In the meeting packet and agenda for the upcoming BOE meeting, there are a number of RFP's for usage studies to be bought, paid for and conducted based on a master utilization plan. (Maybe finally some longer range planning)

The RFP for the stormwater assessment at each district property will not ask for the Spalding area as it does not have a plan for or a building on the site. This lonely dot of District land will seemingly be left out of any substantive discussion regarding the 5 year master plan. If there is nothing there, there is nothing to study. Any plans for this parcel, in the future, will impact any and all other schools and the overall master plan. How can an effective master plan be created with no hard data regarding this property?

This seems like a very convenient way to leave Spalding out of the equation when the next space utilization study requires us to go to referendum. No data, means no inclusion in the process. A lot of money prepped to be spent on voter analysis. Maybe this is a good time to make feelings about Spalding area heard.

This was discussed at the last meeting. The idea was supposed to be that these studies would only support improvements at existing sites, that studies meant for new construction would either cost more or involve more effort of a different kind.

They gave the impression that the demographic analysis was not a big cost item; it sounded like the work was being done for free. A volunteer was performing the analysis. How good will the analysis be? I would wait to actually see it before judging. The volunteer aspect should be encouraged. The analysis is on the agenda for Monday night, maybe we'll see then how good it is. A follow-up phone survey is a different issue, it will cost, and will tell us nothing about the district's eligible voters, 65% of whom neglected to participate - less turnout than for the 2005 election. If the district is truly concerned about community involvement, studying something more than the most recent turnout will be important.

One other thing has happened since that last meeting: has anyone saw how $150,000 for district 41 was cut from the new state budget?

quote:

Originally posted by sances:
One other thing has happened since that last meeting: has anyone saw how $150,000 for district 41 was cut from the new state budget?

Where is our pro-school legislator Rep. Pihos? How does she account for this?

Come to think of it, what has she done for our community?

John: Maybe I missed it at the last meeting. I was under the impression that the facilities usage study, which was not performed before asking the community for $40 million for construction of new facilities, was to measure the efficiency of the current facilities. I was not aware that this was a future construction study.

As to stormwater analysis, it seems an academic proceeding to analyze the Spalding site for it's semi-fictional flood plain issues. It is smack dab in the middle of any future usage and demographic study.

I agree that 35% turnout is bad. That means our group got out 77% of that 35%. Imagine what would have happened if everyone voted. I agree with the former president who said: "Why don't we just look at it as a 100% no vote and move on?"

Go Ron!

Ron.

I was refering to the stormwater analysis, not to the facilities usage study. It might have been nice to hear your perspective on that at the last meeting, but I had leave by 10:00 pm.

As far as studying the reasons for the previous vote results, I couldn't care less. What I am concerned about is the politics of exclusion that is practiced right here in our district, same as it is most places. But I see (maybe hoping against hope) the present expressed desire to consider some sort of 'inclusion' (as it was refered to at that last meeting) as a possible first step towards rectifying that situation. I do not know if anyone else at all yet shares the same perspective or understanding with me of what 'inclusion' actually means, or how we would go about achieving that. But a phone survey ain't it. I am currently just watching to see what they come up with.

John, you are right. Phone surveys were done and the results were not too far off the mark as to the actual voting results. So why is the district even considering spending another dime? I will be very curious to see how the "focus groups" shake out. I have a vision in my head of the district loading these groups with supporters interspersed and saying all the right things and those who had lots of reasons for voting no, being "delphied" into silence. I don't trust the district and I don't see trustworthiness, accountability and responsibility forthcoming from them.

quote:

Originally posted by sances:
Ron.

I was refering to the stormwater analysis, not to the facilities usage study. It might have been nice to hear your perspective on that at the last meeting, but I had leave by 10:00 pm.

I spent that evening being educated about the literacy program. I was there until 10:45. I must have missed public comment time, but would not have added my comment until I heard the discussion by the board.

And really, John, "it might have been nice to hear your perspective on that at the last meeting" is a little bit passive aggressive, don't you think?

Rob,

I believe the reason for leaving Spalding out of the stormwater study is that without knowing what would be built, the stormwater detention/retention requirements can't be calculated. If the volume can't be calculated, then designing/pricing solutions is not possible.

As I understand it, the intent of this study is to design (preliminary design - not full) two stormwater storage alternatives at each existing school using the supposition that 10,000 square feet of land is "disturbed" at each site. Note that doesn't necessarily mean 10,000 worth of new interior space. It could be a combination of parking/building etc. I personally see the value of the proposed study in identifying the magnitude (size and dollars) of one potential hurdle for any additions to the current schools.

quote:

This seems like a very convenient way to leave Spalding out of the equation when the next space utilization study requires us to go to referendum. No data, means no inclusion in the process.

If the Board get to the point of discussing facility options, I can't see Spalding being left out of the analysis, unless our needs are relatively minor. But this Board hasn't gotten to the point of determining what our needs, if any, are.

As always, my personal opinion (not necessarily the Board's).

quote:

Originally posted by ronkas:
John: Maybe I missed it at the last meeting. I was under the impression that the facilities usage study, which was not performed before asking the community for $40 million for construction of new facilities, was to measure the efficiency of the current facilities. I was not aware that this was a future construction study.

Ron, these are two different studies - usage and storm water. The usage study is essentially as you described. The storm water study is one that could be used to inform future construction decisions.

quote:

As to storm water analysis, it seems an academic proceeding to analyze the Spalding site for it's semi-fictional flood plain issues. It is smack dab in the middle of any future usage and demographic study.

Site restrictions on storm water runoff and building restrictions due to floodplains are separate issues. The study under discussion concerns storm water issues only - not floodplain. As I mentioned in my last post, a valid reason for not including Spalding in a storm water study at this point is that we would have to make the big assumption that we have a need to build at Spalding to begin with. And then, supposing you would build something you would have to guess at what any building/parking lot, etc. would look like before proceeding (e.g. number of students, grade levels served, # of stories, etc.). We would be getting into guesses building upon guesses.

The current scope of the study (10,000 sq. ft. disturbed at each existing building) is relatively minor (about 6 classroom footprint plus some exterior changes) and would be useful knowledge for both this Board and for another Board, say, 10 years in the future.

This post is certainly my opinion only.

quote:

Originally posted by ohma:
John, you are right. Phone surveys were done and the results were not too far off the mark as to the actual voting results. So why is the district even considering spending another dime? I will be very curious to see how the "focus groups" shake out. I have a vision in my head of the district loading these groups with supporters interspersed and saying all the right things and those who had lots of reasons for voting no, being "delphied" into silence. I don't trust the district and I don't see trustworthiness, accountability and responsibility forthcoming from them.

Ohma et. al.,

I realize I'm in the minority of posters here concerning the post-referendum phone survey idea. My only reason for being interested in it is to generate data from actual voters that could be used during future considerations about facilities.

I'm trying to avoid the Board and the District, to use a phrase I used at our last Board meeting, banging our head against a wall. If the data set can rule something out or something in, I'd like to know that.

The vehicle for getting that data set is debatable as well. Unless someone can demonstrate otherwise, I have trouble seeing focus groups as more representative than a phone survey. Certainly more detailed and nuanced, but I don't think more representative.

quote:

And really, John, ...

Ron. I was trying to be nice. No ulterior motive. Sorry you didn't read it that way.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bob Solak:
Rob,

I believe the reason for leaving Spalding out of the stormwater study is that without knowing what would be built, the stormwater detention/retention requirements can't be calculated. If the volume can't be calculated, then designing/pricing solutions is not possible. QUOTE]

As always Bob, thank you for your time and input. My questions about Spalding stem more from the inclusion in the 5 year master plan. Stormwater retention is (as I read it) another piece to the puzzle of the master plan. If these RFP's are simply about plans for existing facilities and their potential, I think that shows a lack of future planning as a whole. There are always a multitude of "what if's", but that is partly what long range goals and planning are for.

My thoughts on enrollment growth as well as the accurate numbers are well known, so Spalding usage may be moot in the next 5 years. If this is the case, than inclusion in any current studies would be academic at best.

Again, thank you for responding. (A vote well cast)

quote:

Originally posted by sances:

quote:

And really, John, ...

Ron. I was trying to be nice. No ulterior motive. Sorry you didn't read it that way.

Just being prickly. Thanks for your response.