ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

LET Daly's cost analysis falls short

Am I missing something in Fred Daly's comments concluding that an additional high school was in the taxpayers' best interest? What does Daly mean by a scaled-down remodeling of JM, at some reduced cost, and please tell us (taxpayers) what that makes the FINAL cost.

Has he considered "down the road" administrative costs given an additional building; program start-up costs; ongoing costs of duplicating programs/clubs; building maintenance, utilities and grounds upkeep. By the way, consulting the terms of the current teachers contract, the yearly salary, adding that of head coaches (salary level 0-4 years experience), for the 14 sports which high schools of the Rochester caliber offer, totals $53,772. Then there are assistant coach salaries and compensation paid out to extracurricular directors and advisors.

With an additional high school, what busing issues will this create? What cost, schedule and routing issues? (I am reminded of the boundary issues that this community went through last spring, and now the potential of a fourth high school!)

While Daly emphasized space issues as driving high school building needs, what happened to the issue of John Marshall lacking air conditioning? (High temperatures, just a week or so ago, made it difficult for staff, students, parents and community members to be in the building.) This has been raised at public meetings and in materials presented to the school board.

I would encourage the community to ask more questions before accepting Daly's current recommendation, which lacks sufficient information and might even be short-sighted.

ADVERTISEMENT

Margo; Stich

Rochester;

What To Read Next
Get Local

ADVERTISEMENT