32 replies to this topic

[Chris]

Lowest bidder was finally found?

Yep,  something called SBG construction I think.....?   Here's their website....

 

http://www.sbg.com.s...nstruction.html

[The Average Joe]

If Chris is right, I am appalled... Seriously? It must be another SBG construction.

[SCA]

Nothing changed with the bid. As was reported before, the stadium project bids came in about 20% over budget. What was expected to be a $9,000,000 project is looking more like $11,000,000. The board approved the project at last week's meeting knowing the extra $2,000,000 will have to be made up somewhere else. The list of contractors who were awarded bids was included with the agenda and there's no company called SBG. The bleachers, however, will be provided by a company called Southern Bleacher.

[ducky]

What is the reason for the rebid of the landscape irrigation that was originally $70,000 and is now $230,000 and the masonry that was $165,000 and is now $215,000?  Just curious.

 

What projects are being cut to make up the $2,000,000?

 

There was a legal notice in The Folsom Telegraph today about a Notice of Proposed Increase and Urgency Implementation in Statutory School Facility Fees.  Does that pertain only to S50 development?

[Chris]

If Chris is right, I am appalled... Seriously? It must be another SBG construction.

Sorry Joe, I was joking....   Just seeing if anybody would notice.......    Chris

[SCA]

There were no bids received for the masonry trade package and the two lowest landscaping bids were non-responsive and could not be accepted. The masonry trade package will be re-bid and in an effort to cut costs, the landscaping package will also be re-bid.

We don't know yet which projects will be cut to make up the $2,000,000.

The Statutory School Facility Fees apply to any new construction, not just south of 50.

[SCA]

Here's more info about Measure G from this week's District Digest:

Vista stadium project proceeds; Board explores future bond structures
Description: Measure GConstruction to complete the stadium at Vista del Lago High School will proceed after the FCUSD Board of Education formally authorized the $10.9 million project at its April 21 meeting.

The project approval came after a special Board study session to discuss long-range financing for potential projects under Measure G, the $195 million voter-approved bond initiative for school upgrades in Folsom. The workshop was scheduled after bids from contractors for potential construction projects were exceeding initial projections, potentially reducing the overall amount of money available for future improvements under the 8-10 year life of Measure G.

District staff members presented several bond financing and structuring options to the Board for discussion, including reducing or eliminating some future projects or going to voters for a second bond campaign to complete Measure G projects. Staff, however, recommended a third option: a combination of 25-year, 30-year, and short term bonds that, while carrying higher interest costs, would deliver all projects planned under Measure G.

Click here for more details from the full Board study session presentation. The Board was not scheduled to take any action on the staff recommendations during the workshop. Any approval of future projects or financing plans will be placed on a future Board agenda for action.

The Board has previously approved a Facilities Master Plan to help identify and prioritize school upgrades, and the Board at a prior meeting authorized the issuance of the first $100 million to plan and construct several initial projects, including:
Vista del Lago High School stadium completion
Carl Sundahl Elementary School modernization and new construction
Oak Chan modernization and new construction
Sutter Middle School modernization and new construction - Phase 1
A second gymnasium at Folsom High School
Technology infrastructure upgrades throughout Folsom schools

[The Average Joe]

So we are back to 3 types of bonds to finance what should have been done during the original construction. If you voted for measure G "for the children," you are a sucker. Folsom has completely mismanaged their finances. Asking voters to pass a 20 year bond every 10 years shows they have no fiscal responsibility to live within their means.  That would be like buying a new car every 5 years and financing it for 10 years each time.

 

And let's not forget their money management when they issued a capital appreciation bond:

"Locally, Folsom Cordova used capital appreciation bonds to finance $514,000 at the cost of $9.1 million."

 

But hey, easy to spend other people's money right?

 

San Juan on the other hand is making sure project funds go to projects and not interest on debt.

 

http://www.sacbee.co...cle2599692.html

 

Unfortunately, I live on the border and pay into BOTH assessments. The San Juan one skyrocketed last year, but I approve because they are paying off debt.  Not so happy with Folsom's latest...

 

 

 

Distressing view of CA school bond issues

http://californiapol...section-8-of-9/

[SCA]

Average Joe,
Thanks for bringing up the San Juan example of moving to short-term, pay-as-you-go bonds. I have spoken about this several times since joining the FCUSD board and will continue to advocate for a shift in that direction. Our facility and construction needs will NEVER end. The only way to ensure that almost all of the property taxes collected go to actual construction costs, instead of financing costs, is to move to short term bonds.

[The Average Joe]

When you wonder why it costs so much to get things done at schools, look no further than unions bribing the legislature to put anti-competitive measures and requirements for school (and state) contracting into law. Even the requests for bid can be so narrowly tailored that only one company can qualify for the bid. Seen it happen. Not the way to save taxpayer money!

[The Average Joe]

Just wanted to point out that lowest bid is not always the best value. Many times once the company has the contract, there will be a series of change orders for impressive amounts of money. It's pretty common to come in low and bulk out the contract as time goes on. Not that I do that, just pretty common.  Those darn "cost overruns."  Of course, it isn't always the contractor's fault. Incompetent "managers" who constantly change the project goals (or have a committee do so) are often to blame as well. 

And if the low bidder doesn't pad the change orders, they will often cut corners or use inferior grade materials... for every one time something like that makes the news, there are dozens that go unnoticed. Until it is time to pour MORE money into it.

[ducky]

SCA, thanks for answering the questions.  Appreciate your honest and straightforward responses.

[Sandman]

When is the project expected to be completed? Will it be ready for upcoming season this fall?

[JoAnne Reinking]

Expected competition date is December. Vista is scheduled to play at FHS this season. 

A post season game would be nice - 

[DavidH]

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this but doesn't it seem absolutely absurd to spend $11 million on a stadium when there's a perfectly suitable one a few miles away?  Who's to say the facilities have to be identical?  Vista has facilities FHS will never have and the converse shouldn't be a problem.  Take, for example, the stadium model used in other districts, primarily in the mid-west and east -- one uber-stadium serves all high schools and the other schools have a practice field or somewhat smaller facility.  Vista didn't include a stadium because of NOA and the astronomical costs for encapsulating and monitoring.  That ground should never be disturbed again yet here we are, the district flush with OUR MONEY blowing a good chunk on something that has ZERO impact on the education of students.