Thanks for the info. Always nice to know who the players are. Guess that narrows the attorney for the District down to John King. Ballantyne must have been invited to the Executive Session which was “… for the purpose of discussing matters pertaining to property and negotiations.”

Treva

I’m told the amount of land needed varies by the type of school – elementary, junior high, or high school. I believe that amount is determined by education administrators. Since they are education administrators we mere mortals must not question them. They obviously know best because they are education administrators. Just ask them. And before someone clobbers me about knocking educators, for the record, I know the folks at the school building level are doing an excellent job. In many cases, school administrators are another matter.

My sources tell me the Boise School District now strives for 10 acres at the elementary level, about 30 for junior highs, and 40 to 50 for senior highs.

Yes, that’s up from your days at Boise High but consider that most high schools now have both student and faculty – staff parking lots plus athletic fields. Boise High does not have student parking lots, the faculty – staff lots are pretty limited, and there are some athletic facilities but baseball teams (and perhaps other teams) have to use other facilities for practice. Having athletic facilities at the school means they can be used for PE classes and the kids don’t have to be bussed somewhere for practices which helps reduce costs and the administrative hassle of moving the kids.

My sources also tell me that most school fields are open to public use so they act as de facto parks in some neighborhoods. Also, those green areas help provide a buffer against future encroachments. Encroachments are a problem whether it’s the Foothills, an airport, or a school.

Lastly, newer elementary schools are almost double the size of the older schools such as Washington and Longfellow. From a purely physical basis they need more land. Parking lots for parents and staff factor in at this level also as do off street loading zones for school buses.

When did we change to this model of having large acreage surrounding schools which we not only have to pay to keep green, but which are taken off the tax rolls?

There doesn’t appear to be any involvement by the Boise State Foundation in the land deal so far. It also seems that the SBOE is involved so that Bogeyman can be put to rest.

EDITOR NOTE–Thanks for the research Blue. We fixed the reference. One of our sources obviously provided bad info.

Just a fyi
Mike Ballantyne is not an Lawyer, He is a real estate agent that works for Thornton Oliver Keller, that does most of the work for …. yep your right Brighton.

The Harris Ranch fiasco is but the latest in a series of fiascos that has plagued this bond issue.

We’ve seen the proposed new elementary site near Borah High fall through (another “deal”), the Harris Ranch site is dependent on its “deal” happening, and the Cole School deed restriction hadn’t been settled before the bond election even though the District claimed it would use proceeds from the Cole site land sale to offset new school construction costs.

The proposed Harris Ranch site is hemmed in by the foothills to the north, Warm Springs Avenue on the south, Harris Ranch and Golden Dawn Estates to the west, and more development potential property to the east. It also may sit very close to a 100 year flood plain. Surely there must be a better junior high school site in the area than the proposed one.

The District’s own documents show that it originally planned to outright purchase a junior high site in the Harris Ranch area. A specific location was not mentioned. Somewhere along the way (during the bond campaign if I recall correctly) the District and the BAA (or BSUF) developed a “partnership” and the current plan was hatched. We go from simple to complex. So another question is what happened to the millions of dollars the District “saved” by entering into this “partnership.”

Still another question is why the District is purchasing a 20 acre site for a junior high school when the District standard for Les Bois, Riverglen, and the relocated West Junior High has been 30 acres. A number of times in the past the District has partnered with Parks and Rec to have joint use parks built next to the school to gain additional acreage. That doesn’t seem to be an option this time.

Since the District has the opportunity to review, comment, and, if its wishes, impose conditions (my sources tell me it rarely does) on each development proposal in its jurisdiction, one has to wonder where on the original Harris Ranch site plan, and the changes thereto, schools were proposed and why those plans are not being followed.

I’m told that under the original Harris Ranch plan, an elementary school site was designated on the south side of Warm Springs. My sources tell me that other school sites were indicated on those initial plans and that there has been some site renegotiations since the original development plans were filed. If someone (Guardian?) has the interest, they might check the original filings with the City and/or County or the school district to see where the sites were proposed.

One must wonder about the District’s competence to plan for new schools. The District has failed both its taxpayers and the children this time by failing to nail down some significant details (like property ownership) before going to the people for a bond issue. In the past it has held property for many years before constructing new schools (think Timberline and Riverglen) with bond monies.

As par for the course, the District continues to march forth with its usual arrogance and lack of planning because there are plenty of tax dollars to cover mistakes. All the while proclaiming there is not enough money for the classroom.

It’s time for more scrutiny of the school district but don’t count on the Daily or other media to do that. At least we can count on the Guardian.

Sis – I’m with you. I’m not an attorney, but I have to wonder how the District can sue the Harris family when another party appears to own the land. Perhaps this is part of the posturing to get the restriction lifted as Stephen seems to suggest or it might be part of a breach of contract made when Harris Ranch first started to develop. Not to worry though, the District has plenty of our tax dollars to pay for all this. Board minutes for the April 9, 2007 meeting (http://www.boiseschools.org/board/meeting/index.html) seem to indicate that a John King and a Mike Ballantyne might be attorneys for the District.

Stephen, you raise good points about the subcontracting work. It might be interesting to see how the State Board of Ed was involved with any of those buildings, to what extent, and how the Board members voted on those buildings and the contracts affecting those buildings.

So … anyone give me odds on the possibility that the SBOE would ever look closely at the deals being dealt by the BSU Foundation or Boise Athletic Association (both to which Terrell is also closely tied)? Also, I’m thinking the Boise School District’s notice that it intends to sue the Harris family for use of the site is a required first step in the condemnation proceedings that would overrule the desire to keep a junior high off that property. Is that thought correct?

If they do have the power, then what they seek to do is to pay the fair market price for the property’s highest and best use without the restrictions less, I assume, the amount they already paid. In other words, the district is asking a jury to make an award of damages to the Harris family for the district’s intentional (and arguably malicious since there is other property available) interference with their private property rights and upsetting their development plans when they could have just negotiated a simple fair market value to begin with. Sounds like a very risky course of action.

Who is the attorney for the District?

Gman, Mr. Bond makes a good point. The restrictive covenants from what I read don’t blatantly prohibit a school but rather any proposed use of the land is subject to the approval of the Harris family. I understand that they said no to a school upon inquiry but I think its overstating to say or imply that the district purchased a deed for land that prohibited a school. (Ed note-school and Harris have been negotiating since January and Harris has said NO SCHOOL and is defending their right to prohibit the use.)

Isn’t a condition of approval for this development that the Harris family accomodate a school? Maybe that was just an elementary school.

George you are a wealth of information. I agree that we are likely to take it in the shorts again on this one.

where did you get from the Statesman’s article that the foundation was involved?

http://www.idahostatesman.com/235/story/85370.html

EDITOR NOTE–NOT from the Statesman. We did additional reporting as mentioned at the outset. The deal is indeed with the BSU Foundation.

Honestly speaking, the State does such a poor job in project management (design contracting, bidding, and construction oversight) that it bleeds tax money whenever it tries to build something. This isn’t the fault of state employees, who are more than qualified to manage capital construction projects. The blame rests squarely with the myriad oversight committees every politician insists on being in place. At every critical juncture in a project, the project teams are required to bundle up all the project information and present it to these committees for “review” – never mind that the politicians on these committees wouldn’t know a T-square from a backhoe.

If it’s frustrating for the project teams, imagine if you are a major contributor to a public building. Every such “review” creates project delays, which translate directly into cost overruns – can you imagine how a donor feels when the gifted money is wasted so a technocrat can feel like they’ve done their job.

It is out of this frustration that scholarship foundations have been co-opted to serve as “advancement” foundations. Turning such organizations into bricks-and-mortar non-profit corporations is a bad idea, but many local donors won’t gift capital funds if they know that the State will be managing the project.

The difference between these foundations and an urban renewal agency is the level of transparency. URA’s have a number of checks and balances written into their governance structures, whether these are followed is another question. But, non-profit foundations have no such parallel structure – and the temptation to violate ethical conduct is very great (University Place being just one example). And when these temptations are spread out over a board (which knows that it’s actions are cloaked in secrecy), very bad things tend to happen (especially when large potential donors sit on these same boards).