Boundaries with MS-North

[gatordog]

Here is some weekend brainstorming. The Xmas decorations didnt happen yet

Approach here (as suggested by others) was think about MS assigments first, and see how that might guide HS boundary choices. Not easy though...lots more variables. I first thought about North site, mainly because of the two known alternates its likely most buildable at this time.

I tried to minimize splits. When used, they are a bit approx. The idea is to keep neighborhoods together if an ES is split. (edit: an example, when McCarty split...confine it to the area bounded by creek on N, RR tracks on east, a neighborhood-the one where the ES sits. I guesstimated the population)

Option 1:
MV: BD,BR, COWL, LONG, WATT, YOU
WV: FRY, GEO, GOM, MCC, 1/2 OWEN, WE, PET(Ash), ST
NV: BUI, CLOW, GRA, KEN, 1/2 OWEN, PATT, SB, WEL, PET(wheat)

Hill: BD, COWL, WATTS (100% MV)
Grang: BR, LONG, YOU (100% MV)
7th: GEO, MCC, STEC (100% WV)
Still: GOM, OWEN, 1/2 WEL, WE (66% WV & NV)
Greg: CLOW, PATT, SB (100% NV)
Scull: 1/2 BUIL, FRY, 1/2 WEL, PET (ash) (51% WV & NV)
Crone: 1/2 BUIL, GRAH, KEN, PET (wheat) (100% NV)

Option 2:
MV: BD,BR, 1/2 COWL, LONG, 70% MCC, ST, YOU
WV: 1/2 COWL, FRY, GEO, GOM, 30 %MCC, 1/2 OWEN, WATT, WE, PET(Ash)
NV: BUI, CLOW, GRA, KEN, 1/2 OWEN, PATT, SB, WEL, PET(wheat)

Hill: BD, 1/2 COWL, LONG, WATT (46% WV & MV)
Grang: BR, ST, YOU (100% MV)
7th: 1/2 COWL, GEO, 80% GOM, MCC (61% WV & MV)
Still: 20% GOM, OWEN, WEL, WE (46% WV & NV)
Greg: CLOW, PATT, SB (100% NV)
Scull: BUIL, FRY, PET (ash) (58% WV & NV)
Crone: GRAH, KEN, PET (wheat) (100% NV)

[doctorwho]

gatordog said:

Here is some weekend brainstorming. The Xmas decorations didnt happen yet

Approach here (as suggested by others) was think about MS assigments first, and see how that might guide HS boundary choices. Not easy though...lots more variables. I first thought about North site, mainly because of the two known alternates its likely most buildable at this time.

I tried to minimize splits. When used, they are a bit approx. The idea is to keep neighborhoods together if an ES is split. (edit: an example, when McCarty split...confine it to the area bounded by creek on N, RR tracks on east, a neighborhood-the one where the ES sits. I guesstimated the population)

Option 1:
MV: BD,BR, COWL, LONG, WATT, YOU
WV: FRY, GEO, GOM, MCC, 1/2 OWEN, WE, PET(Ash), ST
NV: BUI, CLOW, GRA, KEN, 1/2 OWEN, PATT, SB, WEL, PET(wheat)

Hill: BD, COWL, WATTS (100% MV)
Grang: BR, LONG, YOU (100% MV)
7th: GEO, MCC, STEC (100% WV)
Still: GOM, OWEN, 1/2 WEL, WE (66% WV & NV)
Greg: CLOW, PATT, SB (100% NV)
Scull: 1/2 BUIL, FRY, 1/2 WEL, PET (ash) (51% WV & NV)
Crone: 1/2 BUIL, GRAH, KEN, PET (wheat) (100% NV)

Option 2:
MV: BD,BR, 1/2 COWL, LONG, 70% MCC, ST, YOU
WV: 1/2 COWL, FRY, GEO, GOM, 30 %MCC, 1/2 OWEN, WATT, WE, PET(Ash)
NV: BUI, CLOW, GRA, KEN, 1/2 OWEN, PATT, SB, WEL, PET(wheat)

Hill: BD, 1/2 COWL, LONG, WATT (46% WV & MV)
Grang: BR, ST, YOU (100% MV)
7th: 1/2 COWL, GEO, 80% GOM, MCC (61% WV & MV)
Still: 20% GOM, OWEN, WEL, WE (46% WV & NV)
Greg: CLOW, PATT, SB (100% NV)
Scull: BUIL, FRY, PET (ash) (58% WV & NV)
Crone: GRAH, KEN, PET (wheat) (100% NV)

In option 1 -- 5 of the ES's have a shorter commute to MV ( if northern ) than Cowlishaw or Watts.- some with 1/2 the commute... to me that is just crazy - sorry ?

Option 2 is much more aligned geographically, and with all but BD west of 59 - and many bordering Eola - so that the commute to Eola and anything is much shorter and less major streets to commute on/across. But for many reasons, I can't see this one happening -- it will more likely look like option 1 -- and that is a problem.

[wvhsparent]

I like both options...leaning towards #2

Keep in mind too that these senarios are using existing ES/MS boundaries. Both of which should be revamped to consolidate the pockets which have occurred during the growth of the district, which is reaching buildout are where there should not be any more large areas to absorb other than those that are already in process.

I also want to refute those who say a northern site is "unworkable".... Sure it's not what most many would desire, but as evidenced by Gatordog's fine handiwork, it could be done.

Also in an unrelated report. I am not sure how much AME is still in play, They were preparing the field for next year plantings over the past few days.
So 2 things there. unless this is a normal process to do to the land regardless of future possibilties.
1 I am not sure they have any plans on selling.
2 and/or the Church is also not ready to begin building anytime soon.

[doctorwho]

wvhsparent said:

I like both options...leaning towards #2



I also want to refute those who say a northern site is "unworkable".... Sure it's not what most would desire, but as evidenced by Gatordog's fine handiwork, it could be done.

quote]

it IS unworkable for all but 2 -3 Es's. Should not the work of the SB satisfy Most of the people who voted on the referendum and have students in the system ?
Not saying ALL, as nothing is perfect, but most people there will be unhappy -- that seems wrong to me.

I'd be happy if they put our new school between West street and Washington and north of 75th -- but most would not - and I would agree that would be a bad placement as the majority of students outside of 2 - 3 ( Watts / Owen and maybe Cowlishaw ) would have horrendous commutes. Same thing.

[rew]

A boundary can be drawn for any site...the question is does it benefit the district? And if it doesn't why would the community support it?

AME is workable, but, is it good? And I would ask the same question of any site.

BB costs money, but does not cost families pain and cost more fighting and further divisions in the district.

ETA- A good site, IMO, is one where most, if not all, attend the nearest school to them. It makes sense for the families and their students.

ETA2 - The school is costing $125M, don't we owe it to the taxpayers to make it "good", not "kind of workable"

ETA3 - What happens if enrollment declines in 20 yrs? It will be even more critical that the school be located close to the center of the student population. Otherwise you will be pulling students out of NV, closing it's frosh center and then sending them to AME?

[momof3]

wvhsparent said:

Also in an unrelated report. I am not sure how much AME is still in play, They were preparing the field for next year plantings over the past few days.

I can't believe we haven't heard anything credible regarding the AME site. There are lots of people that attend that church - surely someone would have heard something from the pastor...?

Macom has been very quiet too. We usually hear rumblings from them if they aren't happy.

I really hope something happens before Christmas so we can start to get our heads around it and move forward but I'm not hopeful. Seems to me, not much happens real-estate wise during December.

[gatordog]

rew said:

A boundary can be drawn for any site...the question is does it benefit the district? And if it doesn't why would the community support it?

AME is workable, but, is it good? And I would ask the same question of any site.

BB costs money, but does not cost families pain and cost more fighting and further divisions in the district.

ETA- A good site, IMO, is one where most, if not all, attend the nearest school to them. It makes sense for the families and their students.

ETA2 - The school is costing $125M, don't we owe it to the taxpayers to make it "good", not "kind of workable"

ETA3 - What happens if enrollment declines in 20 yrs? It will be even more critical that the school be located close to the center of the student population. Otherwise you will be pulling students out of NV, closing it's frosh center and then sending them to AME?

It comes done to money, doesnt it? Do we get a workable solution for $125 mil, or do we pay a premium for a better option? To build a school at $105 mill and pay $30 mil for land we are talking about an approx 10% overrun. Is that acceptable?

Is the prime consideration for an alternative site that it stays within budget? Period. How much thought is there to the benefit side?

If we want BB to push forward, and we assume the jury verdict appeal goes nowhere, it seems like the realistic next step is to ask for a referendum of ~$10 million to make up the difference. Could be in form of deleting some athletic facilities and asking in future ref. Many, include the SB, have expressly opposed this.

To get political, was the "3rd HS at BB" support at the polls deep enough to get the majority to kick in an extra $10 mil? I question that that we really talk at all about "deep" support when this very proposal failed in 2005. I would be afraid of other spin-off political damage if more money was needed. Failure of future operating ref? More excuses for the rise of a CFO-type or Taxpayer-Ticket type SB take over?

We talk about the comfortable majority yes vote for the last ref. We cannot forget or take for granted that to do so was a HUGE effort (by many of you reading this message right now).

The SB is NOT advocating this more money path at all. They have said, we will do it with the $125 mil. I have to say this....I think BB is best site, and I think if we started there in spring 2007 we would have had a darn good chance to pull it off on budget. With that said, it sure seems to me that we should be able to successfully do this with $125 mil. Cost overruns of the 10% level make me quite uncomfortable.

I do recall such overruns happened with NV in mid-late 90s. But the political climate was very different. Many newcomers still pouring in. The "Clinton-era" economy doing doing quite well. 204 had never lost a ref vote. Times have changed.

What bugs us all so deeply is we seem to be in an EITHER/OR situation: either we stay within budget and settle for a different site, or we ask the taxpayers for more money, because we didnt get the price tag right the first time we asked. Its darn tough to make this analysis, especially because it hits many of us so directly and personally.

[Arch]

My feeling has always been to build it right, put it in a place that makes sense, and worry about the cost when it's done.

It's like a version of the: Time to Market, Cost, FeatureSet. Pick two.

Dictating the Feature set, Where it will be AND the cost seems silly.. one of them has to budge. It's always cheaper in the long run to do it right the first time... so I'm not opposed to passing another referendum for the cost difference. I know that is probably a minority point of view too. Cost fades away.. everyone down the line has to live w/ the feature set and location.

[gatordog]

doctorwho said:

Option 2 is much more aligned geographically, and with all but BD west of 59 - and many bordering Eola - so that the commute to Eola and anything is much shorter and less major streets to commute on/across. But for many reasons, I can't see this one happening -- it will more likely look like option 1 -- and that is a problem.

In my opinion, I think option 2 is more plausible. The student population to fill northern site seems to be at Steck and Mccarty-beyond-ES-area. I think its very analogous to Fry and Gombert West filling BB.

Both options have good aurora/naperville mix. What about Income or test "balancing" point of view? We should look into that.

Edit: or we can start with initial criterea from last time and draw colored squares on a map and ask people what "looks best". Gee, i think option 2 fits that criteria nicely too!

[gatordog]

gatordog said:

Option 1:
MV: BD,BR, COWL, LONG, WATT, YOU
WV: FRY, GEO, GOM, MCC, 1/2 OWEN, WE, PET(Ash), ST
NV: BUI, CLOW, GRA, KEN, 1/2 OWEN, PATT, SB, WEL, PET(wheat)

A quick correction on option 1. I found typo in spreadsheet. Need to move more students into MV to get it at 2700 (was erroneously only 2400...and left WV with no room for future growth.

Therefore, I propose revision to option one with northern 30% of both STECK and MCCARTY areas going to MV.

Then, if this 30% of ST and MCC also went to Granger...you have Granger right at capacity, approx 1200 students. For Hill and Granger to alone acomodate 2700 student MV, based on current enrollments, I project Hill at 1162 and 835 respectively. I believe both these would be pretty near capacity then. Not ideal, but doable.

So yes, option 1 is getting messier.

[wvhsparent]

OK I will propse this to those who MUST have BB......
Would you be willing to shoulder the entire cost overrun to have BB? Meaning that the BB attendance area would be set with a special taxing Dist to cover the added cost? If you say OK...I'll jump on the BB bandwagon.

[macy]

Gatordog,

While I think you've put some serious time and effort into your options, I can't find myself agreeing with either of them until I understand what the criteria would be for purchasing that property in light of the fact there is land south of 75th only a few miles from BB. Although, thank you for taking the time to look into possibilities for boundaries, I appreciate the thought and effort behind your thoughts.

Without knowing why AME would be selected over Macom (obvious), Wagner, Bolingbrook (could be any of them since the SB has not shared their land options) etc. as they've said there were 4 options. Obviously BB is still one of them..

To me anything that north of 75th is unthinkable (since the population north of that point is so much smaller) without understanding what the draw to that site is.

As Dr W stated earlier, geography and distance/commute are HUGE and should not be ignored.

I can't even come up with any good reasons for AME site at this point using the criteria the board used to come up with BB.

Does anyone else have any idea why that would be an attractive site for the district, SB to select?

FYI: Get those Xmas decorations out soon. It'll be here before you know it.

[doctorwho]

wvhsparent said:

OK I will propse this to those who MUST have BB......
Would you be willing to shoulder the entire cost overrun to have BB? Meaning that the BB attendance area would be set with a special taxing Dist to cover the added cost? If you say OK...I'll jump on the BB bandwagon.

Althjough I am not one who MUST have BB, it is the best alternative on the table for 204 as a whole. Show me one better ! If they can find another piece of property that works as well for ALL, not a few, I am fine with that also.


OK, that's like saying would you pick up my child and take them to and from school - including picking them up and taking them home from all extra curricular activities at the Wisconsin branch of 204. Pay for my gas to get to and from there -- and if my area takes a hit in resale value because our schools are in the next county - your area with the school there can set up a special fund to compensate us --- this is just sillly.

And then when your schools need maintenance - and some of them outside the BB attendance area are some of the oldest in the area- you pay for it ! You would be setting up a level of separation unprecedented here before and would be horrid.....

It doesn't work that way - this is one district and what should be done should be best for the whole district.

[macy]

Maybe we could carpool Dr W. I have no more money for gas and certainly no more time for added commute either.

[doctorwho]

macy said:

Gatordog,

While I think you've put some serious time and effort into your options, I can't find myself agreeing with either of them until I understand what the criteria would be for purchasing that property in light of the fact there is land south of 75th only a few miles from BB. Although, thank you for taking the time to look into possibilities for boundaries, I appreciate the thought and effort behind your thoughts.

Without knowing why AME would be selected over Macom (obvious), Wagner, Bolingbrook (could be any of them since the SB has not shared their land options) etc. as they've said there were 4 options. Obviously BB is still one of them..

To me anything that north of 75th is unthinkable (since the population north of that point is so much smaller) without understanding what the draw to that site is.

As Dr W stated earlier, geography and distance/commute are HUGE and should not be ignored.

I can't even come up with any good reasons at this point using the criteria the board used to come up with BB.

Does anyone else have any idea why that would be an attractive site for the district, SB to select?

FYI: Get those Xmas decorations out soon. It'll be here before you know it.

^^^^ put mine up this afternoon -- it is now Christmas season in my house

the only thing that could possibly make it attractive is if someone cut the SD an unbelievable financial deal - and I don't see that happening either -