SB Options for BB now

[scarbroughknight]

Why is being in the same athletic conference so important? What does that have to do with anything? NV should be in with Central and North anyway.

[doctorwho]

scarbroughknight said:

Why is being in the same athletic conference so important? What does that have to do with anything? NV should be in with Central and North anyway.

And just why would that be ?

Let's see -- attendance -- no NV is much larger than North or Central. Only WV in this area is close to NV in size. Proximity - well then we would have to include Plainfield and Wheaton.

Very curious as to this response

School districts keep their schools together so they only deal with one set of conference rules.

[happymom]

Don't know if this idea is feasible, but I do know we need to relieve overcrowding in the middle schools and high schools. Our elementary schools also need air conditions. So consider using the money (probably would have to go to voters -- don't know I'm not an expert and don't claim to be)

1) Air condition elementary schools;
2) Build the middle school on the property we already own
3) Find 1 or 2 (whatever it takes due to enrollment #s) buildings for a "Frontier type campus" to begin the overcrowding relief as that can happen ASAP. I bet getting lower numbers in the high school will also help bring those state schools up -- just what the SB wants -- lower numbers in classes -- higher scores.

Just a thought. Will be interesting to see what the SB does with this mess!

[bob]

blankcheck said:

I for one have kids in the system and vote for run and enrollment. Way to high a price to pay for land and would like to see the enrollment figures for this year. Remember, by the time this is built, probably three classes will have gone through the system so you really need to look past the next two years (I am basing this on the school not being ready until 2010)

Unfortuantely the 8th grade class replacing the graduating senior classes is larger until the 8th grade class is replaced by the 3rd grade class (-59 students)

[dpc]

The SD has no choice but to go back to the drawing board and re-evaluate the situation as the data that was provided to the taxpayers at the time of the referendum ito justify the need for the third high school is no longer valid:

1. Land cost is significantly higher than estimated
2. Enrollment is significantly lower than projected

To do anything other than go back to the drawing board, re assess the situation in light of new information and come up with a new proposal to put forth to the taxpayers is wrong at best and a blatant disregard of the of the SB's fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers.

[proschool]

dpc said:

The SD has no choice but to go back to the drawing board and re-evaluate the situation as the data that was provided to the taxpayers at the time of the referendum ito justify the need for the third high school is no longer valid:

1. Land cost is significantly higher than estimated
2. Enrollment is significantly lower than projected

To do anything other than go back to the drawing board, re assess the situation in light of new information and come up with a new proposal to put forth to the taxpayers is wrong at best and a blatant disregard of the of the SB's fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers.[/quote

Even if they wanted to do as you say, I don't think they have that choice. The taxpayers passed a referendum and it specifically told the school board what to do and how much money to spend.

[warriorpride]

dpc said:

The SD has no choice but to go back to the drawing board and re-evaluate the situation as the data that was provided to the taxpayers at the time of the referendum ito justify the need for the third high school is no longer valid:

1. Land cost is significantly higher than estimated
2. Enrollment is significantly lower than projected

To do anything other than go back to the drawing board, re assess the situation in light of new information and come up with a new proposal to put forth to the taxpayers is wrong at best and a blatant disregard of the of the SB's fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers.

I couldn't diagree more.

While 1 is true, the referendum was for a total amount to borrow to build an HS - we must wait & see what they can do with respect to dealing with the higher land cost.

2 is quite a stretch.

[dpc]

warriorpride said:

dpc said:

The SD has no choice but to go back to the drawing board and re-evaluate the situation as the data that was provided to the taxpayers at the time of the referendum ito justify the need for the third high school is no longer valid:

1. Land cost is significantly higher than estimated
2. Enrollment is significantly lower than projected

To do anything other than go back to the drawing board, re assess the situation in light of new information and come up with a new proposal to put forth to the taxpayers is wrong at best and a blatant disregard of the of the SB's fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers.

I couldn't diagree more.

While 1 is true, the referendum was for a total amount to borrow to build an HS - we must wait & see what they can do with respect to dealing with the higher land cost.

2 is quite a stretch.

So WP, you think the district will see over 10,000 in HS enrollment in the next 5-10 years? I am very interested in understanding how we will get there so please explain your logic.

[dpc]

warriorpride said:

dpc said:

The SD has no choice but to go back to the drawing board and re-evaluate the situation as the data that was provided to the taxpayers at the time of the referendum ito justify the need for the third high school is no longer valid:

1. Land cost is significantly higher than estimated
2. Enrollment is significantly lower than projected

To do anything other than go back to the drawing board, re assess the situation in light of new information and come up with a new proposal to put forth to the taxpayers is wrong at best and a blatant disregard of the of the SB's fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers.

I couldn't diagree more.

While 1 is true, the referendum was for a total amount to borrow to build an HS - we must wait & see what they can do with respect to dealing with the higher land cost.

2 is quite a stretch.

Do you really think the SD will be able to make up the shortfall in available funds resulting from the higher land price and still stay within the amount the taxpayers approved for a comprehensive third high school?

[warriorpride]

dpc said:

warriorpride said:

I couldn't diagree more.

While 1 is true, the referendum was for a total amount to borrow to build an HS - we must wait & see what they can do with respect to dealing with the higher land cost.

2 is quite a stretch.

Do you really think the SD will be able to make up the shortfall in available funds resulting from the higher land price and still stay within the amount the taxpayers approved for a comprehensive third high school?

The referendum was for the maximum amount the SD can borrow to build the HS. If there's a shortfall, then they need to figure out how to make up for it. There might be additional sources of funding they can explore and they might have to make some cost-saving decisions. Do I think they can do this. I'm some in-between "I hope so" and "they d**n well better".

[warriorpride]

dpc said:

warriorpride said:

I couldn't diagree more.

While 1 is true, the referendum was for a total amount to borrow to build an HS - we must wait & see what they can do with respect to dealing with the higher land cost.

2 is quite a stretch.

So WP, you think the district will see over 10,000 in HS enrollment in the next 5-10 years? I am very interested in understanding how we will get there so please explain your logic.

You are putting words in my mouth. You said "Enrollment is significantly lower than projected". I disagree with your statement. Maybe we have a diffent defintion of "significant". Projecting enrollment in 5-10 years is nothing more than a guess. It sure looks like it'll be above 9100 in 3 years (based on 06 numbers). We had 7923 in 2005. Where are they going to put the 1100 additional students?

[Arch]

dpc said:

warriorpride said:

I couldn't diagree more.

While 1 is true, the referendum was for a total amount to borrow to build an HS - we must wait & see what they can do with respect to dealing with the higher land cost.

2 is quite a stretch.

Do you really think the SD will be able to make up the shortfall in available funds resulting from the higher land price and still stay within the amount the taxpayers approved for a comprehensive third high school?

Yes, I think they can... but it would depend on what one calls 'comprehensive'. If your definition includes Roman Columns and Marble counter tops in the science labs then don't hold your breath.

[doctorwho]

archwinsome said:

dpc said:

Do you really think the SD will be able to make up the shortfall in available funds resulting from the higher land price and still stay within the amount the taxpayers approved for a comprehensive third high school?

Yes, I think they can... but it would depend on what one calls 'comprehensive'. If your definition includes Roman Columns and Marble counter tops in the science labs then don't hold your breath.

We will see in the next few weeks will we not ? I know there are some hoping against hope they cannot - but let's give it a shot. There are a lot of different ways to close that gap - whether they can be brought to fruition in a short time is the bigger question.

it's like the good old days though - I missed the 'fiduciary' focus.

[doctorwho]

dpc said:

warriorpride said:

I couldn't diagree more.

While 1 is true, the referendum was for a total amount to borrow to build an HS - we must wait & see what they can do with respect to dealing with the higher land cost.

2 is quite a stretch.

So WP, you think the district will see over 10,000 in HS enrollment in the next 5-10 years? I am very interested in understanding how we will get there so please explain your logic.

WHile 10,000 is a way to go -- 9700 was the other part of that figure , and I can think of 2 other ways we more quickly approach that ( adding on to the amount already in the system which would overload the HS's badly) - 1. the housingmarket returns and the remaining property gets built in the next few years 2. we leave BB and we jam a bunch more housing in there -- neither of those is going to lower the already far higher than capacity number already in queue

[Arch]

doctorwho said:

dpc said:

So WP, you think the district will see over 10,000 in HS enrollment in the next 5-10 years? I am very interested in understanding how we will get there so please explain your logic.

WHile 10,000 is a way to go -- 9700 was the other part of that figure , and I can think of 2 other ways we more quickly approach that ( adding on to the amount already in the system which would overload the HS's badly) - 1. the housingmarket returns and the remaining property gets built in the next few years 2. we leave BB and we jam a bunch more housing in there -- neither of those is going to lower the already far higher than capacity number already in queue

Add to that, we've had a decent amount of turnover in the neighborhood this summer and 4 are in the process of vacating right now.. the ones leaving had no kids in the system... the ones moving in will if they stay for a while (several preschool aged kids). Yes, a micro-view of just this immediate area, but with the age of some of the people in our neighborhood, I believe this is going to pick up some.