Today's JG editorial page, renowned for making stuff up, lamented the criticism being heaped on the district's $119MM first phase of a $240MM building project proposal. The criticism sounded a lot like what's been said here, but as Mark GiaQuinta pointed out, only three people read this blog (four counting him), so it must be someone else saying the same thing.
They are quick to disavow that this project is about air conditioning. By doing that the district's mouthpiece has confirmed that it is about air conditioning. It's being spent on "infrastructure". Except by the district's own figures, $80MM (plus professional fees and contingency or $110MM of the $240MM eventual total project) of that "infrastructure" is for the "red herring", HVAC, i.e. AC, i.e. Air Conditioning. The building by building "details" under "infrastructure replacement"on the FWCS web site don't break that out so we can see it, however. Their unpublished handout (on the eventual project) to board members does break it out calling it "replacement of HVAC" ($75MM) and the addition of some chillers ($5MM).
Are all the HVAC systems shot? Or are they adding central air in buildings that have window units or no AC at all? What exactly are they proposing? Enquiring minds want to know lest they spread the disinformation further, like maybe to Indianapolis.
Roughly 45% of the $240MM eventual project is related to HVAC. If Wendy doesn't want any misconceptions out there on the first $119MM phase, then she needs to spell out exactly what "replacing infrastructure/HVAC" means in each building on the list and how that breaks down in cost. That's what this blog has been asking for since day one but we haven't seen it. Until we do we have to assume there are no misconceptions. Wendy's primary objective on day one in her job was to get all the buildings air conditioned. That's all she talked about in her initial town hall meetings. It wasn't test scores. That's what her $500MM well orchestrated con job was really about four years ago.
Spell it out in detail, justify it to the voters and perhaps they will approve it in May. The 10% contingency looks reasonable but tell us why you need 25% added for professional services for fixing stuff that's broken while you're at it. Otherwise it deserves to go down to defeat like last time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
They are obviously referencing you in their criticism, but unwilling to give your name. That's strike one.
They say the complaints about most of the money going to AC are unfounded, but then they never do say how much of the money is actually going to that. That's strike two.
I'll be listening carefully as this issue progresses, but as it stands right now it looks like they will probably strike out when asking for my vote.
45% of the money going to AC contradicts their never ending claim that it's only about keeping their buildings from falling apart. So they hide it because some voters will object to AC. The unknown critic is merely pointing out the deception.
Oh, what a tangled web we weave....Why not just publish all the numbers?
Private schools wanting the best and brightest might want to look at myself, as I just received a check over $50K from a private family entity for tuition assistance. Private monies can aid families who make too much for the vouchers, and/or, homeschool right now.
Way to go. That's enough for Canterbury, isn't it? Just be sure it's air conditioned.
1. Rest assured, Canterbury is air conditioned.
2. There is no unpublished board handout with any more detail. Watch the video, there are the details.
3. No one is going to get any more detail until the project goes forward. What we have now are experienced estimates. FWCS does not have the money to pay architects and engineers to spec the project. Why would they do that if they don't know whether the project will be approved? THAT would really be a waste of taxpayer money!
Siesta - the school by school breakdowns on the FWCS website have an infrastructure category which in includes "replacing HVAC". But the costs within that category, particularly HVAC are not given. The spreadsheet the board members have in the notebook they got at the second working session does have those cost listed under "HVAC system", which total to $75,783,065. Adding the 25% and 10% factors for prof. services and contingency gives about $110MM for "replacing HVAC". That amounts to about 45% of the total project.
Kathy Friend and Krista Stockman were on WBOI Midday Matters last summer pitching the project because it would get all the buildings air conditioned. The poor kids getting free and reduced lunch were all used to air conditioning at home (no data given of course)and couldn't get along without it.
There's enough information available to give voters a pretty good idea of what they're asking for right now, but so far they're not sharing it. And when the JG goes out of their way to tell us the difference between "fact and fiction" GiaQuinta needs to tell Tracy and Ms. Frisco to turn it off, please.
If all the numbers get published before May, fine. Let the voters decide. But when their mouthpiece is already denying it's about AC, I'm not expecting any truth in advertising.
Siesta - BTW, I subbed at Canterbury, several times, so I know it's air conditioned. And I never got paid, which was OK, because it was fun. A calculus class with three kids who scored 800 on the math SAT. Amazing.
Like I said before, if the entire $242 M project were completed, not all FWCS schools would be air conditioned.
Some of the same systems that provide heat also provide AC (like room ventilators) and the replacement of many of those are in the proposal.
HVAC can include boiler, chiller, room ventilators, air handlers, pumps, piping, ductwork, upgraded electrical, temperature control system and water piping...each building has some or all of these needs. Is that the type of detail you desire?
I thought it was obvious that HVAC renovations would cost the most - there is more mechanicals there and they run all over each building!
I was amused by the letter in Sunday's paper saying FWCS should learn from Parkview since they were building a 14,000 sq ft health clinic for $2.4 M (I think). Snider has 340,000 sq ft, so following Parkview's numbers, we could build a new Snider for about $90M ...think the letter writer meant that?
If I understand you correctly, you want the following for each building?
FWCS website, click on Strong Communities, Strong Schools, click on 10-17-11 presentation and look at page 5.
Siesta - Page 5 shows the $75 million for HVAC but that needs to be broken down by school and put on the school by school breakdowns. Like the example I gave for Bloomingdale. Bloomingdale has $1,927,088 for "Infrastructure", consisting of "replace the heating and cooling system" (for $1,613,376 from the spreadsheet), "replace windows and window systems" ($268,896 from the spreadsheet) and "restore masonry"($44,816 from the spreadsheet). Those should total up to $1.927,088. (I didn't quite make to to 800 on the SAT).
I drove around Bloomingdale and all I saw were a few window AC units. No mechanical equipment at groundlevel anyway. So maybe for Bloomingdale it should say "install central air" instead of "replace heating and cooling systems"(?). Anyway the devil is in the details. And while you may not feel you have a perfect handle on the numbers, if they are a good enough as a basis to vote for the bond issue Monday, they should be good enough to share with the public. You can refine them later or we'll be back to the blank check issue.
I see the former "learning enhancements" are now "classroom infrastructure". How about "cosmetics"? Not that there's anything wrong with that.
The Parkview example didn't make much sense. But when Wendy asked the board to air condition all the buildings (twice) about 8 years ago the number I recall was $90MM. Olinger might remember. So $240MM would certainly do the trick.
Maybe this should be FWCS' inspiration:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1104685.htm. Did you notice the building was built 109 years ago? And their students are impoverished? BTW...their test scores are at 90% passing. Maybe FWCS' officials need to pay a visit to St. Michaels' and she what is real teaching!
Anon - I hear you but I want to hear it. Wendy and most of the board don't. Canterbury started in a discarded FWCS building. I went to a meeting at the Urban League last night to hear about a proposed "Canterbury" charter school in SE Ft. Wayne.
I'm just trying to get them to put out the details so anyone who cares enough to look can see exactly what they want and what it costs. Most people won't bother to look. Most won't even vote in May. That's OK as well.
Evert,
If you take the time to go through the maze and lay it all out in an organized manner I am sure the J.G. will publish it. After all, they are so fond of chastising us for our ignorance about issues that they neglect to cover.
Phil - the "by building" summaries on the FWCS website are actually pretty well organized. They just haven't broken down the numbers for the major categories and the category titles are misleading. Everything, like painting the interior walls, is called "infrastructure". And "replace HVAC" applies to almost every building. That can't be. Some buildings have no AC, some have window units. Does every building that has AC need to have it replaced? If so explain why.
They're just presenting the information so that it's not obvious that 45% of the money is about air conditioning. The district has plenty of time to get it right. The JG will never get it right. If I send them something now and they do publish it, by May nobody will remember and it will just start all over again. So I'll just wait and see what happens
in the spring.
Anon has a great idea...I think FWCS officials should use taxpayer $$ to take a trip to Arizona to observe that school.
Siesta - that may not be necessary. I have the feeling that if the state charter school board votes the right way on Dec. 19, Anon will have a chance to show how that Arizona charter school worked. And reduce FWCS and EACS enrollment by a few hundred more.
Taxpayers won't mind sending board and supt. to Arizona. One way tickets. Put in referendum and it'll pass.
Code Blue,
Let's take your Bloomingdale example. Heat is distributed to the building by ventilators, so there is a ventilator in every room. It is entirely possible that those ventilators are original to the building (built 1964) and are becoming unreliable and inefficient. The heating system is being updated because some or all of the ventilators are being replaced. This same system can also deliver AC to every room, so I assume a chiller is being added.
Schools have more computer labs now, since IDOE is beginning to mandate online testing. (We can get into a discussion about who profits from this but I digress.) I'll bet at least one of those window AC units is for a lab. I believe window units are more expensive per sq. ft. to operate than a full building system. The figures from Lakeside are that by "updating and heating and cooling systems" and installing new windows, the utility bills dropped by 30%.
The devil is not in the details. The devil is in whether or not the citizenry of Fort Wayne want a healthy, strong public school system. And the vote should not be about top FWCS leadership. Dr. Robinson will probably retire in a couple of years and the students will still be here. The vote should be about them.
Sorry, but when you're asking the taxpayers for $119MM, they're entitled to the details. You wrote two paragraphs about details at Bloomingdale, but you're guessing. Seve Parker could write a few sentences about those details on each school breakout with the costs and answer the questions. If I were on the board, I would have looked at every building on the list to justify to myself that the expenditures were necessary. Knowing the details was my resposibility to management in the oil company. I would have considered it my responsibility to taxpayers as a board member.
You're telling me that the taxpayers don't need to know and what you see is all they're going to get.
As a person that has been in 100's of schools to look at failing HVAC systems, I can tell you that the systems at FWCS are OLD dont work correctly because they can not get repair parts for them. The original design of these systems was from the 1950's and not very efficient. New modern systems will actually save the district operating costs and actually meet the new code requirements for ventilation and IAQ. A typical useful life for HVAC equipment is 30 years mostly due to part availability and corrosion. It's not about cooling, its about reliable heating. The additional cost to have the benefit of cooling is a pittance after the dollars are spent on getting reliable, energy efficient heating in place.
You may be right but the point is they're not telling us. They may be fixing AC or they may be adding AC. We don't know because they refuse to publish any details of scope and cost for HVAC (or "classroom infrastructure") for each building. A few sentences and cost figures on each building breakout would clear it up.
Here’s a novel approach for FWCS to try. Get the fire chief to claim that public buildings must be heated and cooled properly as a public safety measure. Granted, there is probably no such code, but keep in mind that Chief Kelly is married to Pat Roller. She frequently says things that make no sense and they are just taken as given because she is the City Controller. So let Chief Pete take the heat for this and demand that the buildings be brought up to code - or else.
Of course, this could backfire. If it still fails to convince the people that the money needs to be invested, then Kelly would have to condemn and shut down all FWCS buildings. Upon further review, I really like this idea!
Phil-
Glad you like that idea because it will eventually come to pass as it has in Gary and Indy. Each of them already has 20 buildings standing empty. Gary is now trying to sell them off. Might be a source for some slightly used AC equipment.
I would think that voters would actually give them credit for transparency. But FWCS, having no past experience with transparency, doesn't know that.
Slash and burn! If the FWCS can't have it, then nobody can. Give away a building for free rather than sell it to somone who can show them how to educate children.
That alone is enough to convince me to vote against anything these losers propose.
Phil - That's what Don Willis told me when I first talked to him. I've come to agree with him. FWCS needs to go out of business but that won't happen anytime soon. The part south of Coliseum is already gone. In the late sixties when Northup and Snider were built, Ft. Wayne city boundaries and FWCS expanded to include these areas. Had that not happened, FWCS would be like IPS already.
Continuing to bus kids up there from our part of town is speeding the demise of Snider and Northrup, however. You should be able to find another HUD house up there eventually.
I see that Giaquinta is opposed to the inner-city charter school as well. He says the students there don't need a choice because FWCS is doing so well.
I think he is afraid that if they chose charter and performed better than public, it would entirely defeat the "Public schools can't compete with charters because we have to take the poor kids" argument.
Phil - Charters have to take anybody who applies, by lottery if they run out of room. This charter is sponsored by the Urban League using a non-profit operator to run it. It's being formed specifically to see if they can do better in closing the achievement gap. Neither FWCS or EACS have had any success, so let's see if the Urban Leage can do better. What do we have to lose?
Now I want to see Karen Frisco attack this one. The metro reporter from the Sentinel has already pointed out the GiaQuinta hipocrisy.
Since charters are relatively new, I don't think that clause actually kicks in very often. So, in my opinion, the public school's "poor kids" argument is actually a legitimate one.
But if Giaquinta actually believed this, he should welcome the challenge instead of running from it. His failure to embrace the challenge posed by charters proves that his is a weak cause.
They are using a for-profit company, that gets a large kick back.
Kickback? Don Willis had to foot the money to buy and improve the Imagine Wells Street campus. Charter schools have to pay for their own buildings. He's using a leaseback arrangement to get his money back. Even with that "kickback" arrangement Imagine spends less money per student than FWCS. For the same level of academic achievment FWCS can't compete on cost either. In competetive world FWCS would go out of business.
Instead, Sequel money loans and advance kind loans ought to be compelled to be compelled to be compelled to be used as a quick facilitate speedy cash auto title loans chicago to induce you to your next day. several of our places, supported state tips have many Sequel money loan picks. Implement presently on-line exploitation the type on this page and let one altogether our shopper support affiliates assist you via the borrowed funds technique.
Post a Comment