Election 2011: School Board Candidates Answer the Third HIgh School Question

If a vote came before the School Board that would effectively halt the planning and construction of the third high school, how would you vote? And why?

It has been well publicized that the current Board has essentially approved the process to commence with the building a third high school, and while approval was by the slightest of margins, one of the dissenting votes was of the belief that some "action need to be taken," yet more likely in the form of additions to the existing structures.

On the chance that the 2010 Enrollment Report is correct or at least in the realm of accuracy, the 2014-2015 mid-range projections seem to suggest, to me anyway, that some type of action be taken very soon. That stated, I have felt that a third high school would constitute a better "value" overall at this time than respective additions based upon cost comparisons, a solid Bond Rating that the District currently enjoys and still a potentially advantageous construction market. Also, if this new school came to fruition, there would certainly be capacity to offset future enrollment growth.

Numerous candidates and residents question the validity and accuracy of these projections, perhaps suggesting that they are skewed and out of date. That may be true, thus, another updated status enrollment report is necessary for the sake of clarity. And if a new study does not substantiate the projections of the 2010 Report, then clearly a reevaluation is needed.

I would not vote to halt the third high school.  The numbers do not substantiate investing $50 million in additions rather than approximately $105,000 000 for a third high school.  The $50 million dollars would result in a short-term bridge, versus a long term solution for growth.

The current board split the vote 4-3, so there was already some feelings that the 3rd high school shouldn't be built. If presented with a vote, I'd vote yes to stop the construction.

While there seems to be some agreement that there will be a need to have one eventually, I feel that the option of adding on to both Oswego and Oswego East in this very fragile economic climate can still accommodate the goal to address the capacity needs that the district administration is saying we're going to have in the 2014-2015 school year in a more fiscally responsible manner. 

What I don't want to see happen is to rush to build any facility that will sit or be underutilized as is the case currently. Lets learn from our past mistake instead of repeating it.

I would vote to stop the project.  

These are hard economic times, increasing taxes to build a new high school is in my opinion the wrong thing to do.  Data from the district’s RSP study notes a possible need of 5,304 students by 2014, (or 4,956 if the foreclosures and unemployment don’t rebound.)  

I asked an actuarial to develop a growth model based on construction permits and birth rates and it shows demand at 5,100 in 2014 and 5,700 by 2017.  Adding on to the existing high schools, taking capacity to 5,800 or more for half the cost and can accommodate the growth demand for the next seven years or more.  This solution would also yield savings in operations.  

The cost to operate another high school is projected to be $2.7M per year.  The more bonds we sell, the higher our tax rates go.  When people are looking to move into 308 they look at tax rates and test scores.  For example our tax rate is now higher than District 204 and our ACT test scores are lower (20.6 vs. 23.9), the net effect is lower property values. This is why I favor building additions at this time.

If the future board of education asks to re-evaluate the third high school, I would be acceptable to investigating other options. I inherit this decision made by the past board, but would tackle it proactively utilizing my retail finance background to ensure that we properly analyze and make the best go forward decision for our students. If the board is looking to change direction, I would insist that our alternative plan be a best in class solution for our students from a curriculum,education and future growth standpoint.

Simply changing direction without a solid alternative is unacceptable. Ideas include adding wings to our high schools and or using Murphy as a freshman center. The wings would be more economical but it too will be a large investment that would need to be publicly funded. Iwould like to know if Murphy is considered to be a great alternative or if this is open to debate?

I want to be very thoughtful to this process. I believe this is more than simply cancelling a third high school. It will be important to compare our potential savings against the education needs of our students while projecting growth. As a tax payer, I will be vigilant to our budgets while properly leading our student’s future education and facility needs.

I would vote to halt the current plans for the third high school.

I believe the enrollment report is based upon inaccurate economic conditions.  Tax and foreclosure rates continue to rise, property values are plummeting, unemployment rates are nearing 10%, and the anticipated subdivisions in Plainfield were never built.  

There is no growth right now to support a third high school. Overcrowding in many buildings can be linked to under-utilization of others.  IE, the newly built Murphy Junior High, built for 1000 students sits nearly empty with approximately 50 students in a transitional learning program.  East View Elementary is scheduled to reopen at a 60-65% capacity with allday Kindergarten classes and a fully paid administrative team.

We are also renting out space in the old Traughber building. There are options available that must be considered. We need to refocus on education, not on bricks & mortar. Our test scores are not showing our students’ talents or our teachers’ skill and commitment.  The school board needs someone to decipher the improvement plans and proposals being brought before them with an educator’s lens.  The future of our district is dependent upon a cohesive and informed blend of voices at our policy table.

I would vote to halt the planning and construction of the 3rd High School as I believe that our children can and will get a great educational experience without the 3rd High School.

Additions to the current two high schools, at approximately 50% of the proposed costs of the 3rd high school estimated cost of ~$105,000,000, can properly support and provide an excellent student academic and extra-curricular experience. Please note that the operating expense just to open the 3rd high school is projected at ~$2,700,000 and over 10 years would be ~$27,000,000.

Also, I must say that issuing another ~$105,000,000 in building bonds, when the district has already issued ~$353,292,343 in total bonds is not a prudent thing to do at this time.

If the 3rd High School is built, the total outstanding bonds would be ~$458,292,343,which is closing in on the one-half of a Billion dollar mark. It is important to not that we are only paying interest on those bonds, which means in 10 years our district will owe~$458,292,343.

While the above amounts are scary, this would become a harsh reality. Thus voting to stop the current activities of the 3rd High School is very vital.

Editor's note: Incumbent school board member did not respond to a request for answers to these questions.