|
|
Post by macrockett on Sept 16, 2010 21:27:49 GMT -6
I am still convinced that if the centralized school location was built many concerns would have evaporated. Sounds like you are projecting the way you make decisions, what's in it for me, on everyone else SSSM. Not everyone thinks like that. I would rather have saved money for the future when we will definitely need it in this District. But too late for that. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Sept 16, 2010 22:44:34 GMT -6
I am still convinced that if the centralized school location was built many concerns would have evaporated. Sounds like you are projecting the way you make decisions, what's in it for me, on everyone else SSSM. Not everyone thinks like that. I would rather have saved money for the future when we will definitely need it in this District. But too late for that. I can speak for myself ( and I know this to be true for others I know as well) - I worked my backside off for the 3rd HS when I believed the lies about 10,400- then 11,000 etc - and split shifts and loss of extra curriculars etc- as I wanted the kids to be able to learn-- and yes I was a proponent for the BB site for a myriad of reasons- all all the 21 or so sites originally on the drawing board it was the only site that did not have major issues safety wise. And the SB agreed. However when I learned that the bashing of one SB member and attempt to tie her to an anti tax group was done on purpose to keep people from listening to her saying those numbers and predictions were indeed overblown ( and time has proven her to be EXACTLY correct) - I stopped supporting the 3rd HS- as we did not need it. At that point I didn't care where it was as I realized I had been buffaloed- as had the entire district- just couldn't figure out why except for ego's. Then when the site was moved to a piece of land NOTHING should ever have been built on- let alone a school and we were shown 3-4 year old SB documents that showed a Northern Site as the preferred location for school 3- the hidden agenda became very clear. The whining over having 'paid for' everyone else's school while being 'stuck' ( their word -not mine) in Waubonsie became clear. The time for " where's MY Neuqua" came true. So as a soldier in the trenches on both sides of this I can only state before we broke ground I didn't care whether it was BB - or Wagner Farms - or north - the spending of $150M needlessly was wrong. And you can search the archives and find the dates and find this to be 100% true. Would BB have been a better site- and in the long run cheaper ( and tons safer) - yes. Would it have been wrong to builf it - yes. |
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Sept 17, 2010 11:41:35 GMT -6
..... Or at least its an issue that your solution shows absolutely no concern for: WV was not working so well in 2008 with the frosh center configuration. .... And guess what.... 2008 was not a " bubble" at all at WV, but..... Crowding was going to get worse, and stay worse, with no allievation plan in sight. When the class sizes start rising and programs start getting canceled I'll be sure to send everyone over to you and SSSM.  mac, are not aware that with your "build onto NV solution" class sizes at WV were going to get bigger and bigger and bigger?? Here are some facts: 2008-9 WV had 3700 students (last yr with fr cntr) then look at the projected HS enrollment numbers (posted earlier) out until 2020.... Were you to combine the MV & WV enrollments, and take away ~1000 students--the 250 per class-- from the old NV attendance area: This would put a WV with frosh center at 4400 or more for a sustained period well off into the future (with todays K students in HS). And beyond. With zero growth. Maybe you were not aware of this. But the indication to me is that you didnt think much at all about the enrollment situation and future at WV. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Sept 17, 2010 11:56:24 GMT -6
When the class sizes start rising and programs start getting canceled I'll be sure to send everyone over to you and SSSM. mac, are not aware that with your "build onto NV solution" class sizes at WV were going to get bigger and bigger and bigger?? Here are some facts: 2008-9 WV had 3700 students (last yr with fr cntr) then look at the projected HS enrollment numbers (posted earlier) out until 2020.... Were you to combine the MV & WV enrollments, and take away ~1000 students--the 250 per class-- from the old NV attendance area: This would put a WV with frosh center at 4400 or more for a sustained period well off into the future (with todays K students in HS). And beyond. With zero growth. Maybe you were not aware of this. But the indication to me is that you didnt think much at all about the enrollment situation and future at WV. perhaps you had not thought much about moving a school to NV from WV after the additon was done ? Or pehaps you indeed did Also perhaps you are ignoring the fact that my daughter was at WVHS when they had 3156 ( and didn't have a 1200 student freshman center OR Frontier campus) - the following year they had 300 -- how did those kids survive ? Just fine waiting for the freshman center so 4400 -1200 frosh ctr - 75/100 Frontier = 3125/3100 -- hmmmm... why was it worth $150M to fix now and not then ? So when NVHS got it's 600 seat addition let's move a school- let's say Gombert to NVHS -- how overcrowded is it then ? I also remember some having an absoute stroke over that prospect. I and my area thought plenty about the future of WVHS --others turned their backs when called on...let's not forget that |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Sept 17, 2010 12:09:44 GMT -6
So when NVHS got it's 600 seat addition let's move a school- let's say Gombert to NVHS -- how overcrowded is it then ? I also remember some having an absoute stroke over that prospect. I and my area thought plenty about the future of WVHS --others turned their backs when called on...let's not forget that Oh man, I remember that... "No way do I want my kid going to NV with *those* people" I couldn't believe it when I heard it.... Thankfully the kids shined brighter than that when areas got taken out of NV and moved to WV. |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Sept 17, 2010 15:36:12 GMT -6
When the class sizes start rising and programs start getting canceled I'll be sure to send everyone over to you and SSSM. mac, are not aware that with your "build onto NV solution" class sizes at WV were going to get bigger and bigger and bigger?? Here are some facts: 2008-9 WV had 3700 students (last yr with fr cntr) then look at the projected HS enrollment numbers (posted earlier) out until 2020.... Were you to combine the MV & WV enrollments, and take away ~1000 students--the 250 per class-- from the old NV attendance area: This would put a WV with frosh center at 4400 or more for a sustained period well off into the future (with todays K students in HS). And beyond. With zero growth. Maybe you were not aware of this. But the indication to me is that you didnt think much at all about the enrollment situation and future at WV. Gatordog, I never said building on to NV was a complete solution to all the issues of the District. Perhaps other things needed to be done as well. I'm not here to debate that. But it is hard to argue that the best solution was to build a third HS, based on all the facts known BEFORE it was built. MVHS cost us just short of $150m or 50k per seat. We could have built the additional seats much cheaper since we didn't have to pay for additional land, weren't building additional athletic facilities and so on. Suffice it to say, for what ever we needed either at NVHS OR WVHS, it could have been done for a lot less. When I practiced as a CPA l worked with real estate syndicates and ran numbers like this all the time. In addition, because we chose this route, rather than to add on, we also incur the annual cost of administration and maintenance for an additional HS. That is approximately $3-4 million per annum, not a dime of which is used to educate our kids. The future is not going to be kind to those who do not efficiently manage their assets. We as a community will face some significant headwinds due to the lack of "trickle down" from the State and Federal governments. We can not afford to make mistakes in decision making as we have done here imo. We do not nor will not have the luxury to spend however we please. The result will be a cut in the quality of the education of our children. It is as simple as that. |
|
|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Sept 18, 2010 8:00:30 GMT -6
Mac, I am not following your logic regarding the statement: "Sounds like you are projecting the way you make decisions, what's in it for me, on everyone else SSSM. Not everyone thinks like that".
Please note that there was little in it for me or my immediate family in voting yes regarding the third high school. My kids for the most part are out of high school. Quite the opposite, I voted for the third high school at the central location because I FELT IT WAS BEST FOR THE WHOLE SCHOOL COMMUNITY.
I stand by my statement that if the school was built in its intended location much of the controversy including "enrollment numbers" and 10 year population projections would have been brushed aside.
Now what we have are a number of "pissed off" folks that will continue to question decisions made by the board and those in charge at 204.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Sept 18, 2010 8:58:07 GMT -6
Mac, I am not following your logic regarding the statement: "Sounds like you are projecting the way you make decisions, what's in it for me, on everyone else SSSM. Not everyone thinks like that". Please note that there was little in it for me or my immediate family in voting yes regarding the third high school. My kids for the most part are out of high school. Quite the opposite, I voted for the third high school at the central location because I FELT IT WAS BEST FOR THE WHOLE SCHOOL COMMUNITY. I stand by my statement that if the school was built in its intended location much of the controversy including "enrollment numbers" and 10 year population projections would have been brushed aside. Now what we have are a number of "pissed off" folks that will continue to question decisions made by the board and those in charge at 204. SSSM - what I don't get is that you are so frugal and money conscious ( which I admire) - what mystifies me is that you seem to think only pissed off people are questioning the way this SB spends money -- something is just not right here as the refinanicng of huge amounts of debt- and wasting of $17M to get good bond rates for a school we paid $25M more than the referendum does not sem to bother you. There is a huge disconnect here - why ? This is not counting the extra $3M or so for transportation costs increased by a lousy population site. who are you close to there - or protecting - because these are crappy decisions no matter what anyone got... otherwise it just makes no sense... Not saying it to be mean, it just doesn't add up |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Sept 18, 2010 9:00:57 GMT -6
So when NVHS got it's 600 seat addition let's move a school- let's say Gombert to NVHS -- how overcrowded is it then ? I also remember some having an absoute stroke over that prospect. I and my area thought plenty about the future of WVHS --others turned their backs when called on...let's not forget that Oh man, I remember that... "No way do I want my kid going to NV with *those* people" I couldn't believe it when I heard it.... Thankfully the kids shined brighter than that when areas got taken out of NV and moved to WV. exactly-- who was the real issue here - it appears not those who were demonized, nice deflection though by the firmly entrenched |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Sept 18, 2010 9:59:52 GMT -6
Mac, I am not following your logic regarding the statement: "Sounds like you are projecting the way you make decisions, what's in it for me, on everyone else SSSM. Not everyone thinks like that". Please note that there was little in it for me or my immediate family in voting yes regarding the third high school. My kids for the most part are out of high school. Quite the opposite, I voted for the third high school at the central location because I FELT IT WAS BEST FOR THE WHOLE SCHOOL COMMUNITY. I stand by my statement that if the school was built in its intended location much of the controversy including "enrollment numbers" and 10 year population projections would have been brushed aside. Now what we have are a number of "pissed off" folks that will continue to question decisions made by the board and those in charge at 204. I suggest you go back and read your own posts then SSSM. One of them favors the smaller HSs. Another comments on clearing out NVHS. There are others. Sorry I don't have time to point them all out. I think others here can corroborate. In addition, like Doc says, "SSSM - what I don't get is that you are so frugal and money conscious ( which I admire) - what mystifies me is that you seem to think only pissed off people are questioning the way this SB spends money -- something is just not right here as the refinanicng of huge amounts of debt- and wasting of $17M to get good bond rates for a school we paid $25M more than the referendum does not sem to bother you. There is a huge disconnect here - why ? This is not counting the extra $3M or so for transportation costs increased by a lousy population site...who are you close to there - or protecting - because these are crappy decisions no matter what anyone got... otherwise it just makes no sense..." your continued "support" for the School District defies logic for someone so "frugal" The long and winding road points out a number of facts that present a disturbing picture in my opinion. In the face of all the information available to the Board (accumulating over several years I might add) they moved forward to build, rather than reassess the wisdom based on existing facts. In addition, along the way, they did a back door referendum for $17 million to bridge the funding gap for MVHS, knowing as early as 2006 that there was no way it was going to cost $124m. That $17m was raised from two sources, premiums on issued bonds in 06 and 07 (meaning higher interest rates on those bonds, paid by all of us) and accumulated interest income from issuing the bonds well in advance of need (then investing the principal until it was needed for construction). Bottom line, the "gap" between the $124m referendum and the $143+ actual is filled with unnecessary interest expense we now have to pay on those bonds. Worst part? At least some on the Board were clear that additional funds would be needed in 2006. They all should have been aware in 2007. I invite everyone to go back and read the MVHS funding thread: ipsd204.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=mvhsfd&action=display&thread=2622 especially post #3 where I talk about the Ehlers correspondence. In light of what I have written, for you and others to put full faith and confidence in our Board and the process itself makes no sense to me. In addition, to characterize those who oppose the District in it's decision making prowess as "being pissed off" misses the point. Who cares. Personally, I am not pissed off, I simply tell it like i see it, calling a spade a spade. I didn't get involved in this mess at all till I started paying attention to the condemnation suit in mid 2007. It started to look like a real mess, simple as that. From there I started to look at all the facts and come to my own conclusions. I spend considerable time doing so, and laid it all out in the long and winding road. How anyone that reads that and comes away with a good feeling about what transpired is puzzling to me, just my opinion. I invite anyone to look at the facts and lay out their own case for everyone to see. As far as your statement "I stand by my statement that if the school was built in its intended location much of the controversy including "enrollment numbers" and 10 year population projections would have been brushed aside," it's pure conjecture. Care to support it with some facts? The counter argument to your claim is those who have expressed their opposition readily admit their initial support of the District, but as facts became available they rethought their positions. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Sept 18, 2010 10:11:23 GMT -6
Mac, I am not following your logic regarding the statement: "Sounds like you are projecting the way you make decisions, what's in it for me, on everyone else SSSM. Not everyone thinks like that". Please note that there was little in it for me or my immediate family in voting yes regarding the third high school. My kids for the most part are out of high school. Quite the opposite, I voted for the third high school at the central location because I FELT IT WAS BEST FOR THE WHOLE SCHOOL COMMUNITY. I stand by my statement that if the school was built in its intended location much of the controversy including "enrollment numbers" and 10 year population projections would have been brushed aside. Now what we have are a number of "pissed off" folks that will continue to question decisions made by the board and those in charge at 204. I suggest you go back and read your own posts then SSSM. One of them favors the smaller HSs. Another comments on clearing out NVHS. There are others. Sorry I don't have time to point them all out. I think others here can corroborate. In addition, like Doc says, "SSSM - what I don't get is that you are so frugal and money conscious ( which I admire) - what mystifies me is that you seem to think only pissed off people are questioning the way this SB spends money -- something is just not right here as the refinanicng of huge amounts of debt- and wasting of $17M to get good bond rates for a school we paid $25M more than the referendum does not sem to bother you. There is a huge disconnect here - why ? This is not counting the extra $3M or so for transportation costs increased by a lousy population site.
who are you close to there - or protecting - because these are crappy decisions no matter what anyone got... otherwise it just makes no sense..." your continued "support" for the School District defies logic for someone so "frugal" The long and winding road points out a number of facts that present a disturbing picture. In the face of all the information available to the Board (accumulating over several years I might add) they moved forward to build, rather than reassess the wisdom based on existing facts. In addition, along the way, they did a back door referendum for $17 million to bridge the funding gap MVHS, knowing as early as 2006 that there was no way it was going to cost $124m. For you and others to put full faith and confidence in our Board and the process itself makes no sense to me. In addition, to characterize those who oppose the District in it's decision making prowess as "being pissed off" misses the point. Who cares. Personally, I am not pissed off. I didn't get involved in this mess at all till I started paying attention to the condemnation suit. It started to look like a real mess, simple as that. From there I started to look at all the facts and come to my own conclusions. I spend considerable time doing so, and laid it all out in the long and winding road. How anyone that reads that and comes away with a good feeling about what transpired is puzzling to me, just my opinion. I invite anyone to look at the facts and lay out their own case for everyone to see. As far as your statement "I stand by my statement that if the school was built in its intended location much of the controversy including "enrollment numbers" and 10 year population projections would have been brushed aside," it's pure conjecture. Care to support it with facts? I have to say I don't know a single person personally that would be just fine with everything if the school was at BB -- they fall into 4 camps - -1/ the one I am in where the spending of $150M for a school we didn't need after being mislead purposely( I say purposely because they knew the real facts before they spent one dime in AME - and they could have sold BB jut like they're trying to now- no harm-no foul) - 2/ Those who don't like the situation but will never make waves and just go with the flow 3/ those who love the new HS because they feel it is just what we needed -most of those live in one area 4/ those who are just glad it wasn't them directly involved so they support the status quo - funny thing was this was a very very vocal group -vote no signs, trying to get Bruce Glawe thrown out when he suggested Springbrook to WVHS etc, - I don't know one person that says BB would fix everything except you SSSM - and nothing wrong with that opinion, it is yours, but I don't see a large camp there |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Sept 18, 2010 20:08:31 GMT -6
I am not a supporter of the new school at the current location. I think it is a dangerous location at worst and poorly located in relation to the student population at best. I would not have voted YES to a school proposed at this location in 06.
I think the SB and admin completely 1) botched the condemnation suit and 2) played fast and loose with the referendum "facts" and then completely lost my trust by3) making a poor decision in regards to an alternate site and then 4) completely sidestepped the communities concerns related to the site by labeling any opposition as disgruntled entitled folks.
The SB did a disservice to the community, IMO.
I do not believe BB was the perfect site. I voted for it in 06 and while I may have changed my mind in hindsight, I would have shared in the blame and moved on.
If there was a good alternative site chosen that saved money vs BB, ditto.
But I don't support the school where it is built now and I don't support the process how it came to be.
Given that, the attendance figures point to a new reality and it is something the current SB and admin has to address. Again, I ask, why are we using portables when there are schools with excess capacity?
|
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Sept 19, 2010 9:10:39 GMT -6
Gatordog, I never said building on to NV was a complete solution to all the issues of the District. Perhaps other things needed to be done as well. .... That’s right, your plan was not a complete solution. But from reading your posts, your recognition of that incompleteness doesn’t much come across to me. The plan I supported and the majority voted for is a complete plan. One that maps out quite well for the next dozen years and more. The complete plan didn’t ignore the MS situation. The complete plan eliminates the need for, as as rew insightfully points out, frequent boundary adjustments. The complete plan aligns the size of ours HSs more with those of surrounding communities. . The complete plan covers re-population when over time, as SSSM points out, the older folks move on. And there are other issues as well. Of course, there was a cost to achieve the plan. The voters of the district decided it was worth that cost to provide the more complete solution. |
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Sept 19, 2010 9:47:15 GMT -6
Mac, I am not following your logic regarding the statement: "Sounds like you are projecting the way you make decisions, what's in it for me, on everyone else SSSM. Not everyone thinks like that". Please note that there was little in it for me or my immediate family in voting yes regarding the third high school. My kids for the most part are out of high school. Quite the opposite, I voted for the third high school at the central location because I FELT IT WAS BEST FOR THE WHOLE SCHOOL COMMUNITY. ...... I too felt that my vote to build the 3rd HS was best for the whole community. ( I dont think the rest of us are following the "whats really in it for SSSM" logic either!) Forget the different site arguments and boundary permutations. (Back then I do remember thinking, "Gee, everybody is so concerned about where to build the school and who to send there.....but they must all be on the same page about the need for the 3rd HS! ) . Any site and boundary solution will inherently have elements of "whats in it for me". And that was ok in my mind, because at end of the day, no matter what, we would be getting the school that we decided upon. But I will say this: if there was any proposal that was only looking at adding to NV capacity, and ignoring the capacity issues and trends at at WV, and middle schools as well...... one might think of those supporters as being largely driven by "whats in it for me". (Maybe, SSSM, there is some logic that can be followed !) Actually, I prefer not to characterize this as "whats in in for me". But rather as limited information or un-awareness of the situation. Which happens to any of us without taking time to study all the details. And that is where school administrators and school board steps in for leadership of the district-wide perspective, which is why just adding onto NV was not put forth with their recommendation. |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Sept 19, 2010 10:01:24 GMT -6
Of course, there was a cost to achieve the plan. The voters of the district decided it was worth that cost to provide the more complete solution. That is my problem (and others) with the current solution ... the SB changed the plan. |
|
