Jump to content
What have we learned from this colossal fiasco ? "Who's on third ?" We have a rudderless ship of State. When the chief of police has no boss, the city manager has no authority, and the city council cannot direct any city employee to do anything, why are we paying anyone ? If the police chief will not do as directed, fire him and then council members should review all reports and release information. No litigation needed - simple common sense can solve this problem. NOW !
Both sides have valid points plus many varied opinions. Perhaps, as with most elections, it'll simply be the will of the electorate as to whether or not they are willing to commit to 92 million regardless of anything else.
Actually Scott W, the design responsibility is the engineer's and/or architect's and is only not the contractor's if he does what the plans call for. If the contractor doesn't follow the plans, he is on the hook. That is why errors and omissions insurance is purchased by professionals - architects and engineers- and contractors have some insurance coverage under the completed operations section of their liability insurance but in all cases, there are gaps which should be closed and part of any contracts signed so that the taxpayers are not on the hook. Hopefully, the Bond Accountability Committee will pursue this to the point that the taxpayer is 100% protected and its cost will not be paid for by taxpayers - either directly or indirectly. We have been taken too many times - SBerry Park schools, Howelson Lodge, etc. so I'm saying - no more. No more taxpayer dole for others' mistakes.
P.S. Performance and Completion Bonds only partially protect and only for a relatively short time period. Holding back part of the funds is also a short term solution as no builder would wait 10 yrs for the balance due to be paid. A Bond can be issued to cover a 10 yr period but its expense should not be paid for directly or indirectly by the School District but from the massive profits generated by a project of this size. So how do we protect ourselves from expenses not covered by a Bond and caused by a professional ? Answer - the 100% no wiggle room contract financially backed by the professionals covering those areas not covered by a Bond ? Or ??? And I'm only using 10 yrs as an example - maybe 20 yrs is more reasonable - any building should last 20 yrs without the need to repair or replace faulty workmanship or design.
No matter what is finally approved and built, I haven't read anything about how we'll be protected against another design fiasco as happened when SBerry Park schools were designed and constructed with unapproved heating systems, which were a complete failure plus roof designs that guaranteed ice and snow dams and subsequent roof damage. Our daughter attended with 55F maximum degrees heat in the dead of winter and only part of the design fiasco corrections were eventfully paid for by those responsible. Will we have a requirement for a practical and cost efficient design with no ridiculous peaks and valleys for the roofs ? Will we have a no wiggle room contract making architects, engineers, and builder 100% responsible for a reasonable time period, such as ten tears, for any and all expenses arising from their failure for all losses arising from their work ? If not, why are we even discussing anything ? 92 mil is nothing if taxpayers have to pay to correct the failures of professionals involved such as the cost of a new roof plus other major repairs.
Laura, Isn't it best to know all the facts before being pro or con on anything ? Do you know the total cost of Pre-K because it hasn't been provided ? Total cost must include capital, maintenance, insurance, pension, vacation costs etc. For the non-special students, will tuition cover 100% of the aforementioned costs ? If tuition is subsidized, it will take away from K thru 12 programs. If it is subsidized, Pre-K will directly compete with current private child care centers, who cannot afford to pay for their employees' health insurance, pension ,etc. so what do you think will happen ? Pre-K could be a multi-million financial fiasco over the years and cause the demise of current child care centers. However, unlikely as it seems, if the tuition charged by the school district would cover 100% of all costs (and I mean all), then would anyone pay it as it would probably have to be a third more or so compared to what private centers are now charging because capital, maintenance, insurance, pension,etc. costs are very expensive.
And we still have no idea of the TOTAL costs of expanding Pre-K or tuition to be charged for non- special attendees but do know it would negatively affect all private child care centers unless tuition covers 100% of ALL costs and could drive one or more out of business if the tuition is subsidized. Remember Pre-K employees will receive benefits that private centers cannot afford to provide - paid expensive and comprehensive health insurance plus a defined benefit pension plan in addition to paid vacation days etc. Scott W - do you expect to be receiving this info soon ?
So we'reallocating 25 grand for a program that we subsidize and still don't receive anything in the form of discounted fares for Routt County locals ? Is this the perfect form of a public disgrace ?
In addition to all posts, I'm very concerned about the total costs of Pre-K and what the proposed program would do to current and future child care centers. With school Pre-K employees receiving the very expensive paid benefits as current school district employees, which private child care employees do not and can not receive as its not affordable for private businesses, how can our current private centers compete ? They can't. After they're run out of business, we'll be left with a multi-million expense, which will only partially be paid for by the low tuition that will be charged for non-special students. And that expense, now and in the future, is unknown. As I understand it, only the $220,000 state provided funds for current special students is known. Remember these unknown expenses will come out of the school district's budget if tuition is inadequate to pay 100% ( and I do mean 100% which includes capital costs and maintenance) of the costs.
Do we have an elephant hiding in the room ? Scott B informed us that $220,000 does cover the cost of special needs Pre-K students and that money is supplied to the school district so nothing is taken from the budget. BUT what are the costs of expanding this program to non-special students ? First are capital costs - the construction and maintenance costs for extra classrooms and teachers' offices. Next is the cost of personnel, who, unlike private child care centers, will receive paid expensive health insurance and defined benefit pension contributions which private centers cannot afford. These and all other hidden costs mean that BOE Pre-K tuition must be substantially HIGHER than local child care costs, which appear to be around $60.00 daily. So will the actual costs, which might be around $90.00 or more be levied against the parents or how much will be subsidized with school funds that should be going toward K through 12 programs ? What will Pre-K actually cost per student and actually means all costs ? And remember that is an ever increasing annual cost.
Last login: Thursday, September 24, 2015
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.