[Vision2020] bid breakdown of construction costs
Michael Curley
curley at turbonet.com
Tue Apr 19 13:10:19 PDT 2005
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 this before,
where, what kind of building, would you charge us to look into our situation, how much,
etc. "Bids" would be for the actual construction. Check with the Superintendent or
Facilities Committee Chair for further information on the selection process of the
architect.
Phil, I was part of the conversation with the architect--if he used the word "directive" I
won't complain about that. But no, it wasn't put it writing, but it was communicated 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.
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.
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 the next 70-
100 years. I can't detail all the reasons here. That's why there was a committee 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 agrees 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, there is
disageement about "keep it downtown v. outskirts of town" or exactly to what 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 if 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.
The architect has done a great deal for free, whether ALL of it has been free 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.
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 rebuilding. It just
increases it. Maybe that's a good idea, but again, it doesn't seem to have anything to
do with whether the exisiting facility is adequate for educational purposes right now or
about what makes the best long-term economic sense for the taxpayers.
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. But 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 construction RFP and
review the responses. They will welcome your tough-minded, tight-fisted approach to
the use of the community/taxpayer money for the benefit of the children.
Thanks for the reasoned reply. I really appreciate it. And, thanks for the 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.
Regards to all who have fought though this mess.
Mike Curley
On 19 Apr 2005 at 12:09, cjs wrote:
Howdy Mike,
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
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯> ¯¯¯
>
>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list