Site data

[rew]

I tried to think of a way of loking at each site more objectively. I have calculated...distance traveled by students and total students moved using the boundaries we have discussed. What other objective means can people come up with?

I used current enrollment numbers and MapQuest miles form ESs.

Number of students moved:

Brach Brodie 5058

AME 6921

Macom 5285

Bolingbrook 5403

Net Miles traveled (difference from current travel)

Brach Brodie 2823 fewer miles

AME 1683 more miles**

Macom 550 more miles

Bolingbrook 673 more miles

** for the AME boundary I left Watts at WV and moved all of Steck and Mcty to AME, if you preserve walkers and move Watts the number goes to 2253 more miles)

[rew]

What might the rankings for cost be?

When the site report was done, Bolingbrook was claimed to be the least expensive, has that changed?

Bolingbrook

AME

Macom

Brach Brodie

Is it fair to say AME is cheaper then Macom, I don't know??

Hazards

Brach Brodie

Bolingbrook

Macom/AME a tie??

If you assigned a score to each criteria, could you come up with a total score for each site?

[bob]

Kinda says a north site is not the smart move.

[warriorpride]

Nice stats, rew - this confirm the SB's intial analysis of BB being the best, from a location perspective. You think there's an easy way to turn this into bus transporation costs (i.e. how much do bus transportation costs go up/down with each location)? Hopefully the SB/SD would be doing just this, since this SHOULD be considered as part of the "cost" of whatever location is chosen.

[rew]

I am really looking for feedback as to what constitues "best"...what do we think as a district? If we rank cost as the most important criteria then BB loses. How would poeple rank the criteria and what other criteria can we use. I would really like to get away from all the emotion.

[warriorpride]

rew said:

I am really looking for feedback as to what constitues "best"...what do we think as a district? If we rank cost as the most important criteria then BB loses. How would poeple rank the criteria and what other criteria can we use. I would really like to get away from all the emotion.

Well, there were 2 lists of criteria that the SB had:
1) the criteria used to evaluate each potential site - can get that list of criteria from the site anaylsis doc - I think it's still up on ipsd.org - someone posted a link to it here a month or 2 ago

2) the criteria that the SB used when coming up with the BB boundary options - I don't know if there are any boundary criteria documents floating around - the criteria that I can recall are:

achievement balance
keep walkers as walkers
minimize train track crossings
I know there are more, just can't recall them

[macy]

Moving the least amount of children was one that I recall.

I'd actually forgotten it until rew posted the amount moved in each case.

[rew]

Yes I actually called them up from an old email, minimixe the total number of students moved, do not bus walkers, balance ahievement, boundaries should make geographical sense

In terms of sites though, costs and hazards - pwr lines, busy intersections could be added

[warriorpride]

rew said:

Yes I actually called them up from an old email, minimixe the total number of students moved, do not bus walkers, balance ahievement, boundaries should make geographical sense

I suppose minimizing splitting MSs could be something to consider, but not knowing what the MS boundaries will be with 7 MSs makes that kinda hard. I assumed that, with BB, many of the MSs would be split, Granger & Gregory possibly being the only ones that weren't.

[momof3]

warriorpride said:

rew said:

I am really looking for feedback as to what constitues "best"...what do we think as a district? If we rank cost as the most important criteria then BB loses. How would poeple rank the criteria and what other criteria can we use. I would really like to get away from all the emotion.

Well, there were 2 lists of criteria that the SB had:
1) the criteria used to evaluate each potential site - can get that list of criteria from the site anaylsis doc - I think it's still up on ipsd.org - someone posted a link to it here a month or 2 ago

2) the criteria that the SB used when coming up with the BB boundary options - I don't know if there are any boundary criteria documents floating around - the criteria that I can recall are:

achievement balance
keep walkers as walkers
minimize train track crossings
I know there are more, just can't recall them

site selection report, iirc authored by M2
www.ipsd.org/documents/204LandWP.pdf

[bob]

For some, the dynamite issue is reason enough to discontinue pursuit of this parcel as a
location for a third high school.

huh?

[gatordog]

rew said:

I am really looking for feedback as to what constitues "best"...what do we think as a district? If we rank cost as the most important criteria then BB loses. How would poeple rank the criteria and what other criteria can we use. I would really like to get away from all the emotion.

Brilliantly phrased question, rew. I guess my short answer is, first priority to me is cost. Which really is a follow-on to my first-reaction answer of "do it with the voter approved referendum." I will fully support any site- central, north or south- that accomplishes this.

There is a question out there of what premium would each of us pay for BB? Lets ignore anybody's direct personal cost (starting up new school, split siblings). Those both were to hit me-many of us- quite high on personal level, but thats just a one time cost.

Obviously, Gombert main (and Fry, likely even more so) already are paying a premium for BB, relative to other areas. In terms of gas cost, if you wish, its been quantified. In terms of having direct neighbors go to different school, we know that. We understood the reason for this, and bulk of us still willingly voted yes. We were willing to pay this extra premium within our local neighborhood. Because we saw the district-wide benefit. But on top of that should my neighborhood pay still more costs (in form of lesser facilities? higher taxes? delays?) when other options are out there?

I recognize that pursuing those other lower cost (on-budget) options surely lead to other areas incurring costs for MV to happen. But to be fair, these are in principle the same cost that my neighbors already said we would bear. In a literal sense, our neighborhood would not be expecting of anyone else anything different than what we did.

[warriorpride]

gatordog said:

rew said:

I am really looking for feedback as to what constitues "best"...what do we think as a district? If we rank cost as the most important criteria then BB loses. How would poeple rank the criteria and what other criteria can we use. I would really like to get away from all the emotion.

Brilliantly phrased question, rew. I guess my short answer is, first priority to me is cost. Which really is a follow-on to my first-reaction answer of "do it with the voter approved referendum." I will fully support any site- central, north or south- that accomplishes this.

There is a question out there of what premium would each of us pay for BB? Lets ignore anybody's direct personal cost (starting up new school, split siblings). Those both were to hit me-many of us- quite high on personal level, but thats just a one time cost.

Obviously, Gombert main (and Fry, likely even more so) already are paying a premium for BB, relative to other areas. In terms of gas cost, if you wish, its been quantified. In terms of having direct neighbors go to different school, we know that. We understood the reason for this, and bulk of us still willingly voted yes. We were willing to pay this extra premium within our local neighborhood. Because we saw the district-wide benefit. But on top of that should my neighborhood pay still more costs (in form of lesser facilities? higher taxes? delays?) when other options are out there?

I recognize that pursuing those other lower cost (on-budget) options surely lead to other areas incurring costs for MV to happen. But to be fair, these are in principle the same cost that my neighbors already said we would bear. In a literal sense, our neighborhood would not be expecting of anyone else anything different than what we did.

I think the problem with what rew is asking for is that almost any criteria will likely impact some groups of people emotionally, and differnt groups of people will have different opinions on how to prioritize the criteria. Plus, as I always say, there are intangibles.

For example, I wouldn't like the Macom site, because of Lehman's negativity towards WV. Building on Macom would represent caving into the guy (and financially rewarding him) that's done damage to MY HS. If you don't go to WV, you probably don't identify with this, and maybe even if you go to WV, you don't, but that's how I feel. I can't show you a fomula that represents my "loss", although one could argue that he's devalued all of the homes that are WV feeders. I respect the fact that ED doesn't want Macom dropped for some of the very reasons that I do want it dropped. That's my selfishness/preference coming thru. I'd rather pay many millions more for BB.

We probably all have preferences for what the outcome will be. And we can present/argue our cases & reasonings & numbers & concerns, and I think we'll find out what's been said all along - all sites have their drawbacks & some will benefit more than others, no matter what site & boundaries are selected - but everyone gains, at least a little. If anyone feels like they "lose" by having MV, so be it.

In a perfect world, everyone in the SD would "gain" an equivalent amount with MV being built. But that was far from a reality, even building at BB. Just ask Gombert or Brookdale, for example.

In summary (I feel like I've rambled too long, so I need to summarize :-( ), while i think it's great that some people on this board are trying to be objective & quantify possible outcomes, it's virtually impossible to do so, because you'll never have unanimous agreement that that "right" criteria are being used, and that they are prioritized correctly.

[rew]

I agree GD there will be a "cost" to any site. I think the SB is obliged to minimize the "cost" and maximize the "benefit".

If you put in terms of winners and losers, I would hope any site would produce more winners than losers. But we have to define those terms and get past "who" is winning and losing.

MO3 as usual, you come through. The site selection report spells out a lot. I will take the liberty of summarizing:

Zoning - preference for residential to be eliminated/preserve commercial

Location - close to student population/ min. transportation costs/ minimize student time in transit

Utilities - adjacent and available

Hazards - minimize

Access- 3 or more egresses to location

Topography - flat

Wetlands -

Size, shaoe - 80 acres/square

Cost

[rew]

In terms of the review of the current sites:

AME - positives/ flat square, 70 acres, adj utilities
negatives / far from student pop, poor access, EMF hazards, limited wetland issues
cost/unwilling seller(may have changed)

Macom - the 248 th site is not really gone into because it was already platted and the cost was thought to be too high, but i can add some

positives - flat/square, 82 acres (w storm retention donated) adj utilites, close to stud pop, zoned residential
negatives - poor access, EMF hazard, relocating 95th?

Bolingbrook flat, square, cheap?close to student pop, access??
negatives - utilities not there, site improvements
What's the zoning at Bronks?

Brach Brodie - flat, sqaure, adj utilities, close to student pop, good access,zoned residential,
negatives cost

Can someone fill in the blanks?