Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still don't understand why that's not going to be an option school

Because neighborhood seats are needed there.

Wrong. Neighborhood seats are *Wanted* there.

Damn straight they’re wanted here. It’s why we bought our house. More option schools are not needed.

Nobody said it had to be a NEW option school. It could be a relocated option program - and it would be a much better location than anywhere else in that quadrant.
I don't know what to say to someone who buys a house in a location based on WANTING a neighborhood school to be created for them. At least others buy into an existing neighborhood school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fleet had to stay within budget. Reed did not. And I’m sure the SB will not be allowed to forget that for years to come.

Yeah, it was totally unreasonable for people to want an elementary school housed in a single building so grades 3-5 didn’t have to trek outside between buildings multiple times a day for lunch, specials, etc.

You're right, it was, given the financial constraints we're facing and given that it brought the project significantly over budget before it even began. heaven forbid an 8 -10 year old have to go outside for a minute or two a few times a day. Schedules could be arranged so that they didn't have to go back and forth multiple times. They probably could have even constructed some type of sheltered breezeway that didn't require them to put on their hats and gloves and boots and parkas each time.

I sure hope you think it was critical enough to fight for the budget increase for this issue above all else and don't allow any more cost overruns.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still don't understand why that's not going to be an option school

Because neighborhood seats are needed there.

Wrong. Neighborhood seats are *Wanted* there.

Damn straight they’re wanted here. It’s why we bought our house. More option schools are not needed.

They are when your neighborhoods can't fill the schools. That or they'll create wacky boundaries. Take your pick.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still don't understand why that's not going to be an option school

Because neighborhood seats are needed there.

Wrong. Neighborhood seats are *Wanted* there.

Damn straight they’re wanted here. It’s why we bought our house. More option schools are not needed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still don't understand why that's not going to be an option school

Because neighborhood seats are needed there.

Wrong. Neighborhood seats are *Wanted* there.

+ 1. Once they redraw the boundaries, one of the other schools is going to be the option because there are too many seats here and not enough in other areas. Might make sense from a transportation perspective, though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still don't understand why that's not going to be an option school

Because neighborhood seats are needed there.

Wrong. Neighborhood seats are *Wanted* there.

Anonymous wrote:Still don't understand why that's not going to be an option school

Because neighborhood seats are needed there.

Still don't understand why that's not going to be an option school

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fleet had to stay within budget. Reed did not. And I’m sure the SB will not be allowed to forget that for years to come.

Yeah, it was totally unreasonable for people to want an elementary school housed in a single building so grades 3-5 didn’t have to trek outside between buildings multiple times a day for lunch, specials, etc.

Indeed, that would be unreasonable. When issues like that came up at fleet, they went through successive rounds of value engineering, findings savings to do what was essential within budget. Fleet now has smaller playgrounds with fewer features, and a less desirable traffic pattern for getting into the garage. Would have been nice to keep that but we were told the money wasn’t there.

With Reed they just found the money.

Anonymous wrote:Fleet had to stay within budget. Reed did not. And I’m sure the SB will not be allowed to forget that for years to come.

Yeah, it was totally unreasonable for people to want an elementary school housed in a single building so grades 3-5 didn’t have to trek outside between buildings multiple times a day for lunch, specials, etc.

Fleet had to stay within budget. Reed did not. And I’m sure the SB will not be allowed to forget that for years to come.

Anonymous wrote:The BLPC for Reed went above budget.

Yep - even before construction began, they had to seek more funds. Cause they couldn't possibly have functioned in a "lesser" school.

The BLPC for Reed went above budget.

The additional funding to get to $55 million was approved months ago.

I believe the total budget for Fleet was $59 million, but the county contributed something like $9 million of that in joint funding for community amenities associated with the project (e.g., parking facilities, publicly-accessible bathrooms, roadwork).

Just saw it’s up for county approval this weekend at $55 million to build/retrofit.
https://www.arlnow.com/2018/11/15/plans-for-new-reed-school-set-to-win-county-approval-this-weekend/
As I recall the budget for Reed was smaller than $55M
I’m curious what did Fleet cost to build from the ground job I heard APS made a bunch of cuts to Fleet as it was being built.