By editorial board • 

Renovation of high school the most plausible solution

Only online subscribers may access this article.

One-day subscriptions available for just $3. Click here for one-day access.

For all other subscription offers, click here.

Already a subscriber, please .

Comments

kona

One question immediately comes to mind is "why would the editorial staff recommend this construction for a student capacity of 2,700 students that won't happen (according to projections) until 25 years from now"?

The last construction only seven years ago was built to serve this student population four "four to five decades". Something doesn't reconcile.

kona

Is this correct? We are tearing down two high quality gyms and then building two new gyms? We are tearing apart a very nice auditorium and then rebuilding a new auditorium in the same location?

Reporter Starla Pointer

The proposal would replace the gyms, but not touch the auditorium.

kona

Thank you Starla. I thought it was part of Phase II construction. From what I understand it will be part of a remodel rather than full demolition/ construction.

Something else that seems difficult to understand is how the retiring bond from 1997 of $29,800,000 would keep the same taxable cost for homeowners when the new bond would be for approximately $89,000,000? I am sure there is a simple explanation that I am missing.

Don Dix

"Something else that seems difficult to understand is how the retiring bond from 1997 of $29,800,000 would keep the same taxable cost for homeowners when the new bond would be for approximately $89,000,000? I am sure there is a simple explanation that I am missing."

kona! Don't you think that kind of question is above our pay grade?? Move along! Nothing to see here!

Web Design and Web Development by Buildable