Boundaries with MS-North

[gatordog]

doctorwho said:

for my area not to go - you have to then take all Steck and all McCarty - and some combination of Gombert / WE - Cowlishaw. Who of that group is going to be for that ?

I think recent precedent says, yes, do just that. By that, I mean Steck, bulk of Mcc, and some of Cowlish (part north of ogden) to northern MV.

I think moving Steck+lots of Mccarty into MV, and Watts+Cowl (south of ogden) staying at WV is DIRECTLY analagous to the choice to send Fry to BB MV, while Springbrook stayed at NV.

Dont forget, BB had some tricky non-geographical analomies that had to be dealt with, also.

If Fry had been slated to stay at NV instead of SB under the BB boundaries.... then precedent would be the opposite.

I think a very good argument can be made for Watts and south Cowlishaw to be treated in fashion in line with recent boundary decisions.

[EagleDad]

gatordog said:

I am not a real estate expert but I wonder....can we find any land south of route 34 cheap enough to cover the walkaway costs?

I've heard that staying with BB covers the walkaway costs exactly.

What I'd like to see, BEFORE any final decision is made, are the exact walkaway costs, the proposed alternative options, and the exact net savings of each, with a chance for the community to give feedback on how to proceed. I also want to see a board discussion and vote so I have each SB member on record.

You may just find that if the net savings was 2 Million on a 130 Million dollar school that there would be support to move forward with the current plan.

If this does not happen, I will not support it, and yes that means witholding operating funds in future referndums and letting it collect dust. I am being very clear on this now so that the board knows what will happen. Let there be no mistake - It takes very little to solicit community feedback and this must happen.

[gatormom]

eagledad said:

gatordog said:

I am not a real estate expert but I wonder....can we find any land south of route 34 cheap enough to cover the walkaway costs?

I've heard that staying with BB covers the walkaway costs exactly.

What I'd like to see, BEFORE any final decision is made, are the exact walkaway costs, the proposed alternative options, and the exact net savings of each, with a chance for the community to give feedback on how to proceed. I also want to see a board discussion and vote so I have each SB member on record.

You may just find that if the net savings was 2 Million on a 130 Million dollar school that there would be support to move forward with the current plan.

If this does not happen, I will not support it, and yes that means witholding operating funds in future referndums and letting it collect dust. I am being very clear on this now so that the board knows what will happen. Let there be no mistake - It takes very little to solicit community feedback and this must happen.

I agree with most of what you say ED. We have waited this long for a decision, we certainly can afford the time to hear the reasons financially and otherwise that were used to select whatever site.

I can't justify withholding operating expences though. That is not in me. I am not going to punish our children and their education because I am angry with the actions of adults we voted in to those positions.

[rew]

Gatordog, I put in your numbers for Option 2 and I am getting enrollments of WV 2904, MV 2562 and NV 4130.

I think the north MV needs more kids...

(the achievement scores bite with this boundary option, they widen the gap for WV)

[EagleDad]

That's fine GM, it's your call but I stand behind what I've said.

And if the SD looses people like me for support (the activists and fanboys) they have no hope.

They need to listen to the feedback we've given (announce the options, costs and discuss them publicly before a decision is finalized) or bear the consequences.

[gatordog]

rew said:

Gatordog, I put in your numbers for Option 2 and I am getting enrollments of WV 2904, MV 2562 and NV 4130.

I think the north MV needs more kids...

(the achievement scores bite with this boundary option, they widen the gap for WV)

Your spread was for 9596 total HS enrollment. I instead did two cases, on either extreme of this enrollment number. First, for current ES situation. Then, for full build-out projections.

For current ES situation (9134 total):
WV 2762, MV 2616 and NV 3757

For full projection (10,167 total):
WV 3209, MV 2678 and NV 4280

Our numbers both check remarkably closely. Interpolating btw my two extremes match nicely to your model.

I see your point that for better enrollment balance, one may need to tweak a few more students into MV. However, one could also say for growth WV is still within capacity. (The WV numbers are driven alot by growth in Aswood developemnt. Now its this tricky issue of which growth model to believe.)

You make a key point on achievement gap check. I did not at all look at that.

[casey]

eagledad said:

That's fine GM, it's your call but I stand behind what I've said.

And if the SD looses people like me for support (the activists and fanboys) they have no hope.

They need to listen to the feedback we've given (announce the options, costs and discuss them publicly before a decision is finalized) or bear the consequences.

Amen, Brother. I couldn't agree more.

The SB needs cheerleaders at this point and leaving us in the dark regarding all decisions will bring down the pyramid. IMO, the SB should be thinking about public image at this point. We do have a very important referendum scheduled for 2009 and they need that referendum to pass to do anything. Imagine if we're sitting with a far northern HS empty and no operating funds to open it?

As you all recognize, I am often critical and negative with regards to our SB's decision-making. That does NOT mean that I am NOT supportive of the kids in 204. I volunteer at 3 schools, go to PTA meetings, SB meetings, support Referendums as well as recruit support from others, and try to do whatever I can to help our 204 kids. I don't give the SB "open reign" to make decisions. The members were elected to make decisions based on the benefit of the whole community and we should be involved in the process. Leaving us to sit in the dark and just wait until they come forward with a site selection is WRONG!

I'm a broken record here, but again, I don't see what's wrong with a Citizen's Advisory Council. Let us feel like we have a voice!

[Arch]

IMO, the SB should be thinking about opening up a school that was approved.

Wasting time w/ image to appease adults who are at times acting like angry spoiled children talking about retribution if they don't get their way is a waste of time and resources that should be directed towards helping the kids of the district.

Demote me or ban me for telling it how I feel, I really don't care at this point.

[casey]

archwinsome said:

Wasting time w/ image to appease adults who are at times acting like angry spoiled children talking about retribution if they don't get their way is a waste of time and resources that should be directed towards helping the kids of the district.

Guess what? These adults that are acting like spoiled children are the ones that need to support as well as pay for the SB's decisions. Image is a big part of that which is why the SB spent so much money last time ensuring that last referendum would pass. Unfortunately, not everyone is altruistic as you are and you need to make peace with that.

[gatordog]

eagledad said:

What I'd like to see, BEFORE any final decision is made, are the exact walkaway costs, the proposed alternative options, and the exact net savings of each, with a chance for the community to give feedback on how to proceed. I also want to see a board discussion and vote so I have each SB member on record.

You may just find that if the net savings was 2 Million on a 130 Million dollar school that there would be support to move forward with the current plan.

First off, I regret that we have squandered probably the biggest potential BB savings.....getting construction started last spring (that is water, with money floating on it, under the bridge).


I agree that we should hear the true and compete costs to taxpayers.

Here is my back of the envelop try:
First, for simplicity if nothing else, I will assume if BB buys the 25 acres back, that is cash available for covering their legal expenses. (I really dont know how that would work)

Lets assume building itself is ~10% higher now than the $105 mil calculation for 3,000 seat HS due to the high construction cost inflation. $115 million. (I wonder if this is on the low side....this may be for a more plain building such as OEHS, not a more spectaculal one as seen in the architectuaral images for MV)

Then Current cost to build at BB:
$31 million land + $115 mil bldg = $146 (edit: the SB clearly said "we cannot afford this")

Assume we have the ref money plus the "land cash, bond proceeds, and interest" that MM said in DH we can use if necessary. (one can argue if this really is there, and if every dime of this should be considered fair game)
Available:
$125 + $17(to 20)= $142-145 million.

Is gap making BB not affordable $1-$4 million? However, if I underestimated the real cost of the MV design...that would widen the gap. Could it be $5 million more (than say a OESH), which adds to this gap?

Bottom line: if you stick with this $115 million construction number, and conservatively use the low estimate for extra funds available. Then an alternative site would have to "save" us at least $4 mil to stay within available funds budget.

The question of course is: do the majority of the taxpayers want to live with the second or third best site and not have to cough up the extra $4 million? Or is the majority willing to pay this premium? How much of the extra funds is the majority willing commit to MV...all of it?

[gatormom]

archwinsome said:

IMO, the SB should be thinking about opening up a school that was approved.

Wasting time w/ image to appease adults who are at times acting like angry spoiled children talking about retribution if they don't get their way is a waste of time and resources that should be directed towards helping the kids of the district.

Demote me or ban me for telling it how I feel, I really don't care at this point.

I agree arch 100%. Unfortunately, a lot of what is being said is a reality this district has to face. I do foresee several areas voting the operating referendum down because they are unhappy with the school site. We had an area vote against the referendum because they were unhappy with the boundaries, Brookdale.

[momof3]

I don't understand what is so hard about releasing some information so people feel informed.

Last communication was Oct 26.

The SB's main focus should be provide the best education possible for the kids in the district but they shouldn't go about it in a way that pi$$es off the voters.

Like the CEO of a company - their job is to run the company AND keep shareholders happy. In a perfect world running the company well should keep the shareholders happy but as we all know it doesn't work that way.

[Arch]

casey said:

archwinsome said:

Wasting time w/ image to appease adults who are at times acting like angry spoiled children talking about retribution if they don't get their way is a waste of time and resources that should be directed towards helping the kids of the district.

Guess what? These adults that are acting like spoiled children are the ones that need to support as well as pay for the SB's decisions. Image is a big part of that which is why the SB spent so much money last time ensuring that last referendum would pass. Unfortunately, not everyone is altruistic as you are and you need to make peace with that.

I don't have to make peace with any behavior I find to be less than honorable.

[momto4]

casey said:

I don't give the SB "open reign" to make decisions. The members were elected to make decisions based on the benefit of the whole community and we should be involved in the process. Leaving us to sit in the dark and just wait until they come forward with a site selection is WRONG!

I'm a broken record here, but again, I don't see what's wrong with a Citizen's Advisory Council. Let us feel like we have a voice!

One of the SB members made it clear at a recent meeting that it is his belief that the public elected the SB to make decisions and they should make those decisions, they don't need any input from us!

Another SB member has made comments about how the CAC process hasn't worked as well as it could/should for several reasons. I don't know that these problems can't be fixed, but I don't think the current SB is interested in having another one.

[EagleDad]

archwinsome said:

IMO, the SB should be thinking about opening up a school that was approved.

Wasting time w/ image to appease adults who are at times acting like angry spoiled children talking about retribution if they don't get their way is a waste of time and resources that should be directed towards helping the kids of the district.

Demote me or ban me for telling it how I feel, I really don't care at this point.

That's a fine opinion Arch, but it's an opinion I do not share. To blindly pursue a pre-selected path with no community involvement is to repeat the failures of the first failed referendum (not to mention a likely violation of the open meetings act). If they go that way and have problems later, don't say I didn't tell you so.

I don't understand why forming an advisory committee, or discussing this at a SB meeting or two is a waste of time. Are we talking about some colossal investment of time and resources to do this? The fact is we screwed up a 2009 opening (and '10 is probably sliding by if we blindly change sites), so I don't see time as the factor n making this type of decision.

One could say the same about the US Constitution, Congress and our law making processes, by the way. It's just wasting time w/image to appease adults. We might as well just elect a king and let them make the laws.