FPC Bombshell

The Facilities Planning Committee began planning “Phase II” of the school construction plan last night, but I could not concentrate. Part of it was brain-deadness because these meetings run too darn long, part of it was shock. Here’s why: No matter what we do to cut construction costs, we will still not come under the $110 million referendum limit because District 428 must also build a road.

That’s right. According to Assistant Superintendant Andrea Gorla, the agreement with the developer who sold the land for the new high school includes covering 50% of the cost of building a 3-lane piece of Wildflower Lane that will someday run north of Dresser Road.

This being only the second FPC meeting I’ve attended, I haven’t the slightest as to whether this is old news or new news; but if it is new, why is it new?

Another attendee suggested (after the meeting) that the District might try to talk the city into building the road. Well, the city is going to be up to its eyeballs in trouble with the taxpayers when word gets around that the way it “balances” its annual budget appears to consist of a strategic push of the shortfall onto next year’s tab, but it may be a good argument for two reasons: 1) There seems to be no inkling among any on the Council that anything is wrong; and 2) Alderman Ron “Here, take this and let me know if you want more” Naylor serves on FPC.

31 thoughts on “FPC Bombshell”

  1. Russ Fletcher told members of EPAC (this was supposed to be a group of PTO presidents meeting to coordinate calendars and issues and has become a PAC) that the city is to build the road and assume the cost. This was months ago and something I thought was common knowledge.

  2. Paul, that is not what was said last night. In fact, according to my notes the statement was made that this was going to push us over budget. The gist of it was that it’s somehow a good deal because the developer is taking care of stormwater issues off-site.

    It’s very interesting, what Mr. Fletcher said. It indicates that I somehow missed a very important piece of city business when it came up at Council; and now I must go find it lest I begin believing some back-room deals have been made. Any idea which month this decision was voted on?

  3. Yinn, I stand corrected and do so completely with apologies. My attendee stated that BEFORE the referendum passed, at the EPAC meeting in January 2008, the good Mr. Fletcher told them that the cost for the road would need to be borne as part of the buildings cost. This was seen as still being more cost efficient than using land already owned by the district or adding on to the current high school.

    I don’t know that they will be over budget, as I don’t know what it costs to build a road, how much, etc. Sure looks like they are losing any possible savings they may have had.

  4. Yinn,

    Normally whenever someone purchases raw land, as did the school district, they are responsible for improvement to that land. I’m sure the developer that they purchased the land would give them a price to develop the site for them but I believe the school district could do it for less.

    It is not uncommon also for the developer to split costs in some situations dependent to how and when a buyer of land would like to begin and how that works with their plans. It was mentioned that Macom would be starting off of the north end of their project while the school would be at the south end. I’m guessing it is because Macom already has infrastructure with regards to water and sewer at the north end due to their other project, The Bridges of Rivermist. I’m not sure where the sewer and water is on the south property for the school.

    It is a big deal for the school district that Macom is allowing them to utilize one of Macoms retention ponds. This virtually makes the land that the district is purchasing 100% usuable. In regards to the purchase agreement and the understanding of all the wording, it is probably getting final looks now because of their need to complete the purchase. Now that the attorney’s are talking, the finer points of the Agreement are beginning to surface. With the fact that we are only in the prestages of designing the high school, much of this information is starting to become important as the architects attempt the design.

    It’s funny that last night people were complaining about the curved road but as I remember, there was a public outcry not too long ago for the city to push for more curved roads within subdivisions. I always say be careful what you wish for. It really is too bad that Wild Flower couldn’t be straightened out to at least the upper exit and then begin its curve. This would probably add about 5 to 8 acres for the school site but it has been discussed that maybe a few extra acres could be purchased now to avoid future growth issues. A squared off property could lend more possibilities for design of the school grounds.

    As a member of the FPC, I can say that last night was the first that we heard of the street arrangement but I would not be too surprised to hear of some additional news, good or bad, with regards to this contract or the site for the new Cortland grade school. Until we own it, anything could happen.

    Good news could however still come into play. They have opened the door to discuss and incorporate precast construction. This could help with the road costs and other unforeseens. That is the problem with working only from a figure of $88.5 million. There is not a budget breakdown on how that number comes to fruition. It is difficult to cut costs somewhere when you don’t know what, where, and how much you can cut from any individual line item. It’s kind of “trust us, you said you wanted a school for $88 million and by gosh we’re gonna give it to you”

    When I quote a home for my customers, I give them a break down sheet which shows them where the money is going. Allowances that I have made for customers to spend on their desires and costs for the subs and materials. This is not happening in this process with the schools. This is scary to me.

  5. Paul: Thank you for the correction.

    Now the question remains as to why this suddenly puts us over budget if the road costs were supposed to be included in the (iirc) $88 million for the h.s. I will try to find out.

  6. OK, now I get it. Not. If this was a foreseen item then I really fail to understand why it was treated as an “unforeseen” by not including it, apparently, in the original calculations.

    I think it was preceeding the 2nd failed referendum where I went online for such a breakdown as you are talking about, Ivan, and very easily found such cost breakdowns for building proposals from OTHER school districts so I know they are possible; but for some reason we are not seen as needing (deserving?) the same tool for decision-making.

  7. The new superintendent advised against letting an architect build schools. He did this during his interview and was hired. He repeated it during his introduction.

    The Board needs to act upon his advice.

    I asked the architect what the construction budget was. Her reply was $15.5 million for the grade school, $88.9 million for the high school. The correct answer should have been: The Board sets the budget.

    Land acquirement costs were not included in the referendum question. What was promoted was the grade school would be built on land donated through Cortland’s land/cash impact fee ordinance, the high school on land purchased from DeKalb Associates.

    I asked Beilfuss, in April, if the Cortland land legally belonged to the school district (deed and title). He said it was not. He said deed and title could be acquired by May 1. Then it was announced that some “technical administrative details” needed to be worked out. It is now June and the district still does not own that land. Yet, expensive site plans have been designed with a footprint for the Cortland site.

    By the way… Site plans are expensive items.

    The contract for the high school land was signed before the referendum passed, contingent upon the referendum passing. The terms of that contract would have had language regarding site layout of the school since that would pretty much dictate surrounding land use. The word unforeseen should not exist here. The very purpose of due diligence is to eliminate unforeseen circumstance.

    The worst mistake that could be made here is to design the school dependent upon a residential project that has not even been annexed. “Wildflower Street” does not exist and therefore cannot be used as the main entrance/exist road for the high school. The LATEST site plan, and by the way site plans are expensive, is realistic of conditions as they exist now and as they will likley exist when the school is built.

    Site development costs had better been included in the referendum plans. And before bilingual walls are built in the classrooms, the entrance/exit should be accounted for.

    Do not let an architect build the schools.

  8. Mac and/or Ivan:

    Can you advise the next FPC meeting? Couldn’t find it on the web site yesterday. I have some free time 6/5-16 while the family is visiting family in Utah and other than watch Scooby Doo, I’d like to attend a meeting or two since my family obligations will be temporarily suspended.

    Mac: Did I understand you to say that site plans are expensive? ;-) How expensive?

  9. I had a problem with this referendum because I had a gut feeling there would be cost overruns and “unforeseen” expenses. Forget about a second referendum to address the needs at other schools. What do you want to bet they’ll be asking for more money just to finish the work they’ve started? You can’t have a school without a road. It appears that the District is once again talking out of both sides of its mouth. So much for trust. Hopefully, the new superintendent can set them straight.

  10. Ginger, I believe we are jumping the gun on the road issue. The FPC does not know the full details of the land purchase agreement and what costs should be included with the land purchase and what should be the responsibility of the referendum money.

    I will reiterate that no one seems to know how and where the $88.5 million is being spent. There is no break down available to anyone publicly that I know and I’m not sure the school board or administration has the number. I personally feel that if we do not get a better break down of costs pertaining to the high school, this architect should be fired and a new one hired. The good thing about this is the fact that the high school is to be bid. This would give us a chance that the number might come down a little bit.

    Another good thing is that the local blogs seemed to help us get precast into the discussion. There was very good discussion concerning precast at this past Wednesdays 3:00 materials meeting. It turns out that this architect did design precast into the Belvidere grade school, Seth Whitman, which Cortland’s grade school is being designed after. Precast is also going to be considered for the new high school and hopefully we (the architect) can design and incorporate more precast into the high school design. The more repetitive the wall designs are with regards to windows and exterior features, the more savings that can be realized using precast.

    I would like to thank all that contacted a (several) school board members with regards to openly consider precast. They have listened and the architects are aware of the communities wish for the consideration.

    It is always difficult to make and keep a promise when there are factors that one cannot control. Factors such as a school board, how a committee will overall vote, economic conditions, material availability, and how a community will rally around what is good or bad. I can promise and I do believe I can speak for Mac on this, we are trying to do the best we can to ask questions concerning construction and monies spent for our schools. We are also very concerned on how the “lack” of construction will affect the districts ability to pay down the referendum.

    I have been to every FPC meeting since the referendum passed and I will say that there is a genuine concern that we get this right for the community and its children and not just for today but for the future. The lack of a crystal ball makes it very difficult in forecasting the growth pattern. With todays climate, we are afraid of overbuilding and incurring costs that we may not need but what if we cut back and their is an unanticipated growth surge whether in new construction, another community enters our district, or infill within older areas of town. Questions are being asked and numbers be refigured and recalculated to make sure that our recommendation is the best we can make.

    I think Yinn and Kay can attest that questions are being asked and that there has been could discussion and we do welcome you to join in and listen. Next meeting is scheduled for June 18th. Materials subcommittee is to meet again at 3:00pm and the FPC will meet at 6:30pm.

    This meeting is to hopefully be to hash out the new numbers for the districts future enrollments. I do apologize for the length but hopefully some of the information helps answer a question or two that you may have yet.

  11. Yes, citizens are asking excellent questions. They are receiving what seem to be good answers, not ‘sales pitch’ answers.

    One good point–the high school will have enough room in the cafeteria so the campus will become closed, as in the kids cannot leave and come back. That might help with behavior problems.

    Two points of concern for me:

    1. There was talk of an old clock that could get refurbished and installed. Well, that would be a nice piece of history but someone should raise *donor* money for that and spare the taxpayers from paying for it.

    2. The fieldhouse–First of all, throughout the referendum process, the fieldhouse changed in how much of it appeared in subsequent sketches compared to earlier ones and what name it carried, as though someone was trying to sneak the fieldhouse in without anyone noticing. One factor in the failure of the first couple of referendums was that some people thought the budget included way too much toward athletic facilities. I seem to recall a very expensive new football stadium in the plans. Was it $9,000,000? Well, they rent NIU’s stadium at I believe $5,000 per game, for what, six games? That comes out to be $30K per season. Assuming $40K per season total for rental, it would take 225 years to pay $9 million. If anyone asks for a new football stadium, the answer better be NO. Now, here is my concern. The architects did talk to teachers and received ideas. Someone did suggest that the planned track on the inside should be larger which means the cost is going up. Because of that plus the desire to have access to Wildflower (or whatever that road is), I believe that might be a factor in making a serious inquiry into precast, which should save costs on building materials and construction.

    I remember thinking in the meeting, well shoot, whatever money would have been saved on precast will get wiped out by the larger fieldhouse and possible cost sharing with the road.

    But, after seeing the video demonstration on precast on Mac’s news site, if a tornado/straight line winds/microburst/etc. came through, the building may actually still be standing:

    Take a look and decide for yourself.

  12. Kay,
    My understanding concerning the field house is that precast may be able to allow a 200 meter track vs. a 160 meter track because the the additional strength that the precast walls bring to the table. If the architect can design a building that would conform to the standard widths for precast panels and also design the window openings in a workable continuous pattern for the purpose of the precast panels, precast will then save us many dollars.

    For the naysayers to precast, the architect CAN design the building in such a way, they just need to be told to do so. Also, a repetitive design can be done so that the building would look very nice from the exterior. I would like to see and can easily see where at least 60% of this building could benefit from precast possibly even as much as 70 to 75% and be great looking. There are even interior walls that could be done in precast especially around the gymnasium, ag/tech wing, and some main hallways.

    I truly hope the school district was not shortsighted when they purchased the land that they did not figure in costs for a traffic study, infrastructure brought into the property to the school building, and the additional roadwork to Dresser that would need to be performed, mainly going to at least 3 lanes and even a right turn lane. The third lane would be a center turn lane.

    As for the football field. It is strongly rumored that there is one, possibly two local families that are willing to contribute somewards up to $5 million dollars towards a football stadium at the high school. There will not be a stadium using taxpayer dollars and it was talked that the stadium if built would be done so with a synthetic turf to eliminate maintenance and open the possibilities of more groups using the facility.

    What is truly great right now is that we have enough time right now not to be rushed into the final drawings for the high school. We have time to do it right. I am also hoping that the architects didn’t give out a number of $88.5 million to the district thinking that that should be enough to build a building and anything else that would pop up.

    I would like to see a better itemization of where money is going from that $88.5 million dollar pot. I also think that considering the development crisis we are seeing with local housing developments, their developers, and the fact that no one is buying homes, in fact, I believe some to be moving out of town to get closer to their jobs to eliminate fuel costs, that the total square footage of the building should be cut down. Knocking just 50 to 75,000 square feet could really make a difference in cost, especially since the architect keeps square footage x dollars per square foot as their method at arriving at $88.5 million.

    Just some ideas to think about and also draw some concern.

  13. 1) The board hired a superintendent that announced during his interview not to let the architect steer the building of the schools. They hired him. Point: the board is concerned about costs and is trying to control the project. Good news.

    2) Several members of the FPC as well as the CFAC are questioning enrollment projections, costs considerations and debt obligations and that expresses a real care towards doing the right thing. Good news.

    3) HS Staff expressed downsizing the parking lot and other cost cutting measures. Good news.

    4) The architects want to build the best schools possible. Good news.

    The flaw is in setting a building construction cost at $88.5 million (high school) and 15.5 mil for the grade school. When alternative materials, techniques, etc. are introduced, any savings potential is shifted (fieldhouse) to an increased cost to arrive back at the stated budget number.

    The numbers promoted do not allow anything for contingencies such as improvements to Dresser, for example, that may be needed. If the stated numbers are adhered to there is only about $6 million left for any contingencies, plus the repurposing of the current high school, Huntley and Chesebro. This is a formula for overruns with a built in excuse of “the building costs came in at or under budget but…” Taxpayers know that building costs, site development costs, road costs, etc. all come from the same pocket.

    One of the very reasons the FPC recommended and the Board approved a GC method was to get the sharpest pencils. The most prudent approach is to LOWER both buildings’ construction budget, significantly. That could be done if the board adopted Value Engineering principles as outlined by the federal government. Doing so would build a contingency budget that could give the Board the tools they need to reduce the debt they are asking taxpayers to assume.

  14. Mac and Ivan,
    Congratulations at the progress you have already made.
    I’m really impressed at the movement you have caused and expect you will get 90% of what you are pushing for.


  15. That was part of a confusion I had looking at the redrawn high school at the last meeting Mac. It seemed to me that several basketball courts were taken out of the original plan and an indoor track/field house designed instead. There was also a mention of a bigger wrestling facility. Is this being done in the original alotted square footage or is this more.

    I also have asked why more storage wasn’t planned for. There just isn’t enough storage for records, seasonal items, maintenance needs, and supplies that the teachers are always looking at putting somewhere. In turn, no basement was figured in the new high school. This has to be addressed.

    Concession area for baseball, tennis, softball, and soccer can actually be done as a community event. I know at one time the boosters wished to build a weight room at the present high school and Dr. Beilfuss said no. Maybe those or some other funds could be utilized for the concession stand along with some “community elbow grease”.

    This is where the community can help Mac and myself and that is to demand that the school board add “Value Engineering” into the plans for the high school and Cortland grade school. We would suggest the definition that our federal government uses in all of its bid packages. Hopefully Mac can post that link for all of us to read and then act upon. It is very crucial to making sure that there are cost savings built into the bids.
    This does not cheapen a building, it offers identical products and does making the bidding more competitive. If I’m not mistaken, the federal government stated that an additional 8 to 10% cost savings has been seen when “Value Engineering” is suggested. Mac can correct me on these numbers.

    We are making a difference but it is surely with your support and I do believe that the new school superintendent, Dr. Briscoe, will be able to offer some additional input with his experience in the construction of the high school. I do believe that he is a very hands on kind of guy.

  16. Ivan During the election cycle I was told by a board member that the new High School was going to be built on Dresser Road so the schools could utilize the Park District Fields for the Athletic Department. Has that changed

  17. As I understand it today, they have really only started to talk to the park district about the arrangements. Dan Jones, high school athletic director, reported last meeting that the Park District fields at Katz park will be utilized has overflow practice fields.

    I was really hoping that the Park District would work out a deal where as to they could trade land for the Katz Park diamonds. I was hoping the School District would trade the land that Dr. Ali and board bought after the first failed referendum so that the Park District could have the majority of their “adult” fields at and near the rec. center on 4th Street.

    My real hopes really were that the Park, Library, and School Districts could partner in this new high school and offer some great community functions with the new school building and its grounds. The library has backed out as rumor tells me that they are to purchase the Ronan, Moore, and Finch funeral home as an annex of sorts. I personally would have found it better that the children of this community would have benefited greatly by them teaming up and using the new library wing at the high school.

    I guess would resemble a “perfect world”, wouldn’t it Ed?

    As for saving money so generously given to the School District by the voters, I think it would be a great statement when all is said and done if the School Board could say that between all of the construction with the first referendum that they were able to save the taxpayers somewhere over $10 million in hard costs. I do think it could be more if we sharpened our pencils and really did what we need to do instead of what we really might wish for. The wish list can be attacked year to year but the important thing is to get the buildings where we need to.

    I do believe that prices can come in better. Remember to ask why the federal definition of “Valued Engineering” is written into all bid proposal packages for the grade and high schools. We need to demand this!

  18. Ivan:

    I’d like to know more about “Valued Engineering” and what the binding power of this term is and how it would benefit in this regard.

    I know that on a couple of occasions that the School Board president urged people to suggest that the new High School be built with a capacity of 2,000 and the ability to receive add-on if enrollment required it. One friend went to the FPC prior to the referendum vote and suggested it. The architect said it would save about $8 million doing that.

    The school board president emailed me (in a dust-up I had with the district over their PR guy using district resources to promote the referendum) and said he had decided to ask for $110 million because he wanted to make sure they had more than enough money to cover the project, so they wouldn’t have to insult the voters and ask for more should their projection not be enough.

    I questioned the most recent prior occupant of the superintendent’s office and took the position their enrollment projections were inaccurate to the high side. Their past projections over the last couple of years have been off to the high side. When you added the economic train wreck that some of us saw coming months ago and the city’s moratorium on new residential starts (how many houses have had permits sought/let since?), it was clear that a 2,500 capacity school was too much.

    I’m concerned that with the costs attributed and sneaking up on the HS and the commitment for the Cortland school that “re-purposing” will be underfunded.

    I’ll continue to follow the FPC work (with many kudos to Mr. Krpan and others of HIS ilk) and speak out/contribute when I can.

  19. Paul,

    I will have Mac go ahead and post that link defining Value Engineering the way the federal government uses it.

    My suggestion would be to build the school for 2,000 to 2,100 students and a core for 2,500. I would surely love to see it designed to be able to add wings and possibly even some core at a much later date.

    I do not favor the “ask for more” attitude. There is always someone out there that seems to feel obligated and SPEND IT!

    I do say that I am very pleased with the focus and dedication of the FPC at this time in asking some difficult questions concerning enrollment and monies spent. It is very satisfying to see that many of these FPC members who have been involved for years trying to get a referendum passed are very concerned about keeping the trust of the voters who passed this last referendum. After all, it is our money that we are spending.

  20. Ar question. I’m hearing some discussion of building a core part of the school for 2500 but then doing classroom space for 2000. That way it is possible to expand in the future but without building to full size right now. That’s what some are suggesting, correct?

    (To Paul, new school rather than a repair was needed since core facilities could not be economically expanded and hence, I believe, the school board’s concern not to have an undersized core. The 16 room addition or whatever to the previous high school was added on without enough money to do bathrooms and other amenities. School board doesn’t want to make that mistake again.)

    I do have a question for those who are attending the FPC. Let’s assume that the costs are kept under the bond among The bond referendum only allows money to be spent for the high school, cortland school and the one repurposing project.. If FPC can keep all those costs down I don’t think the school board can spend money from the bond on anything else. Am I correct?

    (Let me be explain. If mac and ivan save us say 5 million bucks on construction, the school board could legally put in 5 million dollars worth of computers in the high school or buy a Picasso for the high school, talk about a bad idea, being silly. But the school board canNOT use any money saved in construction paid for from the bond to purchase land say for another school elsewhere or any other matter that is not linked to the high school, cortland school and repurposing. Again, am I correct?


  21. Ivan–Thanks for the explanation on the field house.

    A better justification for increasing the size of the field house might have been:

    200 meters is more or less the standard size for an indoor track. Indoor tracks fewer than 200 meters are possible but 200 meters is the ideal length. Had that been the answer, I would have bought it without questioning it (or bothering to look up what is the standard size for an indoor track). ;-)

  22. You are correct Herb, the monies can only be used as the question read on the ballot. Mac could cipher that better.

    If we didn’t need the $5million, we wouldn’t have to sell the bonds and it would help keep the taxes down. With the projected EAV looking dismal, anything will help.

    The main thing is that the trust between taxpayers and school board is there and voters are more likely to believe the board when the next request comes out to update the remaining schools, which we can save on money spent also.

  23. There are lots of reasons why a public library and a school library should not partner. Here are a couple of reasons, using the most polite words I could think up to write:

    Public libraries sometimes attract people who like to use computers and do not seem to have enough constructive things to do during the day. Giving such folks access to a school through a shared public library space is not the best idea.

    If a school library is self contained, books, materials, media, and computer access can be focused on educational topics which integrate into the curriculum. Once a public library shares space, that opens the door to non-educational materials, reading materials and media for the over 18 adult readers, and fewer to no restrictions on what visitors can view on computers using the Internet. In other words, does a copy of “Lady Chatterly’s Lover” belong only at the public library or would it belong in a school library as well?

    My views are my own and not those of the American Library Association, of which I hold professional membership (out of my own pocket). ;-)

  24. You are probably right with your thinking Kay but I think in the future when the administration of any group tells us, the taxpayers, that there will be a partnership in the new facilities, we need to remember this school referendum.

    We were told about the library’s interest and the park district’s interest only to find that nothing is to come out of it. Well, maybe yet with the park district but I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting to see.

    I believe there is way to do just about anything if the time and thought is really put into it. The library could have combined many of it student sections within the new high school library so that the students wouldn’t always have to utilize the downtown library. Computer areas could be designed a little differently for access or just completely block certain topics from the high school computers encouraging “those non educational people” to use the public library downtown.

    Just a thought and an idea but nothing we have to worry about anymore.

  25. The library partnership was a bad idea from the getgo. However, working with the Park District regarding athletic facilities makes sense and has been successful. In any case, I’m not surprised that there is back-pedalling, but lo and behold: “06/2/2008 – District Saves Taxpayers Based on Lower Interest Costs” (District #428 home page.) The real deal or more spin?

  26. My vote is on “spin.” The bonds sold over a month and a half ago and they are just now publicizing it?

    My bet is on there are people reading this blog, checking on what is being discussed, and know citizens will be crawling through the next school district with their sharp pencils and scissors in a couple of months.

    Keep up the excellent work, bloggers!!

  27. My joy in CityBarbs is that real problem-solvers (rather than just complainers) come here. I feel energized after reading the comments.

    And readership goes way, way up whenever I post about the school building and the city budget. These matters are obviously of deep interest and it reflects not only concern about current trends and conditions but also a determination to help turn things in a direction that benefits all of us.

  28. Yinn,

    You have to be proud of CityBarbs. The atmosphere that you have created and maintain here is fantastic and definitely an integral part of what is going on in the community.

    I know that I enjoy the comments and suggestions that are written. It is nice to know that readership is up and I can tell you that I notice around the community who is reading even if they don’t admit it.

    CityBarbs has been big help to me while working on the FPC and Police advisory groups. It’s nice to know how the community feels on issues and it is also very important knowing that when Mac and I needed a little public support on some FPC issues that the bloggers stepped right up and did so in a very civil manner.

    Thank you for offering this format!

  29. FPC meeting for June 18th is canceled. Both materials advisory and FPC will meet instead on July 1st. Advisory committee will meet at 3:00 pm and the FPC will meet at 6:30 pm. Same bat place and same bat channel.

    This should be an interesting meeting. Hoping to get numbers back from Hazel. This should give us the new projected enrollment numbers for District 428 schools. This could have a big factor on the actual size of the new high school. Mac and I both are questioning the future enrollment numbers based on this downturn in building and the lack of any new subdivisions in DeKalb for the last 5 years. Wouldn’t want to build too big but we also need to make sure we don’t underbuild.

    This is difficult especially when you truly care in what you are doing. I honestly can say that the FPC group is asking the right questions and hope they make the correct recommendation to the school board.

Leave a Reply