|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 5, 2010 23:35:19 GMT -6
SD-- here's a paragraph directly from one such piece of work-- you tell me how this was sold ...was any 'FEAR' item overlooked ? Voters were promised everything except a swarm of locusts if they voted no because of this 10,400 and growing every year 2008 population
-----------------------------
If the referendum fails:
• District #204 will be left with two 5000 + student Mega High Schools by 2009, the two largest single building high schools in Illinois
• Students will be forced to attend split shifts 7 AM to Noon & 12:30 PM to 5:30 PM
• The result will be fewer elective classes, impacting college entrance requirements, scholarship opportunities and resulting in a much lower quality educational experience for our students
• Participation in extra curricular activities including sports, music & other arts severely impacted
• School Boundaries will still have to be changed to equal out the student population
• Tax referendums will still be needed to hire & pay teachers to teach 10,000 + students
• Middle schools will see increased class sizes as well as classes in non-traditional classroom spaces
So how do you think the vote may have gone had voters been told the truth ? The amount of students in WVHS would be no more than before NVHS opened so split shifts are not a reality, and we have these 600 seats @ Frontier Campus we never count. Oh btw, ES population is dropping. This is a bubble that will pass.. and we have much cheaper solutions, but we'd like slightly smaller high schools so please give us $150M to accomplish that.
Or again what do you think the reaction of the voters might have been if the SB acted with fiduciary responsibility and told people before we built one wall - hey we know the correct numbers now, in fact they are on our SD financial projections we do every year..so here's what we have today. Do you still want to spent $150M to make our high schools smaller ? Or should we pursue other options?
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 6, 2010 0:07:29 GMT -6
Verdict poses problem for Indian Prairie board Friday, September 28, 2007 By James Kimberly Source: Chicago Tribune Indian Prairie School District 204 officials will meet next week now that a jury has decided they must pay more than $30 million for land for a third high school. School Board President Mark Metzger said Thursday that the board will meet with administrators in closed session to discuss their options such as whether it is prudent to appeal the jury's verdict. Metzger said problems posed by the size of the award in the condemnation lawsuit might keep the district from opening a new high school in fall 2009 as planned. "I think it is safe to say that is in jeopardy," Metzger said. A DuPage County jury late Wednesday decided that the school district should pay $28,503,750 for 55 acres on the southwest corner of 75th Street and Illinois Highway 59 that it took under the power of eminent domain. The jury also found that the school district ought to pay the Brach-Brodie trusts, which own the property, an additional $2.5 million compensation for loss of value that the remaining 70.9 acres will suffer. During a weeklong trial before Judge Robert Kilander, the school district presented appraisals and other evidence that showed the land was worth $13.75 million. Attorneys representing the Brach-Brodie trusts argued the land was worth more than $33 million. The school board will discuss its options at 7 p.m. Monday at the Crouse Education Center, 780 Shoreline Drive, Aurora. "Obviously, this is a big blow to us," said school board member Alka Tyle. "The price that the jury has awarded is a lot more than we had expected." Tyle said the school board must consider all options. "It is our responsibility to not use more money than we have and to not dip into other funds," she said. Voters approved a referendum measure in March 2006 authorizing the district to borrow $124.7 million for a new high school. Students in the district, which serves parts of Aurora and Naperville, attend Waubonsie Valley and Neuqua Valley High Schools. Board member Christine Vickers said the district ought to take a step back and evaluate whether a third high school is still necessary. Vickers said the board ought to compare actual enrollment to the projections made in 2005. "I think it is only prudent that we visit this situation as a whole again," Vickers said. District administrators spent much of Thursday meeting about the land acquisition, Vickers said. In a statement, Supt. Stephen Daeschner said the administrators were "gathering information so we can discuss options with our board." "We remain committed to being good stewards of the funds we've been given, so our options must not only be driven by what's best for kids, but they must be fiscally responsible," Daeschner said. ---------- jkimberly@tribune.com so you read this and then watch what they did anyway --fiscally responsible ? Hell no ! ";It is our responsibility to not use more money than we have and to not dip into other funds" So why was it OK after the AME purchase to spend lots more in total? Hint- it's a lot more than $124M " Vickers said the board ought to compare actual enrollment to the projections made in 2005." and they did (as shown in their financial projections sheet) , however everyone one of them except CV chose to push forward anyway Here was the chance to do the right thing... |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 6, 2010 0:16:01 GMT -6
Indian Prairie bond vote causes a rift By Grace Aduroja Tribune staff reporter Published March 9, 2006 If voters approve a $124 million bond referendum measure to build a third high school in Indian Prairie District 204, they will be lowering their annual tax bill in the short run. Refinancing an older debt while incurring the new one allows for the yearly decrease, but stretches out payments for a longer period. The money issues are only part of the controversy. One school board member continues to say she doesn't believe the new school is needed and plans to vote no on March 21. Christine Vickers repeatedly has questioned the district's projected growth numbers and asks why administrators haven't considered other solutions, such as boundary changes that would more evenly distribute students between the existing high schools.If approved, the bond issue and refinancing plan would reduce the district's annual tax rate to 57 cents from about 78 cents. That means the owner of a $300,000 home would pay a district tax of around $600 a year, compared with $735 now, according to projections. The debt restructuring means the payments would have to be made for 20 years instead of the 11 in which the district now would retire its debt. Administrators say they need to build the school to accommodate the growing student population in south Naperville and Aurora. Vickers disagrees. "I believe we have the capacity to handle the current enrollment and any additional blips that may come through the system," she said. Administrators stand by their calculations. They say the state's adjusted availability formula, which schools use to procure construction grants, provides a reliable basis for how many students a school can hold. By that calculation, the main campus of Neuqua Valley High School in Naperville is operating above its 2,578-student capacity. "However, the district operates more efficiently than the state expects," said Supt. Howard Crouse in an e-mail message to residents. The school currently houses about 2,950 students. Vickers said the district is using the wrong numbers to make its case. She said the adjusted available capacity formula is used by state officials only to compare the accessible space in schools that apply for construction aid. State offices agree. - but this did not fit the agenda of the SB leaders"We only use this to determine the capacity for school construction," said Susan Weitekamp, principal operations consultant for the Illinois State Board of Education. "It's a way of measuring all districts as equally as possible." State officials do not encourage districts to use those figures to determine capacity because the formula does not account for things like hallway space or smaller class sizes in science laboratories, she said. Instead, they say schools should hire design architects to figure out exactly how many students a school can comfortably fit. District 204 administrators say they did that. "We talked with our own architects while building the building," and they said the main campuses of Neuqua and Waubonsie can each house about 3,000 students, Crouse said. There are nearly 3,000 students at Waubonsie's main campus but neither of the freshman buildings has reached their capacity of about 1,200 students. Those who oppose a third high school also argue that a College of DuPage partnership that can house up to 600 students at an off-campus site will alleviate future overcrowding. ( totally ignored in all doomsday scenarios) That program will begin this fall with about 150 students. "All I know is that you can go over to any of our schools right now, like Neuqua, and you can't get through the hallways," said board Vice President Bruce Glawe. "There's no way we're going to fit a bunch more kids in either of these high schools without hurting our children." This is the latest in a string of arguments about the school proposal. Community discussions became heated when residents expressed their views on boundary changes that would result from building a third high school. Vickers didn't vote for any of the boundary change plans, citing her opposition to the construction of the school. District 204 officials say they have 9,200 pupils in 2nd through 5th grades, more than it can handle at the two high schools and the College of DuPage center. The high schools' enrollment is now 7,100. Building another high school would allow the district to convert the freshman campus at Waubonsie Valley High School in Aurora to a seventh middle school, alleviating projected overcrowding in the midgrade levels. Vickers argues that it would be cost-effective to convert a newly constructed and unused elementary school into a middle school. School officials have rejected the idea, saying they expect having enough kids to fill the vacant building soon, although it will not be this fall.Gee, how'd that work out ? "The numbers speak for themselves. They know my position, and they haven't had any real good arguments against it," Vickers said. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 6, 2010 5:00:30 GMT -6
I still love this crap:
""What we're faced with today is the opportunity to build at a site we felt most workable under all of the current conditions but is actually improved because now we're further away from the gas line and we're further away from the railroad tracks and we're further away from power lines and we're further away from the portion of site that previously hosted the peaker plant," school board President Mark Metzger said before a capacity crowd."
----
Yes, Mark, that's correct... You must have taken EveryDay Math to conclude that when you move parallel to any line (RR tracks, Gas Lines, Power Lines), you increase your distance from it.
Now, either Mark Metzger is a complete idiot that doesn't understand this simple concept, or he is purposely spinning things, yet again. Take your pick.
Simple solution: Don't re-elect the fool.
|
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Apr 6, 2010 16:38:04 GMT -6
SD-- here's a paragraph directly from one such piece of work-- you tell me how this was sold ...was any 'FEAR' item overlooked ? Voters were promised everything except a swarm of locusts if they voted no because of this 10,400 and growing every year 2008 population ----------------------------- If the referendum fails: • District #204 will be left with two 5000 + student Mega High Schools by 2009, the two largest single building high schools in Illinois • Students will be forced to attend split shifts 7 AM to Noon & 12:30 PM to 5:30 PM • The result will be fewer elective classes, impacting college entrance requirements, scholarship opportunities and resulting in a much lower quality educational experience for our students • Participation in extra curricular activities including sports, music & other arts severely impacted • School Boundaries will still have to be changed to equal out the student population • Tax referendums will still be needed to hire & pay teachers to teach 10,000 + students • Middle schools will see increased class sizes as well as classes in non-traditional classroom spaces So how do you think the vote may have gone had voters been told the truth ? The amount of students in WVHS would be no more than before NVHS opened so split shifts are not a reality, and we have these 600 seats @ Frontier Campus we never count. Oh btw, ES population is dropping. This is a bubble that will pass.. and we have much cheaper solutions, but we'd like slightly smaller high schools so please give us $150M to accomplish that. Or again what do you think the reaction of the voters might have been if the SB acted with fiduciary responsibility and told people before we built one wall - hey we know the correct numbers now, in fact they are on our SD financial projections we do every year..so here's what we have today. Do you still want to spent $150M to make our high schools smaller ? Or should we pursue other options? Totally see your point doc....but wasn't the biggest reason the first ref. failed is because people wanted more info regarding where the school was going to be located and the boundaries? |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 6, 2010 17:25:58 GMT -6
Funny thing that... Not the location nor the boundaries they were told/promised, eh?
Meaning, you can't trust them with your $$ to give you what they said they would because they'll split whatever hairs they need to in order to fit their own agenda.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 6, 2010 18:02:28 GMT -6
SD-- here's a paragraph directly from one such piece of work-- you tell me how this was sold ...was any 'FEAR' item overlooked ? Voters were promised everything except a swarm of locusts if they voted no because of this 10,400 and growing every year 2008 population ----------------------------- If the referendum fails: • District #204 will be left with two 5000 + student Mega High Schools by 2009, the two largest single building high schools in Illinois • Students will be forced to attend split shifts 7 AM to Noon & 12:30 PM to 5:30 PM • The result will be fewer elective classes, impacting college entrance requirements, scholarship opportunities and resulting in a much lower quality educational experience for our students • Participation in extra curricular activities including sports, music & other arts severely impacted • School Boundaries will still have to be changed to equal out the student population • Tax referendums will still be needed to hire & pay teachers to teach 10,000 + students • Middle schools will see increased class sizes as well as classes in non-traditional classroom spaces So how do you think the vote may have gone had voters been told the truth ? The amount of students in WVHS would be no more than before NVHS opened so split shifts are not a reality, and we have these 600 seats @ Frontier Campus we never count. Oh btw, ES population is dropping. This is a bubble that will pass.. and we have much cheaper solutions, but we'd like slightly smaller high schools so please give us $150M to accomplish that. Or again what do you think the reaction of the voters might have been if the SB acted with fiduciary responsibility and told people before we built one wall - hey we know the correct numbers now, in fact they are on our SD financial projections we do every year..so here's what we have today. Do you still want to spent $150M to make our high schools smaller ? Or should we pursue other options? Totally see your point doc....but wasn't the biggest reason the first ref. failed is because people wanted more info regarding where the school was going to be located and the boundaries? OK-- I am actually glad you are following where I am headed and appreciate what appears to be some agreement - and as I said there is no issue with what the author 'meant' as the author was me spelling out what he was told. OK- the rub on what the people wanted is this... they hired a consulting firm who specializes in passing referendums- not one who analyzes the need for one, the viability of one etc.. just in getting it passed- good,bad or indifferent and their web site was very clear on that..so again I don't blame the firm- their role was clear from when they were hired. What the people wanted Mac has posted numerous times now ( and I am too lazy today to go dig it out- but maybe he'll have it hadny again) - was a piece of work that said -- what is it the people wanted..and the people did NOT WANT a 3rd high school- they wanted other solutions with existing facilities- overwhelmingly. #rd high school was 4 or 5 down the list if I remember correctly. However in trolling the populace, the consulting firm did find out there was great apprehension about boundaries and changes - regardless of the solution..this was left over from the 'war' over the original Neuqua boundaries - which amazingly involved our same orange shirt protester. Except that time she came out on the short nd of what she wanted. What was determined was that in order to push the vote to a majority, you just had to appeal to - or play on, the fears that people had. If you carved out enough of the heavy voting areas and promised them something they wanted-- it would drive turnout. Remember in 2005 the turnout was 11% of the voters - again if I remember correctly because it was an off election cycle and nothing important on the ballot except the referendum. - So play on they did -- forget trying to make the correct decision and listening to what the people wanted - the big giant brains 'knew' what was best for us, and ONLY a 3rd high school would do. So begin the name calling, the divison of north and south, the supposed entitled labeling- and throw some 'split shifts' and 'lessened opportunites' on top of that -- then demonize the only SB member who had the right facts by attaching her name to an anti-tax organization who quite frankly was far more concrned about 203 than 204 at the time. It was the perfect rhetoric storm... the 3rd high school was not the ONLY choice offered- forget the survey that people answered for what they wanted.. oh yeah, also in this timeline toss in a tragically flawed NIU study which raised the HS population bogey from the 8800-8900 the previous committees had agreed on to 10,400 - and if you read it - eventually 12000, 13000 on up ! what you have left is now the history of all this -- and as Arch has just mentioned -- neither the site, nor the boundaries used to divide this community ended up being anywhere near close to the 5A proposal. Plenty of promises that nothing could derail the site and no way would they even consider boundary changes.. well? so the biggest reason the first ref failed in 2005 ( I know you were not here which is why I am trying to fill in the blanks) - was multi pronged. 1/ approx 11% turnout 2/ general apathy towards any sense of it HAD to be done now ! likely because 8800-8900 seemed solutionable 3/ People did not want a 3rd high school- they preferred other solutions also note: No refeendum had failed here before that since I moved here in 1990. It was always a blanket yes-- in 2005 people started to question need-- so it veered away from facts and played entirely on emotions. The ugliness then ensued. All orchestrated by a board that would not take no for an answer- and ignored the desires of the survey they themselves ran. many of us believed most everything we were told- didn't question it, I mean it's all about the kids right ? Found out differently. The best behaved group during all of this - the students during the boundary wars.. The rhetoric was designed to incite..not explore... the pen is mightier than the sword proved oh so true...I am embarassed to say |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Apr 6, 2010 18:10:44 GMT -6
SD-- here's a paragraph directly from one such piece of work-- you tell me how this was sold ...was any 'FEAR' item overlooked ? Voters were promised everything except a swarm of locusts if they voted no because of this 10,400 and growing every year 2008 population ----------------------------- If the referendum fails: • District #204 will be left with two 5000 + student Mega High Schools by 2009, the two largest single building high schools in Illinois • Students will be forced to attend split shifts 7 AM to Noon & 12:30 PM to 5:30 PM • The result will be fewer elective classes, impacting college entrance requirements, scholarship opportunities and resulting in a much lower quality educational experience for our students • Participation in extra curricular activities including sports, music & other arts severely impacted • School Boundaries will still have to be changed to equal out the student population • Tax referendums will still be needed to hire & pay teachers to teach 10,000 + students • Middle schools will see increased class sizes as well as classes in non-traditional classroom spaces So how do you think the vote may have gone had voters been told the truth ? The amount of students in WVHS would be no more than before NVHS opened so split shifts are not a reality, and we have these 600 seats @ Frontier Campus we never count. Oh btw, ES population is dropping. This is a bubble that will pass.. and we have much cheaper solutions, but we'd like slightly smaller high schools so please give us $150M to accomplish that. Or again what do you think the reaction of the voters might have been if the SB acted with fiduciary responsibility and told people before we built one wall - hey we know the correct numbers now, in fact they are on our SD financial projections we do every year..so here's what we have today. Do you still want to spent $150M to make our high schools smaller ? Or should we pursue other options? Totally see your point doc....but wasn't the biggest reason the first ref. failed is because people wanted more info regarding where the school was going to be located and the boundaries? The real issue is, what were they told between the referendum and the purchase of AME. But that would spoil the ending of "the long and winding road." Some people want to deflect from the real issue and make this about boundaries. Kind of hard to do in my situation. I didn't vote on the 05 and 06 referendums. In fact I hadn't attended a Board meeting or any other organized gathering until I showed up late to the January 08 meeting. I wanted to find out why so many Board members who had called the AME land unsuitable in 05 for safety reasons and "remote" now thought it was fine. Something didn't seem right... Wow, what a little due diligence does to shine the light. Oh and what did the people want? They wanted to add on to existing buildings. An overwhelming margin wanted that. 53% wanted that and only 5% were against that. Re a 3d HS, 38% were favorable to that and 14% were against it. In the end, the District didn't give them the option. It was vote a 3d HS up or down, along with all the attendant hysteria of what would happen if they didn't vote yes. |
|
|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Apr 6, 2010 20:29:36 GMT -6
Mac, I did vote yes on the second ref., as NVHS was extremely busy as of 2006. My thoughts were straightforward in that the freshman centers were a stop gap for the capacity issue. The real icing on the "overcrowding problem" came when the district opened up the office building on 95th st. At that point I had had enough of the helter skelter growth including the Tall Grass subdivision which should never have been built in the first place.
Developers had their way and the district voiced their concerns to no avail. Poor management on the part of uncontrolled development on the south side contributed to this issue. I am glad the third high school was finally built (location withstanding), the sooner we can fold the freshman center back to the main campus (NVHS) the better.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 6, 2010 20:39:10 GMT -6
Mac, I did vote yes on the second ref., as NVHS was extremely busy as of 2006. My thoughts were straightforward in that the freshman centers were a stop gap for the capacity issue. The real icing on the "overcrowding problem" came when the district opened up the office building on 95th st. At that point I had had enough of the helter skelter growth including the Tall Grass subdivision which should never have been built in the first place. Developers had their way and the district voiced their concerns to no avail. Poor management on the part of uncontrolled development on the south side contributed to this issue. I am glad the third high school was finally built (location withstanding), the sooner we can fold the freshman center back to the main campus (NVHS) the better. however at what cost SSSM ? remember the Howie memo printed here that would have added 600 seats to NVHS AND included fixes to hallway design flaws ( which are still there today) for $12M Is $150M a good trade off for $12M ? I know you are a frugal guy ( and I say that with respect ) so I can't imagine you'd be OK with not living within our means When you fold the freshman center back you will add yet another building ( already have 2-3 excess ES's) - to the inventory that will be unused. And with ES population dropping 9% over the last 4 years- how many more will become 'empty' or severly underutilized and an operations drain are we looking at ? |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Apr 6, 2010 20:46:20 GMT -6
Mac, I did vote yes on the second ref., as NVHS was extremely busy as of 2006. My thoughts were straightforward in that the freshman centers were a stop gap for the capacity issue. The real icing on the "overcrowding problem" came when the district opened up the office building on 95th st. At that point I had had enough of the helter skelter growth including the Tall Grass subdivision which should never have been built in the first place. Developers had their way and the district voiced their concerns to no avail. Poor management on the part of uncontrolled development on the south side contributed to this issue. I am glad the third high school was finally built (location withstanding), the sooner we can fold the freshman center back to the main campus (NVHS) the better. I'm fine with you having an opinion and a vote SSSM. What I am not fine with is a Board that fails to fully inform the public whereby they are able to make an informed decision. In addition, if the facts change in a material way the public also has the right to be informed about those changes. Anything less, imo, and the Board fails to adequately represent the public they were elected to serve. And I have to second Doc's "at what cost." What you are saying is you condone trading two freshmen centers with 2400 seats, costing $40 million, for a HS with 3000 seats, costing $150 million! In addition, you agree with moving seating away from the center of the student population density which is just north and east of NVHS to the far north where 17% or the students live. Sorry, you wouldn't be part of my planning commission. Bottom line, this scenario may have worked for you and some others in the District that wanted to have their own high school, but I would find it hard to believe most fully informed residents would think this was in the best interest of the community. |
|
|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Apr 6, 2010 21:09:42 GMT -6
Mac,
Frugal.... You have no idea.... I give new meaning to the word cheap skate.
I never believed NVHS could be fixed for those kind of $$$$. When I took a look at the 100's of acres still growing corn and beans in "sector G", I figured the development was coming just like it had been.
As for boards failing to inform the public fully, sorry but that is a matter of opinion. My opinion is that boards, politicians, real estate agents, lawyers, and moms and dads inform people based on opinions and facts viewed in a very narrow perspective.
For example when jack ass bankers ok mortgages for 110% and clients are willing to sign up for such idiotic financial instruments, shame on both parties when "the PARTY is over". But then again look at some of the very same literature put out when passing the second referendum referring to paying the bonds over a longer period of time. I recall it being compared to "refinancing ones home and taking out some of the equity for home improvements" . What a crock of POOP!
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 6, 2010 21:41:23 GMT -6
Mac, Frugal.... You have no idea.... I give new meaning to the word cheap skate. I never believed NVHS could be fixed for those kind of $$$$. When I took a look at the 100's of acres still growing corn and beans in "sector G", I figured the development was coming just like it had been. As for boards failing to inform the public fully, sorry but that is a matter of opinion. My opinion is that boards, politicians, real estate agents, lawyers, and moms and dads inform people based on opinions and facts viewed in a very narrow perspective. For example when jack ass bankers ok mortgages for 110% and clients are willing to sign up for such idiotic financial instruments, shame on both parties when "the PARTY is over". But then again look at some of the very same literature put out when passing the second referendum referring to paying the bonds over a longer period of time. I recall it being compared to "refinancing ones home and taking out some of the equity for home improvements" . What a crock of POOP! You say you never believed they could do NVHS for that money - yet the document is a quote from a construction firm. ATSR Educational Planners ,Architects & Engineers who build school buildings all the time. It was a detailed quote down to the square footage for each individual section - and then the cost was uplifted 6% per year for rising costs at the time $13.5 if signed in 2006, and already included a 5% contingency. What part of this is questionable ? Have you seen anything even remotely detailed from your SB on MVHS ? Have you ever really looked at the quote ? So let's say they ran over and it was $15M - - you prefer $150M -- really ? Also I don't believe it's a 'matter of opinion' when they spend $150M when they were given $124M. I have to admit I'm stunned by your being OK with any part of that.. that's all of our money -- If you went out to buy something for $20 and they charged your credit card $40 I can guarantee you'd be all over them- yet this gang took your tax money and spent plenty extra..and you think it is a matter of opinion if they should be explaining why? Sorry, something just doesn't add up here as this is against everything you espouse - please help me understand it's fine if you say you didn't like this idea for whatever reason, but trying to justify it financially - again for someone who likes to know exactly what he gets for his money---just doesn't add up. |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Apr 6, 2010 22:24:42 GMT -6
Mac, Frugal.... You have no idea.... I give new meaning to the word cheap skate. I never believed NVHS could be fixed for those kind of $$$$. When I took a look at the 100's of acres still growing corn and beans in "sector G", I figured the development was coming just like it had been. As for boards failing to inform the public fully, sorry but that is a matter of opinion. My opinion is that boards, politicians, real estate agents, lawyers, and moms and dads inform people based on opinions and facts viewed in a very narrow perspective. For example when jack ass bankers ok mortgages for 110% and clients are willing to sign up for such idiotic financial instruments, shame on both parties when "the PARTY is over". But then again look at some of the very same literature put out when passing the second referendum referring to paying the bonds over a longer period of time. I recall it being compared to "refinancing ones home and taking out some of the equity for home improvements" . What a crock of POOP! The thing that most don't seem to realize SSSM is when you approach the end of your development of open land you are having students leave faster than they can be replace. Families chose to become empty nesters, many have more than one child, so they stay till all are gone (like I have 2, one graduating this year, and one is 4 years). Remember you have to replace each years enrollment with more kids every year if you expect to need more space. Over time, in more cases than not, you just can't keep that pace up. That is why, in Illinois, over 900 HSs have closed. Prime reason, over estimating your needs. I believe the evidence is clear we are there. As far a the cost to add to NVHS, I talked with the architect that did the original work for Howie (and also did at least one of the freshman centers) using current day figures adding 24 class rooms to the wings, two stories high, adding addition space to the lunch room, connecting the wings to eliminate the congestion in the main hall way, and on and on (also building a MS which isn't needed either), so I padded the cost somewhat. HS going from 3000 to 3750 students. And rem it is only needed for max 10 years! Then we are back to enrollment of FY09, saving approximately $100 million in the process that can be used in the future for unforeseen issues. No one needed to move. The space is built in the area where it is needed. What more could you want? |
|
|
|
Post by clowdaddy on Apr 7, 2010 6:09:45 GMT -6
Woops, someone let the cat out of the bag: ""I don't think it is our responsibility to pay for the state's mismanagement of funds," said parent Jennifer Streder, who is the president of the Indian Prairie Parents Council."I'd rather see a referendum pass here than see the state income tax increase, because in the long term I don't think that money will stay in the district.""www.suburbanchicagonews.com/beaconnews/news/2138328,2_1_AU03_PROTEST_S1-100403.article Oh HELL no. I hereby pledge that, if this is proposed, this time I will get off of my fat @ss and fight it, and not just with yard signs and petulant posts on this board. It's hard to believe that the people in this district would fall for this, but then again, my chin is still bruised from it hitting the floor after hearing the results of the last one. |
|
