New Boundaries Announced

[Arch]

bob said:

archwinsome said:

Actually, wouldn't this be decided by a jury?

We all know how favorable that went last time. Are we confident again that the number will be what we are expecting and can 'easily afford it' ?

No, the SD passed on the jury price. After that, I believe someone here or in the papers stated that the SD bid on BB land at $420 acre price but for less land. I also heard that the SD gave a top $ amount they could pay for the 55 acres around $400K; Brach was interested but Brodie passed.

Let's be honest with ourselves here. What do you think is the lowest price they could say it is worth today and what is the maximum upper price they can say it was worth then?

I believe half is already known, the $530-$568/acre or whatever the jury award is.

What has recent land sold for in the immediate area? Someone tossed out a price for the land just north of there. What did that go for? That would be a safe 'bottom' area with a +/- range that we can factor in.

Whomever knew that price previously, could you please post it so we can do the math? Thanks you.

[wolverine]

ogden said:

I disagree. That proposal splits 5 grade schools - Steck, McCarty, Owen, Watts and Cowlishaw. Plus there would be lots of splits associated with the middle schools.

you can blame the boundaries for 3 of those splits -- these are satellite locations - nowhere near the main school-- they were supposed to clean up the ES boundaries - why didn't that happen. Why are kids from rt 59 and the train station and Longwood now attending Watts MS ? Not only wasn't it fixed- they added the LW satellite. How much are those kids from 5 miles north of the area going to feel part of the ES ?

The MS splits were addressed.I would rather be split from my MS ( which btw is at the north end of the distict also) than from those actual land neighbors.[/quote]

I too was disappointed the SB did not take the opportunity to clean up the ES boundaries - it was the perfect time and may have prevented the problems with the current HS boundaries.
The most obvious example being Owen.[/quote]

Owen, Watts, Cowlishaw - not sure why admin didn't address this, they squandered an excellent opportunity to address all the ES boundary oddities that arose as the district grew.

There is absolutely no reason all 3 boundaries (ES/MS/HS) couldn't have been handled at once, unless you count a lazy administration as a reason.

[yeson321]

jwh said:

archwinsome said:

The math I have seen on this to not have anyone 'take one for the team' involves fry/peterson to WV, steck/McCarty (non walkers) to MV and owen west to wv, owen east to NV, cowl to NV and Watts to WV.. sending the satellite areas for MW/COWL north to MV.

After that, some may still feel that going to close school #2 instead of close school #1 is taking one for the team.. but no one would be taking #3 for the team.

That really cleans things up - - a good proposal.

Sending all of McCarty to MVHS does not make sense if they have a base of walkers. What happened to Arch's proposal? I think that it warrants support.

[EagleDad]

McCarty has to walk across Eola/Ogden one of the worst traffic intersections in the district. if that's not a hazzard you can't in good conscience call a bridge over Rt 59 a hazzard.

On a similar topic over in Steck, does anyone know if the city of Aurora Maintains all of those pedestrian bridges over the creek by Waubonsie Lake? For the Fox Valley Park District, are these a Priority Route?If not, can I assume that, like the Rt 59 bridge, these will be placed on a secondary route? This means during heavier snow events it may not be cleared until one or two days after the end of the snowfall.

[Arch]

eagledad said:

McCarty has to walk across Eola/Ogden one of the worst traffic intersections in the district. if that's not a hazzard you can't in good conscience call a bridge over Rt 59 a hazzard.

On a similar topic over in Steck, does anyone know if the city of Aurora Maintains all of those pedestrian bridges over the creek by Waubonsie Lake? For the Fox Valley Park District, are these a Priority Route?If not, I wcan I assumeassume that like the Rt 59 bridge, these will be placed on a secondary route, this means during heavier snow events it may not be cleared until one or two days after the end of the snowfall.

Is there bus service there now?

[gatordog]

archwinsome said:

eagledad said:

On a similar topic over in Steck, does anyone know if the city of Aurora Maintains all of those pedestrian bridges over the creek by Waubonsie Lake? For the Fox Valley Park District, are these a Priority Route?If not, I wcan I assumeassume that like the Rt 59 bridge, these will be placed on a secondary route, this means during heavier snow events it may not be cleared until one or two days after the end of the snowfall.

Is there bus service there now?

The Steck houses just north of Waubonsie Lake, yes there is bus service. The only formal walkers w/o bus from Steck to WV is Lakewood, south of lake.

[Arch]

gatordog said:

archwinsome said:

Is there bus service there now?

The Steck houses just north of Waubonsie Lake, yes there is bus service. The only formal walkers w/o bus from Steck to WV is Lakewood, south of lake.

ok, so technically, they are not walkers either.

[proschool]

gatordog said:

archwinsome said:

Is there bus service there now?

The Steck houses just north of Waubonsie Lake, yes there is bus service. The only formal walkers w/o bus from Steck to WV is Lakewood, south of lake.

Then does Lakewood get bus service to Steck? Why not assign Lakewood elsewhere and free up Steck for MV?