At our work session last night, our physical plant director presented some ideas about possible changes to the facilities master plan. I’m just posting this to make it clear that the board itself did not adopt any changes last night, and did not even really begin discussing any specific changes.
Not saying that you shouldn’t talk about the physical plant director’s ideas! Please do! Chime in with comments! But please know that the board has only just begun the process of thinking about possible changes to the facilities plan. The ideas we heard last night seem to be at least partially driven by assumptions about projected enrollment that do not reflect the recent changes to school boundaries. For that and other reasons, I expect that board members will have their own ideas about possible changes, and that those ideas will play at least a big a role in the discussion as what we heard last night.
We received the physical plant director’s ideas for the first time during the meeting, and I haven’t yet had time to fully process them. I’ve got a busy week coming up and I doubt I’ll have much time to comment on them, but that shouldn’t stop you. I’ll link to them here when they appear on the district’s website.
62 comments:
Projects completed or in progress, by HS. It would take Liberty and West High projects combined to compete with City High. And why is City High currently adding 150 seats then adding another 150 seats again with another project? If you didn't know the east side will be able to claim a 10 year run owning the school board maybe you should.
CITY HIGH SCHOOL
1. CHS +150 seats 6 classroom third floor addition
2. Hoover +500 seats NEW Elementary
3. Alexander +500 seats NEW Elementary
4. Twain +50 seats 2 NEW classrooms, music and art rooms, restrooms, office, storage, geothermal HVAC
5. Longfellow historic renovations or building and gymnasium addition
6. Lucas interior lighting upgrades, geothermal HVAC system, ceiling, window wall replacement
7. Hoover code repairs and AC
WEST HIGH
1. WHS new tennis courts, mechanical infrastructure, new gymnasium
2. Weber +200 seats NEW classrooms, gym addition, IT upgrades
3. Coralville Central classroom renovations, masonry tuckpoint, HVAC
4. Hills code repairs
LIBERTY
1. LHS +1000 seats NEW HS
2. Penn +200 seats, MPR addition, geothermal HVAC, IT updates
3. Van Allen +100 seats NEW Classrooms, geothermal updates
Projects subject to bond approval, by HS.
CITY HIGH SCHOOL
1. CHS +150 seats NEW classrooms, cafeteria renovations, library renovations, IT, Geothermal HVAC, wrestling room addition, gym additions, lighting
2. Lemme +125 seats NEW classrooms, gym addition, windows, IT
3. Wood +100 seats NEW classrooms, HVAC, roof
4. Southeast JH +90 seats NEW classrooms, HVAC, lighting, lockers, roof, wrestling room expansion (second one in 6 years), track and field facilities
5. Shimek gym addition, geothermal HVAC
6. Mann historic renovations, gym addition
7. Lincoln gym addition, roof, HVAC, windows
WEST HIGH
1. WHS HVAC, roof, electrical and plumbing
2. Northwest JH +60 seats NEW classrooms, IT, lighting, HVAC, wrestling room, track and field
3. Kirkwood +150 seats NEW Classrooms, HVAC, roof
4. Borlaug +100 seats NEW classrooms, HVAC, mechanical, wall repair
5. Wickham IT, Floor repairs
LIBERTY HIGH
1. LHS +500 seats FINISH school and outdoor athletic facilities
2. Grant +500 NEW Elementary
3. Garner +175 seats NEW classrooms, sod, playground, wall and floor repairs
4. North Central JH +240, library and cafeteria expansions, gym addition, wrestling room expansion
Hello anonymous. I would love to have a conversation with you about your concerns if you'd like. You can reach me at paul.roesler@iowacityschools.org. Thanks. Paul.
I'd like to hear Mr Roesler comment on the accuracy of those summaries, would you please?
Anonymous, your complaint might make some sense if the FMP was supposed to deliver equal improvements regardless of need, or if the needs of each area were neatly divided up evenly, but neither of those things is true. Before the FMP there were 7 schools that fed into City that lacked AC, and only one in the group that fed to West then and currently feeds to West or Liberty.
Before the construction started on the FMP, the newest school that fed or feeds into City was Lemme, built in 1970. After Lemme, Weber, Wickham, Van Allen, Garner, and Borlag were all built, none feeding into City.
Both of these points speak to the same idea: older buildings are more likely to need repairs and improvements, and are less likely to have modern accommodations. Two of the schools that feed into city are old enough that they aren't even ADA compliant because they are grandfathered in, and haven't been substantially renovated since the ADA passed.
Also, I'm not sure how your second post furthers your notion of East Side dominance. If the East Side were somehow responsible for the order of projects here, then wouldn't they have put less on the bond to reduce the risk of not receiving bond-dependent improvements? The bond is set up so that people all across the district have a vested interest in it passing. The City and City feeder projects on the bond are even distributed east, north, and south.
Having moved up here from Arkansas, I do know a thing or two about how feuds work. But this is silly. Try not looking at the FMP through the lens of geographic rivalry and instead in terms of age of buildings and material needs, and it might make more sense to you."
Everyone -- Thanks for the comments. I've just realized that some comments (both on this thread and on some earlier threads) were ending up in the "spam comment" file without me realizing it. Have no idea why. Anyway, I have just liberated all of them--about ten total--and they should be visible now. Sorry for the problem.
Nothing to see here, just some AC updates.
Anonymous, October 13, 2016 at 12:57 PM - for a different perspective, here are overall costs for the secondary schools, broken down per your defined parameters:
TOTAL COSTS FOR CHS (built in 1929) AND FEEDER SEJH: $47.3M
TOTAL FOR WHS (built in 1970) AND FEEDER NWJH: $39.7 M
TOTAL COST FOR LIBERTY (new) AND FEEDER NCJH: $88.5 M
Where is the cost per project?
Anonymous 12:57 you forgot to include the other funding sources since 2012 (SAVE and PPEL). So I did that for you and looking at the three funding source combined through Jan 2020 here is where the money has gone or is headed based on construction, by HS.
CITY HIGH SCHOOL $131.5 million
WEST HIGH SCHOOL $36.4 million
LIBERTY HIGH SCHOOL (through completion) $103.6 million
Not only does CHS get more they get it sooner.
Anonymous-- and yet again, you're not looking at the needs that the FMP is supposed to answer. Previous to the FMP there wasn't a new school built that fed into CHS since 1970. There were 5 non-CHS feeding elementary schools built in the district since then. Older buildings are likely to have more needs in terms of upgrades and often have other associated costs. Consider that both Mann and Longfellow were built well before the ADA passed and have upper floors that are inaccessible to walking-disabled individuals. If any upgrade or addition is made to these buildings (and its kind of amazing none has been made previous to this, given how old they are) then the building has to be brought into ADA compliance, meaning that you have to install wheelchair lifts. Because these are historical buildings, the additions also have to meet certain other standards which make the cost higher.
Similarly, before the FMP, 7 schools that feed into City lacked air conditioning, while only 1 school that fed to West did. This all adds up to the simple fact that older buildings require more maintenance and cost more to work on than newer buildings, and are more likely to lack modern accomodations. And there were more older buildings feeding into CHS. Rather than complaining that the money spent isn't exactly evenly distributed among three secondary catchment zones, one of which didn't even exist until the FMP, you could be grateful that fewer children attending non-CHS feeders spent decades sweating in overheated classrooms, or had to be carried up a flight of stairs if they were on crutches and needed to get to the second floor.
When the FMP was first contemplated, we as a district faced some real challenges in terms of facilities. There were older schools that lacked amenities and needed maintenance. A majority of those schools and a majority of those needs were at CHS and CHS feeders, but not nearly all of them. At the same time, there was a real capacity need at the secondary level at West, and people in the Northwestern part of the District had been lobbying for a long time for a third high school, which would ease that capacity problem, allow more kids to participate in limited-space extracurricular activities across the district, and give that area a more coherent sense of identity.
The hope of the FMP was that it could answer both of these large-scale needs instead of pitting them against each other. They are all legitimate needs. Just because a given need doesn't cost as much to fulfill doesn't mean that its less urgent or less important, and it doesn't make it less valuable. If people could stop thinking about this as a pissing match over who gets more money spent on them, we might be able to do a better job of helping all of our kids get a better education.
it is amazing to me, frankly, that supposedly grown adults can be so obsessed with a geographic rivalry over competing high schools. Grow up people.
And if you follow the FMP through 2022 here is where you end up, by HS.
CITY HIGH SCHOOL $140 million
WEST HIGH SCHOOL $67 million
LIBERTY HIGH SCHOOL $123 million
I'm not sure what is the bigger shock the, the huge amount of money being poured into the east side of the district or the timing of the projects that heavily favors the east side.
Effectively CITY HIGH will have a power play spanning 10+ years during which time WEST HIGH gets shrunk, and LIBERTY is built slowly in phases.
Their plan is easy to summarize, "strengthen one side, weaken another, and slow down the third." This gives CHS the best chance of dominance (at the expense of others, should we talk about busing low income, high minority Alexander away from CHS?) If you thought the last ten years in this district was about equity it wasn't, it was about making CHS the dominant HS in the district. One dollar, one vote, one boundary decision at a time.
Anythying to add Chris Liebig?
EDJ $140 million for wheel chair access and AC? Give me a break.
EDJ you have some sense of entitlement. Just because buildings were older doesn't give you the right to essentially rebuild the east side with the largest funding surge in district history. And just because you organized the votes doesn't make it right. Not when you grow at other people's expense which is exactly what you have been willing to do. You put a choke hold on the rest of the district to satisfy your own needs. That's dirty.
Other "anonymous" -- Apparently you are adding up all of the expenses associated with the elementary schools that feed into each high school? Look, it's too bad that the district ignored older buildings for decades on end, but there comes a time when you can't let buildings crumble around children. Especially not while asking their parents to help foot the (tax) bill for newer buildings and better amenities. Look up "inequity."
These buildings are being outfitted based on 21st century standards so that kids aren't sitting in hot, asbestos-laden, cramped learning environments. If you think anyone deserves that, then you are the one with entitlement issues. Bitter much?
"Their plan is easy to summarize, "strengthen one side, weaken another, and slow down the third." This gives CHS the best chance of dominance (at the expense of others, should we talk about busing low income, high minority Alexander away from CHS?) If you thought the last ten years in this district was about equity it wasn't, it was about making CHS the dominant HS in the district. One dollar, one vote, one boundary decision at a time."
Wow, are you serious about this?
Do you often find yourself rocking in the corner of a darkened room, wearing a tin foil hat?
How do you propose dealing with overcrowding issues at City High? Which elementary school or schools do you think should go to West High instead of Alexander? Or do you prefer that it stay overcrowded and that we don't use space sitting idle elsewhere?
For those wanting to make an argument based on geographic equity it's important to note one could easily craft such an argument utilizing the tax base. If one were to do so you could see that IC has historically footed the bill for other parts of the district where new schools were being built, one after another, while the IC schools were neglected. The current plan, by way of timing and funding, is actually fairly balance if you were to factor in the tax base/whose paying. Again, not that one should make this argument. Rather, just a point that undermines the argument that the east side is receiving a disproportionate share under this plan and highlights the gross imbalance in past years.
I for one think we need to get a new board in place before we agree to another big financial commitment.
Why don't we have a geographically composed school board. What would need to be done to change how we elect our board members? It seems like other districts have a board member serving each geographical area and then some at large.
You could have electoral districts. Problem is it has to based on population so. Given IC dominates that category I am not sure that furthers your goal.
3 from west, 3 from liberty, 3 from city and then vote on GO bond.
Read above - has to be based on population of the drawn district not merely 3 from here, 3 from there...etc
Anonymous 12:07- Its not a matter of entitlement. Its a matter of making sure that, eventually, not soon enough but as soon as we can, no kids in the District are in substandard learning conditions in buildings that are overcrowded and in need of repair. What smacks of entitlement is suggesting that some kids are entitled to air conditioning, gyms and multipurpose rooms, and safe, accessible buildings while others aren't just because of what high school their schools feed into. Or what side of the river they live on, or whatever. This. Is. Insane. Or its evidence of an incredible grudge clouding your thinking, I don't know. But I don't get it.
We all live in the same school district. We have a common interest in each other's children being in good conditions and having good experiences at school and doing well and growing and learning. The scorekeeping and the resentment that many people here feel towards others just because they live a few miles the other direction is really a thing to behold.
Also, Anonymous 12:07/Anonymous-who-keeps-breaking-things-down-by-secondary-schools:
Its worth considering that Liberty only exists because of the FMP, & that the division between schools that existed when the FMP was put together as a plan was between West and City. If we look at it with that division in place, combining Liberty and West, and think about the creation of Liberty as a benefit that the plan delivers, as opposed to a separate place for benefits from the plan to go, then the numbers look quite, quite different.
But, that's mainly if you keep on insisting on looking at this whole thing through the lens of spoils of some kind of silly war you're fighting, and not as a way to make things better for kids across the same district we are all part of.
Chris- I'm happy to see the consideration of a 4th Jr. High. I think that's something that could help ease transportation difficulties. More preschool space is a worthy idea too I think.
It won't be long before West realizes supporting Roesler was a mistake, it's already happening; and those who were drumming up his support will be left unable to defend what's happened.
And here we are another step in the wrong direction. I'm sure those under the "$140 million redrawn boundaries umbrella" will disagree but districts don't flourish under these conditions, they wither. And as that continues to happen don't be surprised.
What type of future was there in dismantling a flagship school, stringing out a high school start up and destabilizing the district with a policy of ever changing boundaries (which are lopsidedly being used to benefit one high school far more than the others, but that's to be expected at this point). And after all those efforts, rooted in greed and fear of becoming the next "Waterloo", the district will lose more ground on the state and the nation. We will be happy putting our house up for sale and moving our business and our community involvement to another district. Sticking around for more years of this shit show just isn't for us.
I'm from the North Side and I agree that it will cost more money on the East side to update the older schools but they need it; I also believe all elementary schools, junior high schools, and high schools should be air-conditioned and updated to be ADA accessible. The money difference makes sense to me for the most part. However, it does seem as if West High is being a bit neglected in comparison to the other two high schools. It is also getting pretty old and likely needs more updates than it is getting. I would like to see that looked into a little further.
I must say, that recently I am doubting the need for further additions at City High and Southeast Junior High based on some numbers I have seen. Looks like both of those schools will be under capacity for many years thanks to the recent redistricting at the secondary level. Don't we expect schools to hit 120%-140% of capacity before we build more space/more schools? We sure do for schools like Garner, North Central, Penn, & Van Allen it seems.
Lastly, if the district is truly considering a 4th junior high on the south side of town in the next 10 years or so, then there really is no need for expansion at SEJH. That would truly be wasted money because Alexander would certainly go to the new junior high instead of (potentially) transferring to SEJH.
The GO bond price keeps going up. 1st its $119 million then more for sports and now around $200 million $$$ plus interest. Its way too much money. Chris, what's the biggest school bond in Iowa to pass?
EDJ Liberty only exists because of the FMP? It has nothing to do with development over decades? thousands of families? a growing district tax base because of that development and those families? Implying LHS exists because of your graciousness is typical of this self righteous attitude used over and over by the east side backers of this power grab. You guys are cliches of ugly politics, you belittle those you underserved as entitled and you have nothing more than petty rationale to defend you position. Your arguments lack substance and you are analysis of the balancing plan was undisciplined.
Anonymous 11:14- Liberty's existence has nothing to do with my graciousness or anyone else's graciousness. Its a need that was met by the Facilities Master Plan, that's all I meant. What you're describing is the need. The plan accounts for the building and funding of the school and commits the District to its creation, future maintenance, and the education of the kids who attend. Similarly, the renovation and maintenance of existing schools fulfills the District's commitment to the children who attend there. I don't see how you can construe this simple statement of fact as suggesting that the school is a matter of "graciousness" or a gift from some group to another group. Maybe you think that LHS should have been built without also meeting the needs of kids sitting in hot, unairconditioned classrooms all over the district? I don't see how you'd expect the parents of those kids to approve such a plan.
My kid is in a better place if kids all across the district are having their needs met. So is your kid. We all have a stake in this.
BTW, Anon 11:14, I'm not getting the impression you're really listening, but I'll try one more time to rephrase the point I was trying to make about the division of FMP spending:
When the FMP was being drafted, LHS didn't exist. Land hadn't been bought for it, boundaries and feeder schools hadn't been set. What you're arguing is that only 1/3 of the spending should have been allotted to CHS and CHS feeders, while 2/3 should have been allotted to what were then entirely WHS feeders and WHS, despite the fact that we had no idea where Liberty would sit and what schools would feed into it. You're setting up a criteria that not only is independent of need (which is important to take into account in terms of public spending) but which also would have been impossible to fulfill at the time.
Returning to need, it seems like you're arguing that kids in CHS and CHS feeders receive more benefit from FMP funds. What you're ignoring is that prior to the FMP a greater amount of kids not in FHS feeders received the benefit of being in schools that had air conditioning, that weren't overcrowded, that had gyms and multipurpse rooms and that didn't need maintenance and renovation.
Also, I feel comnpelled to point out that you're on pretty thin ice raising the question of tax base wrt school funding and spending. Someone who wasn't committed to the idea that we're one district and that helping you helps me might be inclined to point out that the majority of the tax base in the District comes from Iowa City. I don't think that should determine where money is spent, but I think its a door you might not want to open, as someone brought it up earlier.
These discussions about how much money each geographic area gets don't mean much if the bond vote fails. This would be the biggest school bond Iowa's ever had and it's going to cost everyone money. Is there any money left and what are the real priorities of the district?
More of that self righteousness from EDJ and the east side. Tax base justification my ass! If that were the case why would they have let poor little east side become the crumbling ruins it is today. I call total BS.
East side ran a power play starting with grabbing Lincoln from West after Ed Stone started dirty business threatening BS lawsuits against the district. And they have been playing dirty ever since right up to today putting more money into east side projects and getting to them sooner.
They grabbed Lincoln six years ago despite massive protest and now complain about being crowded, dirty. They cried about making everything fair with integration and never integrated their own elementary schools, dirty. Lincoln was 90+% white and they grabbed it. Alexander is under 40% white and they are pushed away, double dirty.
Considering air conditioning - Looking at the FMP it looks like Coralville Central (22%), Lincoln (28%), Longfellow (9%), Lucas (24%), Mann (10%), SEJH (28%), City (52%) and West (43%) are the only schools that are not completely air conditioned. If the FMP is completed as scheduled will all of these be fully air conditioned in classrooms? Since the AC portion is lumped in with a bunch of other things I would be curious to know how much it would cost just to get all schools 100% air conditioned - not including the other upgrades. I know electrical services may need to be upsized and there are many other things to consider like ducting in older building but I would think it would be a relatively small number when compared to the $344M 10 year FMP.
Anon @ 10:20: My guess is that the cost of air conditioning could have been paid for with the money that was spent on building the unnecessary Hoover II building.
EDJ - I think the one of the reasons some are taking offense to your comments is the tone that you use when speaking to others. I do realize that you are most likely more intelligent than most on here and usually have most if not all of the answers. Sometimes it takes some of us peons longer to understand and adapt to your superior thinking. Also - spot on about how the previous commenter should tread lightly discussing the tax base school funding and how money is spent - I agree and that should not be discussed.
If we are talking about Iowa City v Coralville v North Liberty it is worth noting that not all of Iowa City is City High. Personally I think EDJ is going to dig himself into a hole with this one especially once the discussion turns to state and federal funding. But let's hear him out, I'm curious to hear what specifics underlie his conclusion and I'm wondering how oversimplified it may or may not be.
Chris - question for you...So from what I have heard and the way I understand this is if the GO Bond passes they can still choose to not do a complete project that is part of the bond. For example they could specify that they will spend 20.2M to build Grant in the bond but then they can choose to not build it completely if they like, but then can not use that money for anything else. Once a project is approved per the bond it doesn't go towards the bond (pay interest on) until they actually spend it. It would be like getting a line of credit to spend $191M but then potentially only using a portion of it if desired - pick and choose which projects to do. If this is correct I can see this as being problematic as many would be voting yes or no on a massive bond expecting that certain projects will be completed. Can you comment on the whether this is accurate? It seems like there is still a lot of discussion, education and detail delineation for projects that needs to take place before the community will buy into passing a bond of this magnitude. Thanks!
OH MY GOD FIRST ANON, WOULD YOU STOP GOING AT THIS LIKE IT'S 1990 AND THERE'S SOME EAST-WEST-NOBODY-ELSE-EXISTS RIVALRY CONSPIRACY. You sound perfectly mental. Stop it.
If if turns out that a job doesn't need to be done in the end, that's fine, although I do have a question about whether it's possible under the terms of the bond issue to pay off early or whether we're simply stuck with the interest payment. (I can't remember what happens with municipal/district bonds and callability, all a long time ago for me.) Anon above, I don't think "people voted for the bond because of this project, therefore you can't kill the project" is a reasonable thing: when you vote for a bond, you're voting for the whole thing, not just the bit you're interested in.
Anonymous (9:29 AM): The administration told us at our last work session that their understanding is that, if the voters approve the bond, what they are doing is authorizing the borrowing for the projects that are described on the ballot (at whatever level of specificity the ballot language uses). The district wouldn't actually issue the bonds (i.e., borrow the money) right away, since there are rules about how soon before the projects occur that we can borrow the money; the actual borrowing would occur later and probably in several stages.
According to the administration, the district couldn't borrow the money and then spend it on projects other than those listed in the ballot. However, the district is not committed to borrowing the money at all; it's just authorized to. So it could drop projects from the plan and then simply not borrow the money that they would have spent on those projects. They could also change the schedule on which the projects were to occur.
Again, technically, these are all legal questions, and I haven't fully researched them myself. My instincts tell me that the district's analysis is probably accurate, but I don't want to hold my opinion out as authoritative. I did ask the administration to write up their analysis to show the legal authorities underlying it, so I hope that will also be helpful in thinking about these questions.
Thanks for being upfront about this Chris.
ICCSD's dropping projects from the plan would be rotten and is a good reason to vote NO on the bond vote.
I am wondering why on the ICCSD website under the updated district maps they show Home School Lookup for 2016-2017, 2017-2018, and then it jumps to 2019-2020. The 2018-2019 Lookup is missing which is the year that many transitions may be occurring. Is this a mistake or is this information intentionally not shown?
http://www.iowacityschools.org/pages/ICCSD/District_Overview/Maps
Anonymous (9:54 AM) -- As I understand it, that is because there are no attendance zone changes taking place in 2018-19. So the information for 2018-19 is the same as that for 2017-18.
Chris, thank you for the candid acknowledgment in your post of 11:31. In the bond vote we won't be voting on spending $x million on Project 1, $z million on Project 2, etc. Instead we will be voting on spending $190 million. The exact projects and amounts spent on each will be determined by the administration and board.
It's like the Revenue Purpose Statement where we were assured that a "yes" vote would benefit the entire district but then, after the votes were counted, the decision to close Hoover I was promptly announced.
If anyone thinks that all schools will benefit from the bond (or even remain open if it passes) they need to take a fresh look. Lincoln or Hills will be the first to go and others will follow.
If you want the bond to pass cut the proposal down to the $40 million or so that you need to provide needed capacity. And stop spending money like it was going out of style. Raises for the superintendant of 3 times the rate of inflation? That's just nuts.
Anon 11:02 I agree and it is obvious what is going on here. Promise everything to everyone to get the bond to pass and then pick and choose projects that fit their plan. This means close Lincoln, close Hills, close Mann. There is absolutely no way the bond passes if they make their intentions know to close schools - that would not be popular. They have already either built up capacity (or are in the process of doing so) on the East side to absorb students for these closures - funny how those projects weren't dependent on the bond even though there were greater needs in other areas of the district. I am undecided whether I agree or disagree with closing these schools as they are small, inefficient and will require a lot of money to bring them up to modern day needs and standards - there are other things to consider besides the financial aspects of this situation. The other thing I find amusing is there is no stated plan for if the bond fails beside everything comes to a halt and we move in temporaries (from what I have heard Lynch say). This seems like short sighted planning. I guess it is all or nothing for this board and administration.
I disagree with closing older schools just because they are small. This administration will probably threaten to close older schools if voters don't vote for a bond and then turn around and close schools if voters vote for a bond. At least 500 seats were cut from some of the older schools after the administration got people excited about the facilities master plan. If the FMP was all about the kids, the greatest needs would be addressed first. I don't support building schools in cornfields at the expense of older schools that should have had their maintenance needs taken care of and been added on to long ago. Building schools in cornfields on the outskirts of the district in places where there is no development yet benefits developers but it doesn't help the existing families and kids in the district. I do not understand why the board president wants to give the superintendent a raise.
I do not understand why we are even keeping Murley employed let alone considering giving him a raise. The guy is surrounded by controversy and scandal wherever he goes. For those who don't know just Google his name, I don't think that is coincidence. They ran him out of Wisconsin. Has he earned his doctorate yet that he has apparently been working on for years? Massive cuts to busing and other programs but we find money for a huge raise? Questionable consulting work on the side and mismanagement of the special ed program? He has been looking for another job ever since he started doing secret interviews that we find out about after the fact. Sounds to me like Murley is lucky to have a job. He wouldn't last many other places. Murley is all about looking out for himself first. We need new leadership and should cut our losses while we can, not reward the man driving us into the ground.
This school board really needs west and north side representation. Too many years the east side members and their agenda have been calling the shots.
Kirschling, Lynch, and Liebig's seats are up for reelection September of 2017.
Lynch lives in Wickham attendance area in Coralville. Previous board had 3 that lived on the "west side."
True.
1. McGinness, City High Grad
2. Doreau, strongly opposed a lot of the east side agenda
3. Lynch, probably should be moving east by now
From WAOW ABC Channel 9 April 16, 2010....
"Over the last year, Murley faced heavy criticism from the Wausau teachers union. In December, they asked the Wausau School Board to terminate him, citing "a lack of leadership." The board chose not to terminate Murley.
On April 28, 2010 it was announced that Murley had been hired as Superintendent of the ICCSD starting July, 2010.
In 2012 Murley was passed over for a position as Superintendent at a district in OK.
There is an announcement in today's paper that an Iowa City manufacturer is laying off 477 people. Housing is already expensive. Is now really the right time to go after a huge bond?
Anonymous Anonymous said...
More of that self righteousness from EDJ and the east side. Tax base justification my ass! If that were the case why would they have let poor little east side become the crumbling ruins it is today. I call total BS.
October 19, 2016 at 7:37 AM
--I only even mentioned the tax base because you or another "anonymous" mentioned "a growing tax base" in the north as part of what caused Liberty to be built. To be clear, I think our disagreement there is over the idea of what we're pointing to as "cause." There was a need and a desire for it. The FMP was created in part to answer that need and in part to answer other needs.
I'm not sure what aspect of this you're calling BS on? Yes, there is a growing tax base in the north. I agree with that. But it's a fact that a slight majority of the tax base for the whole district (something like 63-68% I think) is in Iowa City. The reason that this hasn't kept the East Side schools from needing repair is because we don't deliver renovations to schools based on how much tax revenue their municipality delivers. I think that's a good thing. I don't think that the fact that Iowa City contributes more to the Tax base should have anything to do with where the district spends money. Period. What I am saying though is that you're on kind of shaky ground bringing it up when you're lobbying to have the district spend more money elsewhere. It doesn't help your case. If the tax base that a municipality contributed was a relevant factor, then that would work against what you're advocating, not in favor of it.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
EDJ - I think the one of the reasons some are taking offense to your comments is the tone that you use when speaking to others. I do realize that you are most likely more intelligent than most on here and usually have most if not all of the answers. Sometimes it takes some of us peons longer to understand and adapt to your superior thinking. Also - spot on about how the previous commenter should tread lightly discussing the tax base school funding and how money is spent - I agree and that should not be discussed.
October 19, 2016 at 11:30 AM
Anon-- I'm definitely not smarter than anyone else here & am not claiming to be. Nobody here is a "peon" and I MOST DEFINITELY do not have all the answers. I get a little frustrated with this East/West rivalry stuff, especially when it devolves into conspiracy theory stuff and unsupported arguments. I don't mean to be dismissive, but I really don't get it when it gets this vituperative.
Anonymous said...
If we are talking about Iowa City v Coralville v North Liberty it is worth noting that not all of Iowa City is City High. Personally I think EDJ is going to dig himself into a hole with this one especially once the discussion turns to state and federal funding. But let's hear him out, I'm curious to hear what specifics underlie his conclusion and I'm wondering how oversimplified it may or may not be.
Care to expand on what conclusion you mean? I'd like to answer this, but its hard without knowing what you mean. Thanks.
Anonymous said...
Considering air conditioning - Looking at the FMP it looks like Coralville Central (22%), Lincoln (28%), Longfellow (9%), Lucas (24%), Mann (10%), SEJH (28%), City (52%) and West (43%) are the only schools that are not completely air conditioned. If the FMP is completed as scheduled will all of these be fully air conditioned in classrooms? Since the AC portion is lumped in with a bunch of other things I would be curious to know how much it would cost just to get all schools 100% air conditioned - not including the other upgrades. I know electrical services may need to be upsized and there are many other things to consider like ducting in older building but I would think it would be a relatively small number when compared to the $344M 10 year FMP.
October 19, 2016 at 10:20 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Anon @ 10:20: My guess is that the cost of air conditioning could have been paid for with the money that was spent on building the unnecessary Hoover II building.
October 19, 2016 at 10:51 AM
Anons-- Yes, when the FMP is completed all of the classrooms in the district will have not only AC but heat (which is a problem in some buildings as well). Its going to be geothermal, which is more expensive to put in, but which is much more cost efficient over time and which will save the district money in the long run.
The problem with just doing the AC is that going in and doing just the air conditioning, and then going back in and doing the other renovations and additions (which do need to be done) would be much, much more expensive. It would also be more disruptive because each school would have two long periods where construction projects were going on, & it would also extend an already-long timeline by years. Its the same principle as having an auto shop do more than one (needed) repair in the same area of a car: you don't have to pay twice for some of the same labor
How many days a year is no AC a problem? I think we can wait for new leadership, we sure need it. And you're not it EDJ.
I'm not volunteering to be leadership, anonymous, just a concerned citizen with time to comment on a blog.
Even on days when it's not hot enough to dismiss school, it can get hot enough to make it hard for kids to concentrate. And, early dismissal are a huge inconvenience for working parents, not all of whom have the flexibility to leave work. Also, a lack of AC in all buildings limits what buildings we can and can't use for summer activities. It's a big enough problem that it needs to be solved. If it weren't a consideration, why would the newer schools have included it? Anyway, I only brought it up because another anon was arguing in favor of doing just AC first. Maybe you and that anon can argue it out.
I'm not volunteering to be leadership, anonymous, just a concerned citizen with time to comment on a blog.
Even on days when it's not hot enough to dismiss school, it can get hot enough to make it hard for kids to concentrate. And, early dismissal are a huge inconvenience for working parents, not all of whom have the flexibility to leave work. Also, a lack of AC in all buildings limits what buildings we can and can't use for summer activities. It's a big enough problem that it needs to be solved. If it weren't a consideration, why would the newer schools have included it? Anyway, I only brought it up because another anon was arguing in favor of doing just AC first. Maybe you and that anon can argue it out.
EDJ, with all that in mind the district needs new leadership. And if it has to come before AC that's fine with me. I doubt there will be a bond passing until Lynch, Murley, and Kirschling are in the rear view.
All of the schools now will only have air conditioning if still open in the years after bond passes. It shouldn't surprise anyone if some schools are shut down if a bond passes. After all, voters were promised all schools would be renovated before the last RPS vote and then the district turned around and said Hoover would be shut down. A fool and his money are soon parted.
Already, I am hearing that some voters wouldn't mind seeing some of the older schools shut down so long as they get what they want and developers get houses built in new areas.
Post a Comment