?).Technical solutions for remediation exist. This is now a bean-counter, lawyerly "who does what and for how much" issue.
Assume BB isnt calling us back with reduced land price. It hasnt happened since end of October ( that is the dead-horse issue....I will add this for completeness!)
1. Time for some final push negotions with MWgen :
Maybe we need to up our price a bit to sweeten the deal for a balky MWGen? Per the Aug 2009 budget presentation, we still are in the black w/ $4.8 mil contingency. But I think a better alternative might be....SD asks MWGen for land price discounting, and we take on the remediation costs/burden. Maybe this can be a virtually cost-neutral agreement. There may be public-assurance benefits to having this job funded by the SD, as opposed to private business, anyhow. I should note, this would be contrary to what I understand the SB voted on when they chose the site, the MWGen area specifically. So yes, they would have to back track on this Board vote. But if its a SB political cost that has to be made to make this happen, so be it. They will have to take on the leadership and tell us, that this is in best interest of the District (if they decide that is the case)
If this doesnt work out "quickly", and it sure doesnt look like it has!....
2. Time for some hardball negotiations with MWgen as reqd.
Tell MWGen a SD benefit for your property was we could get construction going quickly. There is another option out there (Macom) that we could bring back into play if its 2010 opening.
Maybe this would get MWGen to finally sign?
3. Consider planning for 2010 opening. The stark reality is if we dont start in couple of weeks, its not a choice anymore. The CON is, yes we have to deal with a really tough year of HS and MS crowding, especially at NVHS and Scullen.
PROS are:
a. without construction-expediting costs...contingency is $9.5 mil. This (easily?) covers any unexpected BB damages or remediation costs
b. MV opens with fully functional facilities. No construction activities.
c. remediation activities done before students arrive. Seems like plenty of time for this to occur AND to receive IEPA "blessing"
4. Given that 2010 opening becomes real possiblity... If all else fails with MWGen, site the school at Macom. I am assuming we cannot site the full-scope MVHS without MWGen property.
Yes, this is the district-consensus third best site for the school, as reflected by SB votes and actions and my read on broad public opinon. (Personally for me, I think its the third choice). But we voted for a new HS school, on budget. If thats what is delivered, I can and will support that, regardless of the site.
This should be enough to chew on for Spring Break week!