Reader Ruminates Over Rumors

Dear SP-EYE,
In reading your post about the baseball bleachers and dugouts, I had a few thoughts. I do not have all the information, so i thought I'd run them by someone who has had an eye on Sun Prairie longer than I have. I would appreciate any corrections of a factual or logical nature to help me get my head around this.

When I read about the bleachers, I was reminded of a couple of other things I have heard in the past year that follow in the same vein. One incontrovertible case of rectal-cranial inversion involves the swimming pool (actually more than one, but one at a time). They plan for no pool, then pool, six lanes, then eight lanes, and in the process it seems they never talked to anyone who has ever been to a swim meet. As a result, we end up with room for a tremendous swimming tournament, provided we don't want spectators.

In the haste to put up that great big pool they forgot to include a door! Next thing you know, somebody who once saw a swim meet in a movie happens by and says "huh, the swim meet I saw had like...people watching it...and...a door or something for spectators". OOPS!!! Eco-friendly light bulb comes on!

To fix this problem, we put in a new hallway. Because it is bond money (and because competitive bidding=bad; relationships=good), the work needs to be done as a modification to the existing contract, and we end up paying something north of $160k for a hole-in-the-wall that would have been there in the first place if someone on the design team had been paying attention or if (*gasp*) we had looked at multiple architectural bids. The builder knew we were a captive audience with a critical need and a checkbook, and I am sure the contract modification was priced accordingly.

Another comment I heard in the past year was from a parent of a child in another district, who had attended a swim meet at the Sun Prairie pool. She was impressed with all the pretty concrete, and liked the initial look of the great big pool. What she didn't like were the bleachers, which she commented were unlike any she had ever seen before (and she had run multiple kids through decades of swim meets, so she is not the "oh, my back" type...she is the "@$$ in the car with 3 tired kids at 5 am off-to-the-pool" type). The bleachers were extremely low to the floor and uncomfortable. As we discussed the fact that the bigger pool was not in the original plan, she wondered if the torture-rack, pants-on-the-ground bleachers were a result of the design change that left less floor space. It'd be interesting to track how the bleachers were designed and purchased in relation to the pool.

Mistakes happen. Hopefully, when there is big money at stake you have many smart people look at designs so that big mistakes don't happen. You have professionals give you their best ideas, and you select the best one. Athletes run faster when there is someone in the lane next to them, and lack of competition hurts the final result. I bet architecture is no different.

We spend too much money on facilities to hire someone who doesn't know that baseball diamonds need dugouts and large swim meets need a way to get to the pool area without a mom having to drag the 4-year-old little brother of the next Mark Spitz through the woman's locker room to get from the spectator area to the overpriced snacks.

We also need to look at these projects big picture, so that the architect doesn't push it off on the excavator who pushes it off on the concrete guy who pushes it off on the bricklayer who pushes it off on the installer who chops/adds a little to the legs of the bleachers to make it fit in the allotted space. That's how I built my secret clubhouse when I was nine, but that was a clubhouse and I was nine. These are grown-ups spending tens of millions of dollars of other people's money, and those other people deserve more for their money.
_______________________________
SP-EYE responds...

If you climb into the WayBack Machine, we can tell you there was an Ad Hoc Pool Committee.  Said Committee 

drew up a great pool plan with all the trimmings for a reasonable amount.  It wasn't quite WIAA top notch competition worthy, but it was a nice pool. All that got tossed aside for "the good of the [high school] referendum".

About a year  or so later the board resurrected the plan, but now it would cost considerably more.  That would put the total referendum over $100M, so the board started snipping.  They upped the lanes to 8, but trimmed down the spectator area and cut out the original hallway that was planned.   You know what happened after that.

The end game was to come up with a plan that was $3.5M or less.  That was deemed the magic "approvable" number.  For the record, there were several pool people in the group, at least three who were quite knowledgeable about pools and swim meets.  Sadly a committee of 20 was down to about 4 people at the end. 

In the immortal words of somebody, "It is what it is".

Uh Oh! Pool Problems?

We've heard a number of reports from community residents indicating the following concerns related to the new high school pool:

1. Not Certified. Although we've had "the keys" now for 5 months, the pool still lacks a Health Department certification. This means no one can swim in it. That means no revenues from community swim. It also means paying for pool use time for our swim teams until this gets resolved. How embarrassing is it for us to be buying pool time when we've shouted fromn the highest mountain top that we have a brand new pool?
2. The roof leaks! It was reported that a large gathering of "pool people" (not to be confused with "pod people") happened to be at the pool this past Thursday night during the rain event and witnessed water flowing in.
3. Vent grillwork is already rusting. Nice...if it's rusting the metal, care to guess what's going on in side lungs?
4. The wrong diving boards. The two diving boards, at a cost of $500 each, are "recreational" type, rather than "competition" grade. Word on the street is that it has been known since the day they were delivered and sitting around in the bottom of the pool during construction, that they were the wrong boards. People have expressed this to administrators Phil Frei and Tim Brooks, whose answer is that we have to eat the cost!
5. The wrong pool lane dividers. The pool lane dividers do not meet WIAA standards, which means that, without replacing them, we cannot hold WIAA sanctioned competitions. There goes all those revenues and spectators fees we banked on . Not to mention the cost of adding the hallways needed to handle these crowds.
6. Wasted chemicals? Everyone knows that a pool needs chemicals to maintain pH balance and chlorine levels. What some may not know is that these chemicals have a very finite shelf life because of their reactivity. We've now heard too many reports to think that there isn't something to a rumor that someone purchased far too large a quantity of chemicals and now a large quantity must be disposed. We've heard figures ranging up to $1,000 worth of chemicals having to be trashed..

A call placed to the district office to confirm these reports and to obtain comment was not returned. Seriously...does anyone think the district will ever come clean with their dirty laundry?

What community members are saying

"If you have a specification, shouldn't the work be done to specification? Shouldn't someone be following up on that? Especially for what we paid for the specifications."

"Someone screwed up, so tell them to fix it."

"I know [the diving boards cost] is only $1,000, but [sic] thats all the more reason someone else should be fixing it."

"Shouldn't [District hired Construction Manager] Hoffman be looking at this and getting it fixed, since he is paid to do this stuff?" SP-EYE: One would think that's why we pay them $7,300 per month.

"I am sure the pool roof leaks might be higher priority, but these guys need to stop looking at the construction dollars as a tub of free money to use."

We don't think we can say it any better than those who let us know. We spent $100M total for our new construction. Nearly $4M alone for the pool. We pay our administrators -- who are currently seeking a salary increase of up to 2.5% we hear--- $80,000-to $120,000 per year. We expect better form them. We'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they would NEVER suggest that the district --and taxpayers-- should simply "eat the cost" of mistakes made by contractors. But, at the same time, to people that make $100K, $1,000 is pocket change. They forget --or are oblivious to the fact -- that $1,000 could feed a small family for several weeks to a month.

What's it cost to heat & cool 425,000 square feet?

As you should know by now, the new high school building is in (gulp) the hands of our administrative gurus. Anybody want to guess whether the district budgeted for energy costs at the new building prior to July 1?

The pool is filled and running. Anybody else want to guess if any money was budgeted in 2009-10 for the cost of running pool pumps, filtration, heaters, and chemicals?

The district was banking on $40,000 SAVINGS from turning down thermostats during the winter and turning them up this spring. And we all know that no one has found a way to cheat those thermostats by...say....putting a cold damp cloth over them...right?

We don't exactly have the Wizards of Waverly place running the show here. There will be no magic. They might just pull a rabbit out of somewhere though...mainly because old man winter didn't pack as powerful a punch as he has in recent years.

What's important now is that we have just added 425,000 square footage of buildings to the district holdings. That's a 36% increase over the 1.1M square feet we owned as of last fall.

Let's not forget that in addition to paying off loans and adding new staff, we also effectively incur a 36% increase in new ANNUAL utility costs.

Has anyone seen the projected 2010-11 budget for utilities? We have "more than 85%" of the budget expenditures in place...right?

6 Coffee Drinks Per Year, Huh???

In his STAR editorial this week, Chris Mertes says that the school board should go forward with a $3.9M referendum for a pool, equating the $20 per year property tax hike on a $200,000 home to "about six of your favorite coffee drinks".

First---and we have to get this out of the way-- Who in the HELL is buying coffee drinks that cost $3.33 a piece???? Some of have no interest in that mocha venti latte happy crappy. A wise old man, when I asked for cream and sugar for in my coffee asked, "Then why did you order coffee?" Webster's defines coffee as "a beverage made by percolation, infusion, or decoction from the roasted and ground seeds of a coffee plant ". That's it. Boiling water passing over ground coffee beans. And you can get $20 oz. at any Stop N' Go for $1.29 or less.

Chris is a decent guy...but he's either nuts or must make a pretty fat salary to support that kind of coffee jones. SP-EYE spoke frequently with Kaitlin Warriner, who used to write the Lifestyle and school columns. I guarantee you SHE couldn't afford to drink $3.33 cups of coffee. Now the $100K club? They most certainly can afford to drink high priced coffee to wash down their taxpayer funded pizza or Cousins' sub lunches.


Drowning in coffee

So...over the past 10-11 years, the community has gorged on coffees for:

• $ 188,760,000 in total building costs


• That's 216 of "your favorite coffee drinks" per year FOR 20 YEARS


• @3.33 piece = $722 of additional property taxes /year FOR 20 YEARS

...and THAT is why some people aren't jumping for joy about a pool that costs "only $3.9M" or "6 of your favorite coffee drinks per year".

Sure...a pool would be nice. And $20 doesn't seem like all that much...a movie (matinee) for 2 and a small bucket of popcorn. But that's really being disingenuous to the point here isn't it? The point is that for some folks, the camel's back has been broken.

SP-EYE: The school board has been quick to point out whenever they come in under budget on these building projects. Why don't they scale down the pool a little bit (The original Pool Task Force worked out a design with Bray that would meet WIAA standards and only cost $2.4M). Then, they could work with Bray and Findorff to slightly modify the high school design such that a pool could be included and still be UNDER the original $96M. Finally, with that in their pocket, they could go for a referendum to add the pool at NO ADDITIONAL construction cost.

...but THAT would be thinking outside the box.

Pool Referendum for November?

The school board is edging ever closer to setting up a November 4, 2008 referendum to add a pool to the high school construction project. The FTT discussed the project at its Monday August 11 meeting, and an informational update was provided during the full school board meeting.

Fast Facts on the Pool, Take 2.



The projected cost is $3,892,500.

Annual operating costs (1st year only) are projected to be an additional $397,000.

It is estimated that $96,000 of annual operating costs could be offset by public user fees.

Estimates assume 51,750 public "user visits" per year.

Initial estimates suggest that a referendum to exceed the annual Revenue Cap of $288,205 is required.

For a Nov. 4 2008 referendum, school board must vote to go to referendum by 9/8/08. That leaves 2 school board meetings (where the public may comment on the idea): 8/25/08 and 9/8/08.

Back to referendum in April for a pool?

At the January 14, 2008 meeting of the school board's FTT Committee, members approved forwarding a recommendation to the full school board to hold a referendum for a pool in conjunction with the upcoming spring elections.

Since the board must vote on such a measure before February 15th, look for very quick action from the board, likely at its January 28th meeting.

Pool plan puts the damper on high school referendum

At last night's (9/10/07) school board meeting, girl's swim coach Nancy Harms, a number of girls swim team members, and Piranha club members spoke out about the pool plan being proposed alongside the high school referendum poised for November 6th.

The major issues cited were:

1. The pool exists as a separate referendum question, yet the field house and performing arts center were bundled into the high school plan.

2. Proponents felt that an 8-lane pool offered more to the school and the community than the proposed 6-lane pool.

3. Pool proponents believe that bleacher seating capacity of 100 is insufficient.

Board president David Stackhouse reminded the public that the Ad Hoc Pool Task Force was convened in the spring/summer of 2006 to draw up a plan for a pool and a curriculum. That effort involved at least 16 hours of Task Force members' time and effort. The Task Force was comprised of a number of pool managers, swim team coaches, and Bob Hollings, SP Director of Parks and Recreation (who also oversees the Aquatic Center). The final plan recommended by the Task Force represented a consensus of the group.

Board member Tim Boylen cautioned the public that ignoring the work of committees such as the Pool Task Force will not bode well for enlisting future involvement of community member volunteers for committees.

The school board voted to table any action on the referendum pending some re-evaluation of pool options. A meeting on the pool issue has been scheduled for next Monday 9/17/07. The final vote for the entire referendum must be completed at the 9/24/07 school board meeting in order to hold a Nov. 6th referendum.

Bray sharpens its pencil...at least on the pool cost.

At last night's (8/27) school board meeting, Administrator Tim Culver announced that in response to questions about the proposed $4.5M cost for the pool, Bray architects has apparently re-checked their figures and the new cost is slated to be $3.75M. That a 17% error.

Hmmmm......I wonder if a similar error might have been made in figuring the high school costs!
But I doubt that either Culver or the board are posing that question to Larry Bray of Bray Architects.

How much "fluff" is there in the Sun Prairie High School Plan?

At the 8/20/07 High School Planning Team meeting, Architect Larry Bray was asked to explain why the pool cost was estimated at $4.5M when plans his firm developed for the Ad Hoc Pool Task Force in July 2006 showed designs ranging from $2.5M to $3.6M.

Mr. Bray's response was " ...we had to add in site costs and materials cost increases. That brought us to about $4.2M. From there, we rounded it to $4.5M."

A quick calculation shows that this rounding results in a "fluff factor" of over 7%. How much fluff is in the $97M school construction plan? A similar 7% , or $7M?

Is this just a slick way that the school board and the district can later come back and want us to kiss their feet because they didn't have to spend all the money that was borrowed? Is this a means of artificially creating a construction slush fund to be used later to cover staffing costs so the board/district can say, "see...we didn't have to go to referendum to exceed the revenue cap???

It is information and statements such as these that are the root of public distrust in the school board and district administration. David Stackhouse may be right....there is no need to a "Community Engagement Task Force"...just stop the shenanigans !