Brooks Imperial shared a link.
BEST Grants and C-1 Bond : Elbert County Forum
elbertcounty.net
-
Tedd Strange · Friends with Henry Imperial and 5 others
The school district has been repairing the roof on the high school repeatedly since Year Three of it being open. The roof that is on there was done on the cheap in an effort to stay under cost. Trash cans being placed around the building when heavy rains come is commonplace. It is time to put a satisfactory roof that is built to last on that building. The issue of mold is one that has been prevalent already in some of our older buildings, why would we want to continue to subject our newest building to that risk? We have an opportunity for the State to pick up 40% of the tab, an opportunity that most likely will not present itself again as it appears that these grants are going the way of the dodo. The board member of whom you speak is creating unnecessary friction, IMO. His concern was heard ad nauseum by the panel, and all of the other panels agreed that in spite of his concern, the $2.75M number is a reasonable amount given the number or critical needs that have to be addressed and the prudence of replacing vice repairing the EHS roof. His reaction to how the report has been received and acted on by the BOE reminds me of the fact that some people want to set the world on fire just to watch it burn. I am less concerned with what an independent consultant determines to be the best course of action and the subsequent cost than I am the potential for losing the 40% match for the cost.
-
Brooks Imperial Thanks Ted for the non-ad-hominem-laden response. Personalizing this dust-up to one BRP member seems like a cheap diversion to me. He’s made some good points that have not yet been answered.
Roof quality, ongoing repairs, mold potential, of course should all be mitigated. The question is whether you do it scientifically with civil engineering expertise driving the most prudent use of scarce taxpayer dollars, or you do it emotionally on the back of a number derived from a socially engineered poll, the details of which remain cloaked in secrecy.
Compounding the cluster —-, you have a sensitive grant structure that apparently does not contemplate least cost remediation, and instead must be followed to the letter even if that means spending a great deal more money to solve the problem. And that seems to put the lie to the inference one would like to make from the acronym BEST – rather than being the BEST deal for the taxpayers, the grant is BEST at siphoning state dollars into the local economy regardless of cost.
All this rhetoric about doing what’s BEST for the kids rings a little hollow when you peel back the onion to find a money grab.
I’ve listened closely to both the Aug 12th and the Aug 26th relevant BRP/C-1 meeting tapes. A sea change occurred between the two meetings so powerful that the committee chair, passionately dedicated on Aug 12th, doesn’t even show up for the final report on Aug 26th.
The IAC called for a scientific approach to the EHS roof problem. The BRP echoed that call. And now the C-1 Board is hell-bent to revise history, suppress dissent, and personally attack anyone who dares point out that the emperors are wearing no clothes.
They’ve become repugnant. Listening to the tapes, the passive aggression in the room is so thick you could cut it with a knife. There’s more to Frank’s motivation than just this issue. He wants better leadership. I’m sure the taxpayers in the C-1 District deserve it. -
Tedd Strange · Friends with Henry Imperial and 5 others
As you know, the facts can be twisted to form a perspective; the committee chair did, in fact, show up, at the time that the board indicated to us that the subject would be addressed. At least two of us had a Back To School Night to attend. People have lives, Brook. We were asked to move mountains in a few short weeks. Money grab? Give me a break. We vetted 42 items down to 12; the District identified things that could be resolved/mitigated with existing budget dollars, and we ruled out others that we felt could not be justified. The people on the panel understood that they were proposing a tax increase on themselves on their neighbors. It is good that Frank was willing to object, such bodies need dissent as it fosters healthy discussion, but in the final analysis, the majority of panel members believed the risks justified the reward. We were asked to assess the issues and offer an opinion as to what the community would be willing to support. I stand by our findings.
-
Brooks Imperial Sounds good Ted and thank you for your service to the community. Which findings are you standing by? The ones put in the final draft of the BRP report? I think those are the findings that Frank is standing by too. But I don’t think those are the findings the C-1 Board accepted.
-
Mora Luke · Friends with Del Schwab and 1 other
What is it exactly you and Frank want to do? Not do the bond at all? Please be specific.
-
Brooks Imperial First off, it’s not “me and Frank.” That is personalization of this dispute put forward by Bissonette and his Board.
The BRP committee chair wrote the BRP final report. All of the BRP members endorsed her final report.
Listen to the C-1 meeting tapes from Aug 12th and Aug 26th. Note the dramatic change in tone from the C-1 Board.
The C-1 Board realized after the Aug 12th meeting, before the BRP final report, that things weren’t going quite its way. The BRP was taking their mission seriously and doing a sound analysis. But Bissonette and the Board wanted a higher bond number, and they didn’t want any talk about repairing the high school roof because that wasn’t the assumption in the EHS BEST grant. So they ran their own phone survey, and they tried to suppress the BRP final report.
All the BRP did, in effect, was to endorse IAC ideas already published. These are all matters of fact. Everyone involved with this agrees that the infrastructure issues must be resolved. No one on the BRP disputes that.
But, apparently, the C-1 Board can brook no dissent. They apparently find it intolerable that the BRP did not come up with the right answer. The C-1 Board was looking for a rubber stamp, not for a group of professionals to actually give them a reasoned opinion.
If the C-1 Board is going to base their Bond request on a market survey at a number value they pre-selected, then the C-1 Board should own it, and not attempt to make it seem as if the BRP supported their number, because the BRP didn’t. The BRP supported a lower number, they wanted a repair potential investigated by a civil engineer, and they wanted Bond language to include paying down Bond principal with excess Bond revenue.
Read the BRP report linked on my blog. Request a copy of the C-1 phone survey report from the C-1 Board. It was referenced in the Aug 26th C-1 Board meeting and should be discoverable.
Do your homework taxpayer. -
Jill Duvall · Friends with Aaron Brachfeld and 8 others
I received the phone survey. It DID NOT work….every time I pushed the selected number, I got an “invalid response” recording. Tried it 3 times. Also, having taught in both Kiowa and Elizabeth school districts, from what I’m hearing…..unless this board and superintendent become a little more flexible and a little less dictatorial, this mill has very little chance of passing. Folks are not happy with Mr. Bissonette’s heavy handed leadership.
-
Mora Luke · Friends with Del Schwab and 1 other
I’ve listened to both days. I find no dramatic change, other than the board being *more* serious as they prepare to vote? I had no trouble with the phone survey whatsoever. I did hear them say-“our kids deserve a school without buckets next to them.” I would agree, and a bit rough to teach with water dripping on your head… Finally and respectfully sir, I cannot believe anyone would disagree with this bond, whether they like the board or superintendent or not, this bond is NOT the way to manipulate, or play political games in our county, as the safety of our kids is CRITICAL and this bond ensures it. Here are the facts regarding the bond IF we do have funds “left-over.” http://www.cde.state.co.us/…/ccabestpowerpoint.pdf
http://www.cde.state.co.us/
sites/default/files/documents/ cdefinance/download/pdf/best/ bestgrantcyclewww.cde.state.co.us -
Tedd Strange · Friends with Henry Imperial and 5 others
I don’t know how you can say that “…the BRP supported a lower number…” when I personally threw out the $2.75M number when the total of the numbers came to just over $2.6M without including a solution for the lack of phones in classrooms. I suggested we go with $2.75M and let the difference be what the district would have available to them to remedy that particular issue, and all present, including Frank as I recall, were comfortable with that idea. That the board “…realized…that things weren’t going it’s way…” is conjecture on your part. As I have stated before, the BRP had a very short timeline to make its report, as C-1 has a short time to get the language together and get it submitted since this now needs to go through the Douglas County Clerk who is acting in the stead of our quitter. The tone of your missive above makes me suspect that you don’t care for Mr. Bissonette or the Board, in any case. While Frank seemed to have an issue with their presence at the BRP meetings, I am not aware of anyone else having a problem with it, nor do I feel their presence created any undue influence. We had questions, they had answers, and at no time did I feel that they were attempting to bend us to a pre-determined course of action. They did submit a separate wishlist to the BRP at the beginning, but near as I could tell everyone recognized the issue with the roofs as the central issue, and the other critical issues were all vetted extensively.
-
Brooks Imperial I’ve seen data indicating the max the BRP recommended was $2.25M, with that number contingent on engineering review of EHS roof which could make the number much lower. As for the two taped meetings showing no dramatic change, that is simply disingenuous. Ted, Mora, I can see you guys are going to fall on your swords for C-1. Noted. http://elbertcounty.net/…
——————————————————————————————————————-
As a BRP member, I find it odd that people who weren’t present or even involved in the workings of the group are now experts on what occurred there?
The BRP did recommend replacement of BOTH roofs among the other listed items and had hoped to have an independent roofing consultant out in time to validate our recommendation as it related to the High School, even though the Colorado Department of Education had already recommended replacement a year prior. This unfortunately did not occur before we had to make our final recommendation. The desire to engage an independent consultant was primarily because the IAC did NOT actually assess the High School Roof (and indicated the same in their report).
Further the recommendation to replace both was not clearly articulated in the final power-point presentation and was the result of an administrative (as in typographical) error. This is because of the number of people working on various parts of the project. And because the information was needed on time for the presentation – some of the original language from the IAC report (which was the basis for our existence really) was left as artifact. The summary report e-mail which “I” sent to the Board did indeed recommend replacement of both roofs, but it unfortunately did not carry over to the final presentation.
The variance in the dollar amount is the difference between “average market” pricing and the figures indicated in the BEST Grant. In any event, the BRP recommended that the overages (if any) between the amount approved by voters and the amount actually needed to address the various issues be refunded against the grant (or never drawn in the first place) so that the taxpayers didn’t incur debt for projects which they did not have an opportunity to vote on. It was also recommended that the Board designate a Bond Oversight Committee to ensure that the monies were spent appropriately and only on those items in the recommendation.
Frank was great in articulating the difference between the amounts, as well as was steadfast in making sure that it was clear that we were a citizens group making common-sense recommendations – but that the FINAL dollar amounts would be left to the experts and/or reflected in the actual costs for the improvements. That said, there were none in the group who denied that “if the roofs needed replaced” that using the BEST grant money was the best possible way to address it with the least possible impact to the taxpayers.
Bottom line is we have the opportunity NOW… to NOT go down the road of the Justice Center debacle – and can appropriately address the roofs and allow the state to assist in the funding. If, for any reason, it were determined that the High School Roof did NOT need replaced, then the funding wouldn’t be there anyway and we’d end up just repairing it.
The BRP felt strongly, however, that both roofs needed replacement and were eligible for BEST grant funding… and so why not go after that?24 minutes ago · Edited · Like
-
Brooks, if you’re referring to Item 14 on the IAC report – It states that it (the High School Roof) is “Repair-Replace/Unknown – consultant required”. It does NOT however, say that the recommendation was Repair Only…
Further – THE DOCUMENT YOU’RE REFERRING TO was a consolidated IAC / District Staff Recommendation summary which was supplied TO THE BRP. It is not and was not ever the BRP’s document. It was the basis for our discussion and we worked off of it to come up with our own priorities, dollar amounts, and actually removed several of the items from the list. The final version of that list looks quite different.
I think it is important that if we are going to debate facts, then let’s start with facts. And referring to that document as “The BRP Recommendation” definitely isn’t fact.
And lastly:
From: Rebekah Anderson
To: <Members of BRP>
Sent: Monday, September 2, 2013 11:13 AM
Subject: BRP
Hello Everyone,
There has been some questions about our findings for the Bond decision. We have been asked to make some clarifications. There is a time limit to the final decision so we need to meet Tues at 6pm. I am hoping we can still meet at the High school, but I will need to check that. As we are working with Labor Day I have not been able to check on those things. I hope the meeting will be 20-30 min.
If you can not make it, I will still need to hear from you. So please let me know.
Rebekah A.
NOTE: This BRP meeting has been cancelled. Former BRP members are expected to attend the BOE Board meeting tonight at 7:30 in the Admin building.