District Enrollment projects from 08_29_05

[macrockett]

Jun 10, 2009 12:56:35 GMT -6 doctorwho said:

Jun 10, 2009 11:25:12 GMT -6 gekfromthefarnorth said:

To the point of full disclosure I have been against the this HS NO mater where it was sited. In 2006 I wrote this memo to the Admin and SB to voice my displeasure and point out exackly how I came to the conclusion of no need. See memo and I have included a plot of the included two graphs of 204 & 203 attendance data.

winsome.cnchost.com/204/HFO/D204_Analysis.pdf
winsome.cnchost.com/204/HFO/D204_Attendance_Data.pdf
winsome.cnchost.com/204/HFO/203_dec_1_Attendance.pdf

I still believe this (NO NEED). I am probably preaching to the choir on this one. But let me go one step further. In the end, I walked away from this with the idea that their were many ways to skin this cat. The numbers would come out to something in 5 - 10 years and at that time it would be obvious as to what would be required. In the interim the schools would be less crowded and I think that the Admin's job of educating out students would be made easier.

When I wrote the memo, I felt that the bond issue would go down a second time and another solution would be proposed. Obviously that didn't happen.

Here is where I differ from most. I made my case BUT I was willing to accept the multiple solutions to a problem. I moved on.

So, I will now predict that the NV freshman center will be gone in 10 years. D204 will have HS capacity of 9 - 10k and we will be at 80 -85 % capacity. ALL will be fine.

Excellent letter ( I just read it ) -and hit all the same points many of us have raised, from MS need- not high school- to first hand knowledge that moving schools for kids- whatever the reason, is not the simple movement some members of our board try and tell people it is.

I agree Doc, gekfromthefarnorth makes some dead on observations. The difference I see, however, is you made your points in March of 2006. When many of us objected in 2008, the facts were far different, the data far more conclusive, the long range impact to the community greater, and the costs, including capital, finance and operating, much higher. That is why, I for one, continue to make the points that I do regarding the third HS.

[gekfromthefarnorth]

Since I am feeling a bit philosophical this afternoon I will answer some of your questions. Feel free to move this to a more appropriate board since some of what I am going to say will be off subject. For your knowledge I am analytical in nature (read that engineer) and generally don't give unsubstantiated FEELINGS.

*****************************

Now we are going to be asked again for let's say $20M-$25M more to fund this -- and I say - sorry no. They haven't even done due diligence the the additional transportation costs for boundaries that require horrible commutes to that school... there is ZERO fiscal responsibility back to the taxpayers.

****************************

From the next ref stand point it may or may not pass. BUT in the case of the Bus costs I challenge the correctness of your (and others) assumption that costs are going up (skyrocketing??) I have shown that this is just not true. ALL be it from data of 2007-2008 I extracted the bus schedules from the district web site and analyzed the data for WVHS bus routes. (Truth be known I lost interest after I finished the main campus in that I contend that the numbers will not change with more routes to analyze and the freshman campus going away is problematic and in a couple of years may have added benefits in that dual bus routes are not needed into each subdivision.)

So what did I do? Well from the published routes, I chose whether the route would be moved to MVHS or stay at WVHS via the attendance (boundary) maps. I then produced a map quest map and miles associated with the last pick-up point on the route) of the present route to WVHS and a map to MVHS. Logged each route and compared the miles traveled before MVHS to after MVHS. On that date, 37 busses were scheduled morning and afternoon to WVHS of which 27 were in the MVHS attendance area. When you compare the before and after the move the miles have gone down 16.21 miles morning and afternoon. 111.29 Before to 95.08 after. This does not include additional walkers around MVHS but this (or these) routes are short by the nature of their location. When you look at the data many routes that were 4 to 6+ miles are now 2 to 3 miles. Yes there are still 6+ mile routes. But the numbers are generally down.

At this point I should state that it clearly makes sense to re-look at the boundary issues to try to decrease the number of 6+ mile routes. My bias is that you will change a 1 to 3 mile commute to WVHS with a 3 to 5 mile commute to MVHS with the current 6+ mile commute to MVHS lowered to 3 miles. This will probably not take place until a school (NV-gold) closes.

Further looking at the data the busses spend a lot of time in the neighborhood picking up students. Sometimes more than half, from their own schedule of stops. The pickup time will not change no mater where the bus ends up, MVHS or WVHS.

SO, my case is that the miles traveled has gone down in the WVHS case. Someone with additional interest can do the current bus schedule to all four campuses. Remember only about 10 -15 routes change from NVHS to WVHS.

*******************************

I have moved past the fact we have a 3rd high school and acknowledge the fact it will be on the site it is - but also cannot move past the fact that all safety issues have not been properly addressed- and should be before 1 person sets foot in the school.

*******************************

I would acknowledge that the pipes are a concern to me. I have conversed with the school board (I forget who but think that it was the guy that left mid term just lately) I wish that I had the Email that I sent but lost it at some point.

Be aware that the cost to move the three pipes could be as much as $10 mil. This comes from a civil installation estimation guide that I got access to at the time. With out the auto valve closure and NEW pipes, the site is at an added risk. BUT that being said, if you want to lower your risk of death at a young age, DON’T allow your students to drive until they are 18, 21, 25 … you pick a number. ALL other safety issues that are routinely touted are just in the noise. NOT an issue with me. (I firther think that your beef is with the gas line company and they should be required to publically atest to the safety of their installation. PROOF should be required.)

*******************************

So whether they close NV freshman center ( acknowledge that as a possibility - or Waubonsie Valley HS ( also a possibility depending on real estate market then) - we have wasted at least $100M of our money ( and maybe more if another ref is approved) -
that's just unacceptable to sit back and not try and influence future outcomes of elections to stop this -- do you agree ?

*******************************

I just respectfully do not agree with this. My son was the last class to attend the main campus, WVHS, for his freshman year. He will categorically state that that WAS a good thing. The Freshman campus is not the best from the general student standpoint. I acknowledge that some students may like it. Just not mine.

*******************************

Also - please take this the right way because I appreciate the sense in your posts - so this is not directed at you - but some may move on easier because the effect on them is less than on other- by your moniker this school will be closer for your area and friends and neighbors - for mine it is a nightmare.
Changing boundaries would not get me past the financial irrepsonsibility of this or stop the continuance of trying to get a board change to stop this - but coupled with the correct safety procedures could make it to not be an everyday poke in the eye as well. Does that make sense ?

*******************************

I will not comment or apologize for being from the north.

[Arch]

The bus route analysis was also for a different location for MVHS. Under those boundaries from 2007/2008 there did not appear to be as many areas now going FURTHER to school than they do today.

If you did this for the AME site, I would love to see all of the data. I started something similar and that was when I found out that a claim of 'walkers' to WV was BS because there was bus service for that area where people said we could not move students from (due to being 'walkers').

[Arch]

Regarding:
=+=+=+=+

I would acknowledge that the pipes are a concern to me. I have conversed with the school board (I forget who but think that it was the guy that left mid term just lately) I wish that I had the Email that I sent but lost it at some point.

Be aware that the cost to move the three pipes could be as much as $10 mil. This comes from a civil installation estimation guide that I got access to at the time. With out the auto valve closure and NEW pipes, the site is at an added risk. BUT that being said, if you want to lower your risk of death at a young age, DON’T allow your students to drive until they are 18, 21, 25 … you pick a number. ALL other safety issues that are routinely touted are just in the noise. NOT an issue with me. (I firther think that your beef is with the gas line company and they should be required to publically atest to the safety of their installation. PROOF should be required.)
+=+=+=+=

Yes. Moving pipes is more expensive than REPLACING the metal in the ground for the existing paths. I asked for the latter, (replacing)... to start with GOOD NEW METAL and not over 5 decades of internal and external corrosion taking its toll. Williams replaced a good long length of 36" pipe in VA last year (longer distance than the distance combined of the 3 pipes on the property) for around 4 million.

Each year, the metal corrodes more and the federal 'testing standards' have already been acknowledged that there is a safety error in the calculations for determining failure (10/2008). The larger accidents in the second half of last year involved pipes that are not as old, and pipes that were recently tested and determined to be 'safe'. And still, Boom.

[macrockett]

If you are going to figure out the cost of transportation, you need to review the facts first. Over half of our transportation costs come from transportation of special needs children. In FY 08, regular transportation miles were 1.09 million miles, special needs were 1.66 million. Therefore, if you are simply looking at the "published" routes, I'm afraid it isn't going to do you much good.
See winsome.cnchost.com/MAC/PupilTransportationClaimDetailsFY05-08.pdf for the latest Pupil Transportation Claim Detail.

For the rates, for the current FY (09)
winsome.cnchost.com/MAC/BusContract_1_Overview.pdf

Soon I will get the payment data. While I can't say conclusively with facts at this point (as I don't have all the pieces yet), I am pretty sure this is going to go up due to the size of several of the subdivisions moved under the boundary changes. In addition, the real unknown is location of the special needs kids and the impact on the facts.

[gekfromthefarnorth]

Let me be perfically clear. I "think" that the bus costs are a wash. I "think" that the year to year actual costs will vary depending on the actual location of the students that are transported. My example is only to illistrate that it is NOT as strait forward as CLAIMING that the bus transportation costs are skyrocketing due ONLY to the Eola site. I am absolutely able to wait for the data and will look carefully at the analysis. Details.. details.. details.

As a side, if someone "thinks" that BB is a great saving, do the math/leg work to prove it.

[Arch]

Jun 10, 2009 15:41:04 GMT -6 gekfromthefarnorth said:

Let me be perfically clear. I "think" that the bus costs are a wash. I "think" that the year to year actual costs will vary depending on the actual location of the students that are transported. My example is only to illistrate that it is NOT as strait forward as CLAIMING that the bus transportation costs are skyrocketing due ONLY to the Eola site. I am absolutely able to wait for the data and will look carefully at the analysis. Details.. details.. details.

As a side, if someone "thinks" that BB is a great saving, do the math/leg work to prove it.

I believe Bruce Glawe in fact, did this.

[doctorwho]

Jun 10, 2009 15:41:04 GMT -6 gekfromthefarnorth said:

Let me be perfically clear. I "think" that the bus costs are a wash. I "think" that the year to year actual costs will vary depending on the actual location of the students that are transported. My example is only to illistrate that it is NOT as strait forward as CLAIMING that the bus transportation costs are skyrocketing due ONLY to the Eola site. I am absolutely able to wait for the data and will look carefully at the analysis. Details.. details.. details.

As a side, if someone "thinks" that BB is a great saving, do the math/leg work to prove it.

Bruce Glawe did indeed do the work with some assistance from others ( as well as justifed the increased safety of transportation to the site ( dangerous intersections and RR crossings)

someone here who does this type of work for a living did the calcs for how much the incremental increase was to add BB -- however when trying to do the same piece of work was frustrating by absolute garbage delivered from the FOIA request. Either they really have no clue what the costs are going to be ( which blows the 'we did the wrok on the boundaries' line - or else they aren't willing to send any more than a 1 page pencil-hand written nothing of a sheet.( I'm serious it's what they sent as their work on transportation re: boundaries) . The person attempted to do the repeat work on their own and came up with close to $1M incremental increase Eola over BB. I have to go with their work since we can't seem to get any better data from the SD.

[doctorwho]

Jun 10, 2009 14:35:25 GMT -6 Arch said:

Regarding:
=+=+=+=+

I would acknowledge that the pipes are a concern to me. I have conversed with the school board (I forget who but think that it was the guy that left mid term just lately) I wish that I had the Email that I sent but lost it at some point.

Be aware that the cost to move the three pipes could be as much as $10 mil. This comes from a civil installation estimation guide that I got access to at the time. With out the auto valve closure and NEW pipes, the site is at an added risk. BUT that being said, if you want to lower your risk of death at a young age, DON’T allow your students to drive until they are 18, 21, 25 … you pick a number. ALL other safety issues that are routinely touted are just in the noise. NOT an issue with me. (I firther think that your beef is with the gas line company and they should be required to publically atest to the safety of their installation. PROOF should be required.)
+=+=+=+=

Yes. Moving pipes is more expensive than REPLACING the metal in the ground for the existing paths. I asked for the latter, (replacing)... to start with GOOD NEW METAL and not over 5 decades of internal and external corrosion taking its toll. Williams replaced a good long length of 36" pipe in VA last year (longer distance than the distance combined of the 3 pipes on the property) for around 4 million.

Each year, the metal corrodes more and the federal 'testing standards' have already been acknowledged that there is a safety error in the calculations for determining failure (10/2008). The larger accidents in the second half of last year involved pipes that are not as old, and pipes that were recently tested and determined to be 'safe'. And still, Boom.

Also I am glad you brought up driving safety-- how does that factor weigh in when you are now asking 2/3 of the school to drive further than they do today - for my area 3 times the distance time wise - due to tripling the number of street lights to get there and crossing more major thoroughfares ...I brought this up once before and was told the driving risk is negligible...

[doctorwho]

Jun 10, 2009 14:05:45 GMT -6 gekfromthefarnorth said:

Since I am feeling a bit philosophical this afternoon I will answer some of your questions. Feel free to move this to a more appropriate board since some of what I am going to say will be off subject. For your knowledge I am analytical in nature (read that engineer) and generally don't give unsubstantiated FEELINGS.

*****************************

Now we are going to be asked again for let's say $20M-$25M more to fund this -- and I say - sorry no. They haven't even done due diligence the the additional transportation costs for boundaries that require horrible commutes to that school... there is ZERO fiscal responsibility back to the taxpayers.

****************************

From the next ref stand point it may or may not pass. BUT in the case of the Bus costs I challenge the correctness of your (and others) assumption that costs are going up (skyrocketing??) I have shown that this is just not true. ALL be it from data of 2007-2008 I extracted the bus schedules from the district web site and analyzed the data for WVHS bus routes. (Truth be known I lost interest after I finished the main campus in that I contend that the numbers will not change with more routes to analyze and the freshman campus going away is problematic and in a couple of years may have added benefits in that dual bus routes are not needed into each subdivision.)

So what did I do? Well from the published routes, I chose whether the route would be moved to MVHS or stay at WVHS via the attendance (boundary) maps. I then produced a map quest map and miles associated with the last pick-up point on the route) of the present route to WVHS and a map to MVHS. Logged each route and compared the miles traveled before MVHS to after MVHS. On that date, 37 busses were scheduled morning and afternoon to WVHS of which 27 were in the MVHS attendance area. When you compare the before and after the move the miles have gone down 16.21 miles morning and afternoon. 111.29 Before to 95.08 after. This does not include additional walkers around MVHS but this (or these) routes are short by the nature of their location. When you look at the data many routes that were 4 to 6+ miles are now 2 to 3 miles. Yes there are still 6+ mile routes. But the numbers are generally down.

At this point I should state that it clearly makes sense to re-look at the boundary issues to try to decrease the number of 6+ mile routes. My bias is that you will change a 1 to 3 mile commute to WVHS with a 3 to 5 mile commute to MVHS with the current 6+ mile commute to MVHS lowered to 3 miles. This will probably not take place until a school (NV-gold) closes.

Further looking at the data the busses spend a lot of time in the neighborhood picking up students. Sometimes more than half, from their own schedule of stops. The pickup time will not change no mater where the bus ends up, MVHS or WVHS.

SO, my case is that the miles traveled has gone down in the WVHS case. Someone with additional interest can do the current bus schedule to all four campuses. Remember only about 10 -15 routes change from NVHS to WVHS.

*******************************

I have moved past the fact we have a 3rd high school and acknowledge the fact it will be on the site it is - but also cannot move past the fact that all safety issues have not been properly addressed- and should be before 1 person sets foot in the school.

*******************************

I would acknowledge that the pipes are a concern to me. I have conversed with the school board (I forget who but think that it was the guy that left mid term just lately) I wish that I had the Email that I sent but lost it at some point.

Be aware that the cost to move the three pipes could be as much as $10 mil. This comes from a civil installation estimation guide that I got access to at the time. With out the auto valve closure and NEW pipes, the site is at an added risk. BUT that being said, if you want to lower your risk of death at a young age, DON’T allow your students to drive until they are 18, 21, 25 … you pick a number. ALL other safety issues that are routinely touted are just in the noise. NOT an issue with me. (I firther think that your beef is with the gas line company and they should be required to publically atest to the safety of their installation. PROOF should be required.)

*******************************

So whether they close NV freshman center ( acknowledge that as a possibility - or Waubonsie Valley HS ( also a possibility depending on real estate market then) - we have wasted at least $100M of our money ( and maybe more if another ref is approved) -
that's just unacceptable to sit back and not try and influence future outcomes of elections to stop this -- do you agree ?

*******************************

I just respectfully do not agree with this. My son was the last class to attend the main campus, WVHS, for his freshman year. He will categorically state that that WAS a good thing. The Freshman campus is not the best from the general student standpoint. I acknowledge that some students may like it. Just not mine.

*******************************

Also - please take this the right way because I appreciate the sense in your posts - so this is not directed at you - but some may move on easier because the effect on them is less than on other- by your moniker this school will be closer for your area and friends and neighbors - for mine it is a nightmare.
Changing boundaries would not get me past the financial irrepsonsibility of this or stop the continuance of trying to get a board change to stop this - but coupled with the correct safety procedures could make it to not be an everyday poke in the eye as well. Does that make sense ?

*******************************

I will not comment or apologize for being from the north.

"At this point I should state that it clearly makes sense to re-look at the boundary issues to try to decrease the number of 6+ mile routes. My bias is that you will change a 1 to 3 mile commute to WVHS with a 3 to 5 mile commute to MVHS with the current 6+ mile commute to MVHS lowered to 3 miles. This will probably not take place until a school (NV-gold) closes"

let me be clear NVHS is the closest school mileage and time from our area -- WVHS is only the second closest. The distance to WVHS is still close to 5 miles- the distance from my house to MVHS is 7.2 -- the major difference is thew time to traverse a much more difficult commute, though much heavier traffic and triple the major intersections. The fact that Wheaton-Warrenvile South is over a mile closer to my home than Metea is ridiculous. Walker to Central - North the next closest
My additional concern is what you state - let's assume you are correct and NV gold closes and now more kids/families are asked to move yet again. just wrong - get it right now.

I have a daughter who is a WVHS 2003 grad and they did not have a freshman campue - I asked her friends as well as my freshmans friends about the freshman centers- I find that pretty evenly split on like and dislike. For the record I went to a freshman center 40 years ago - I did not like it - but that doesn't mean my kids would too.

"I will not comment or apologize for being from the north."

Nor should you or did I ask you too....I am just saying the 'hit' is less with this location for you with regards to separation from community and commute. Would that not be correct ? The financial burden is the same.
--not saying there aren't people in the north who opposed a 3rd high school- for financial/population reasons - I know there were.

The SB member who left is Bruce Rodman -- who posts here occasionally under his own name

[EagleDad]

Jun 10, 2009 14:05:45 GMT -6 gekfromthefarnorth said:

At this point I should state that it clearly makes sense to re-look at the boundary issues to try to decrease the number of 6+ mile routes. My bias is that you will change a 1 to 3 mile commute to WVHS with a 3 to 5 mile commute to MVHS with the current 6+ mile commute to MVHS lowered to 3 miles. This will probably not take place until a school (NV-gold) closes.

That would clearly be Steck, or McCarty for Watts then.

[rew]

The boundaries are a real sore point. They are putting portables at Young when Steck and McCarty both have room for the excess students from Young. You could also redraw the ES boundaries and send the "walkers" from Steck to McCarty or send the walkers from McCarty to GT or Gombert and then send either or both schools up north.

So many ways to deal effectively and efficiently with things, but that doesn't seem to fit anyone's agenda.

[doctorwho]

Jun 11, 2009 7:40:03 GMT -6 rew said:

The boundaries are a real sore point. They are putting portables at Young when Steck and McCarty both have room for the excess students from Young. You could also redraw the ES boundaries and send the "walkers" from Steck to McCarty or send the walkers from McCarty to GT or Gombert and then send either or both schools up north.

So many ways to deal effectively and efficiently with things, but that doesn't seem to fit anyone's agenda.

Well that is what we were told they were going to do - start from scratch with all level boundaries - however it didn't fit the agenda of having enough kids or the kids they wanted to put into MVHS - so nothing like that will be done until the doors are open.
all they did was add satellites to places like Watts from 5 miles away --

[macrockett]

Jun 11, 2009 7:40:03 GMT -6 rew said:

The boundaries are a real sore point. They are putting portables at Young when Steck and McCarty both have room for the excess students from Young. You could also redraw the ES boundaries and send the "walkers" from Steck to McCarty or send the walkers from McCarty to GT or Gombert and then send either or both schools up north.

So many ways to deal effectively and efficiently with things, but that doesn't seem to fit anyone's agenda.

Sometimes it does rew, but certainly not always. Unfortunately, the landscape is littered with examples of the later.

[macrockett]

Current Enrollment as of 9-2-2009
winsome.cnchost.com/MAC/Enrollment9_2_2009.pdf

Page 1 shows current enrollment. capacity and in last column, excess capacity or unfilled seats

Page 2 shows complete enrollment by school for each grade. These are the District's numbers and show the peak in 2013 and level enrollment for several years at the 9200 level for our HSs.

As of the end of last year, we had 2-3000 capacity main campuses, 2-1200 Freshman Centers, and the 600 seat Frontier Campus for an existing capacity of 3000+3000+1200+1200+600=9000.

Did we need to add a 3000 capacity HS at the cost of approximately $144 million (and counting) for capital costs and land as well as approximately $70 million for interest on the bonds over 20 years to meet our capacity needs? Is this what people wanted? Was this the best way to satisfy our capacity needs? Was this an effective and efficient way to use your money?