Supr. Carvin speaks to Seniors meeting on Tuesday Morn 8:30AM in 3rd floor of City Hall midst the hammering of construction---be patient with background noise. It is not the Observer.
At the meeting with the seniors this morning, Supr. Heidi Carvin was scheduled to speak on the space for the seniors at the high school, but her comments have shed light on the current hot topic in Evansville---the space needs of the schools.
The voters who approved the referendum in 2001 had been under the impression that the space they were to be paying for would last till 2017, or till roughly the bonds would be paid for. In her remarks, Supr. Carvin said that the original Building capacity told to the voters was district wide 2100 students. This would have lasted till 2017. When the buildings were inspected by Plunkett Raysich, in light of more modern space requirements that they deemed appropriate, the capacity was determined to be 1874. If one assumes that 1874 is the correct number, then the buildings reach capacity in 2011---and are in fact close to capacity RIGHT NOW.
In addition to the "base line model" there is a "5 year trend model" that projects capacity being reached in 2011----however it is not clear that the past 5 year rate of building can be sustained since it was at 27% and it appears that things have slowed drastically.
One board member at the recent Buildings and Grounds meeting said that the voters were just confused about the enrollment projections told to them------correction. NO. The numbers have just been changed.
If you listen closely in the noise of the construction zone, you can hear Supr. Carvin say that the truth lies somewhere in between the two notions of capacity.
The enrollment projection graphs presented at this meeting can be found on the school district web site.
The other interesting fact was that in the graphs presented, "kindergarten regression" graph or the impact of new births to enrollment was flat---no growth. The graph of folks moving to this district is where the projection 2 year and 5 year goes up sharply.
If we would plot the plunge of building permits in the graphs---indeed---and extend the graphs downward---the results might have been different----
Thus---the Observer concludes that any projection will have to be done with caution since no population study can predict the folks moving here on a rolling moving average--conditions change. Folks move here for lots of reasons.....Affordable homes....jobs.....low interest rates...good schools.....close community.....churches.....and yes...paving bricks..... It is not just population that is the key, but all the rest of the factors. And the Economic Development budget.
Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Yes, and one must remember that many building permits were issued for the city in the past 5 years. That has now changed. The city has even put a limit on how many can be issued.
ReplyDeleteOne must keep in mind that not everyone that moves here has children. People also move out of the District too.
"When the buildings were inspected by Plunkett Raysich, in light of more modern space requirements that they deemed appropriate, the capacity was determined to be 1874."
ReplyDeleteI think this is all that needs to be said. Plunkett Raysich gets paid (handsomely mind you) if we build a new school. The 24,000 we already paid them is nothing to what they would have coming their way if we did build one (or two) schools.
Why there are not two or more companies bidding to be the architect is just assnine to me. I would expect that people reading this has had second opinions on many household purchases.
Read between the lines we were sold a line of crap in 01 when we were told we can hold 2100 students, they now want us to believe the "new numbers" of what our schools can hold.
I also like the "in light of more modern space requirements" what the hell does that mean? Fatter kids eating up all the extra space?
How does the old saying go? Fool me once shame on you, Fool me twice...
Slammer:
ReplyDeleteThe phrasing "in light of modern space requirements" is my phrasing that summarized an opening 10 minutes of the Plunkett rep that went over how modern specific areas were "configured" etc. In the audio of the meeting, you can hear Art Phillips and others questioning this section.
The irony is that this is the SAME total facility that is developing $300 per child higher than the average facility costs compared with our peers according to the DPI web site. It cannot be both too small and too large at the same time. As you point out, these folks are being paid to spin.
The meeting will be on Wednesday February 21st at 4:00PM at the District Office to discuss the cost estimates of the various options and then there will be the presentation at the March board meeting. It is time for citizens to show up at these meetings and ask the very same questions that you are asking. Thanks.