U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Charlotte
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-30-2014, 08:47 AM
 
387 posts, read 839,741 times
Reputation: 218

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyKid View Post
I don't disagree with the analysis part, but I think it's safe to say in the case of transportation it won't cost them more... You're right, though - they should be called out on this. But it's not the smoking gun I am hoping for... In fact, I keep hoping that someone will come up with one!
I for one would like to see them do the analysis first before saying it won't cost them more. I understand that certain parts of the transportation are paid for by the state (fuel, maintenance and repairs, etc) but things like new busses, fueling trucks, etc are paid for by the county. I know no one likes capping but I would like to see the comparison of the costs for the 2. If capping will require new busses and fueling trucks per their presentation AND a large number of students are going to be transported more than twice the distance they are now for redistricting, then until they do the analysis of the new bus routes for redistricting, how can they be sure they won't need additional busses for that?

 
Old 01-30-2014, 08:49 AM
 
631 posts, read 736,736 times
Reputation: 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by First and Ten View Post
Just curious….for the people that seem to favor Redistricting….simple question…..why?

The people that oppose it (me included) have been very vocal and have brought viable options to the table (i.e.: Multitrack, Mobile Classrooms, etc). I am curious to hear from the proponents of Redistricting, why do you seem to tout this as the best option. My issue with it is over the past 10-15 yrs, it has been done numerous times in the past, all with seems the same result….Redistricting is supposed to be a "long term" solution, yet due to the amount of times it has been done, it has proven to be short term. My opinion only, but there are better short term solutions that are less disruptive to children than Redistricting. Even the proponents of redistricting, most of them. Seem to agree that a new cluster or clusters will have to be erected in the near future. so if we are going to go forward with new structures, why would we even entertain the thought of redistricting, when we know we will only have to do it again
Good question. As I said before, I'm not pro-redistricting. I'm anti overcrowding. We need to find the best solution that resolves that. I listed my 4 choices before as New Schools, Redistrict, Choice and Multi Track. Here's my assessment:

New Schools
This would be the best option. If we had a blank check and a massive construction crew we should open up several new schools in growing areas this August. Unfortunately, that's not the case and we won't have those for a minimum of 3 years, probably 4-5. We have a different BOE and BOCC than before that are creating financial rifts in the county.

Choice
I like choice/magnet programs and think this is a great way for kids to prepare for their future, especially if they have an idea of what they'd like to pursue after school. There was a fantastic vocational school where I grew up shared by several districts. We could expand CATA, add other programs, move the IB, etc. However, I do not think this will alleviate the overcrowding in the critical clusters. I'm sure it will get a handful of kids from each school, but not a significant amount to impact the crowds. We read on here and FB how many people are fighting to stay in their schools. Why would they then up and leave for a magnet thats far away? Many probably want other kids to leave and take those spots but not their kids. This won't fix the numbers issue.

Multi-track
I'm an advocate for this. Personally I'd love to take vacations during the off season to save money, have more flexibility with my kids and keep them from going stir crazy in the last weeks of summer break. It will cost more to staff (more year round support staff). Unfortunately, it will also split up friends and neighbors. If kids are not on the same track they will only be in the same school 1/2 of the time and rarely off at the same time. Even when they are in school together they would always be separated in their track groups. I don't think this will have the full support of everyone in the clusters since it changes the paradigm of how their entire year is planned.

Redistrict
I agree that they do this way too often. Many in the past have been the result of new schools, so those are acceptable ones. Others around the Porter Ridge and Sun Valley areas were the result of over crowding and were short term band-aids. Those were trying to minimize as few people as possible without impacting the whole district and because of the changing populations they had to go back/forth with their year to year decisions. Therefore, I see we need a 4-5 year solution until we do have those new schools built. By doing a large long-term focused change like this, it prevents the year to year changes needed and does provide stability for that 4-5 year timeframe. Then we have new schools and hopefully don't have to do this again for another 5+ years after (If that's the case I sure hope its for new schools planned and built in advance of the growth; not a reaction like this one is).

Just my 2 cents. Nit-pick away. However that, to me, is the most viable way to solve the overcrowding issue right now.
 
Old 01-30-2014, 08:58 AM
 
527 posts, read 636,838 times
Reputation: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyKid View Post
I know ya'all are looking for the smoking gun and everything, but the funding comes from the state for the transportation - they already said that... This is the case as long as they meet "efficiency guidelines". So, yes - it may cost the state more to do this, however it won't cost the county or UCPS more.

So is anyone saying our state taxes will be going up as a direct result of this? If not, then I fail to see how UCPS isn't being forthcoming here.

I think people are reaching more and more instead of coming up with cold hard facts. Is anyone working on a real smoking gun or is the plan to over emphasize nitpicky little things that don't really amount to much?
I'm not following... UCPS said there was no additional cost to tax payers for redistricting. This is a flat out lie. It doesn't matter who distributes the money (federal, state, county), it's all tax payer money.

Don't worry, there is plenty of data being gathered.
 
Old 01-30-2014, 09:26 AM
 
44,481 posts, read 17,762,937 times
Reputation: 18710
Quote:
Originally Posted by First and Ten View Post
Just curious….for the people that seem to favor Redistricting….simple question…..why?

The people that oppose it (me included) have been very vocal and have brought viable options to the table (i.e.: Multitrack, Mobile Classrooms, etc). ...
These are not viable options without a concrete plan that will raise the revenue to pay for them. The entire point of redistricting, is to handle growth with the least possible hit to the local taxpayers. Doing nothing isn't an option and this allows the BOE to address the issue now without going to the BOCC for large amounts of additional funding.

Funding for county projects is the responsibility of the BOCC. If they are not on board with any alternative, then it isn't a viable plan. I can't speak for the individuals on the BOCC, but I'd imagine that it's a really hard sell to convince them they need to raise taxes when there are schools below capacity and the state is willing to bus students there to fill seats at no cost to the county.

This is the reality of keeping property taxes low.
 
Old 01-30-2014, 09:26 AM
 
31 posts, read 40,344 times
Reputation: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by waxhawmom75 View Post
Statement posted on UCPS website regarding the "no additional cost to tax payers":

During the Board of Education Work Session presentation it was stated that redistricting would not have a monetary cost, what about the cost for the bus driving the students farther?
Funding for transportation is based upon the efficiency of the system. Each year the school system submits a map of school system attendance lines. The goal is to utilize full capacity while maintaining the fewest runs based upon the submitted map, with the fewest miles and driver hours possible. If the Board of Education were to enact new attendance lines prior to the beginning of a school year, bus routes would be recalibrated to ensure maximum capacity. After reviewing the proposed reassignment plan, the UCPS Transportation Department believes that the resulting new maps and bus routes will fall well within the range for efficient operations meaning the state will continue to fund our transportation services with no additional transportation cost to the school system.
First off, I will say the BOE is not helping this discussion by dropping the "No difference in cost" for the redistricting option. There is a cost to EVERYTHING, even if it might be the lowest dollar cost option, there still is a cost.

But when it comes the bus discussion, this seems to be a bit of a red-herring. Funds for transportation come from the state and are not based on any type of miles driven metric. It is based on the number of students, which regardless of which cluster they are located, remains the same. Sure, the miles driven across the county will be different, but is it significant? For some yes, some no, overall probably not. It seems in the statement above, there was some level of analysis done on the impact to routes and they were satisfied that any change would not statistically change their "efficient operations" rating. Thus the use of the term "well within the range". I would like to see the data, but the wording suggests this is probably a non-issue. If it was a potential issue, I would have expected more weaselly wording.

(Before anyone spins any cycles regarding the change in miles driven each potential family could be facing, I get that, there is nothing to debate there. This post is in response to the BOE statement and LEA funding from the state.)

Below is from a presentation done in February 2013 that overviews the details on how the individual Local Education Agencies are funded. The link is somewhere 40-60 pages ago....

This is from the page related to Transportation funding -

Transportation
• Purpose: Provides funds for transportation to and from school
– Bus drivers and other personnel
– Fuel
– Maintenance
– Contract Transportation
• Formula: Based on pupils transported and “budget rating”

2011-12 Budget - 409,260,271
2012-13 Budget - 423,502,255
% of 12-13 Allotments - 5.0%
February 19, 2013
 
Old 01-30-2014, 09:36 AM
 
631 posts, read 736,736 times
Reputation: 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaxhawMike View Post
I'm not following... UCPS said there was no additional cost to tax payers for redistricting. This is a flat out lie. It doesn't matter who distributes the money (federal, state, county), it's all tax payer money.

Don't worry, there is plenty of data being gathered.
They screwed up on that one. That was a bad choice of words on behalf of the district. It does impact indeed impact state tax dollars, but not the BOE budget. Unfortunately, the BOE's priority is their own budget. The true dollar cost will increase, but it will be a drop in the bucket at the state budget level.

I certainly wouldn't expect the BOE to suddenly be shocked, stop everything, abandon redistricting and demand a full investigation based on it.
 
Old 01-30-2014, 09:38 AM
 
Location: Union County
5,783 posts, read 8,417,724 times
Reputation: 4818
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaxhawMike View Post
I'm not following... UCPS said there was no additional cost to tax payers for redistricting. This is a flat out lie. It doesn't matter who distributes the money (federal, state, county), it's all tax payer money.

Don't worry, there is plenty of data being gathered.
I disagree, it does matter... but that's a debate I guess you'll have with the BOE. I look forward to the presentation on Tuesday. Good luck!
 
Old 01-30-2014, 09:44 AM
 
141 posts, read 171,905 times
Reputation: 63
Mikeykid posted:
They need new schools - everyone on all sides of this argument agrees with that. But if they can't get funding for new schools until they prove to be using all the seats in the county, how do you avoid that one obvious point? It's the elephant in the room. Disprove THAT - show everyone they CAN get funding with 30 trailers in Cuthbertson and I bet you get a new wave of support.

Sorry for the partial quote, i am not that fluent on the little tricks on this website….Mikeykid, the one argument i have is that both MR and Cuth were built while PW and Forest Hills were under capacity….So i ask, why could new schools be built then when other schools had capacity, but not now?
 
Old 01-30-2014, 09:46 AM
 
141 posts, read 171,905 times
Reputation: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty View Post
These are not viable options without a concrete plan that will raise the revenue to pay for them. The entire point of redistricting, is to handle growth with the least possible hit to the local taxpayers. Doing nothing isn't an option and this allows the BOE to address the issue now without going to the BOCC for large amounts of additional funding.

Funding for county projects is the responsibility of the BOCC. If they are not on board with any alternative, then it isn't a viable plan. I can't speak for the individuals on the BOCC, but I'd imagine that it's a really hard sell to convince them they need to raise taxes when there are schools below capacity and the state is willing to bus students there to fill seats at no cost to the county.

This is the reality of keeping property taxes low.
How did they fund MR and Cuthbertson? Were taxes raised to build those 2 clusters?
 
Old 01-30-2014, 09:48 AM
 
141 posts, read 171,905 times
Reputation: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by TooLogical View Post
Good question. As I said before, I'm not pro-redistricting. I'm anti overcrowding. We need to find the best solution that resolves that. I listed my 4 choices before as New Schools, Redistrict, Choice and Multi Track. Here's my assessment:

New Schools
This would be the best option. If we had a blank check and a massive construction crew we should open up several new schools in growing areas this August. Unfortunately, that's not the case and we won't have those for a minimum of 3 years, probably 4-5. We have a different BOE and BOCC than before that are creating financial rifts in the county.

Choice
I like choice/magnet programs and think this is a great way for kids to prepare for their future, especially if they have an idea of what they'd like to pursue after school. There was a fantastic vocational school where I grew up shared by several districts. We could expand CATA, add other programs, move the IB, etc. However, I do not think this will alleviate the overcrowding in the critical clusters. I'm sure it will get a handful of kids from each school, but not a significant amount to impact the crowds. We read on here and FB how many people are fighting to stay in their schools. Why would they then up and leave for a magnet thats far away? Many probably want other kids to leave and take those spots but not their kids. This won't fix the numbers issue.

Multi-track
I'm an advocate for this. Personally I'd love to take vacations during the off season to save money, have more flexibility with my kids and keep them from going stir crazy in the last weeks of summer break. It will cost more to staff (more year round support staff). Unfortunately, it will also split up friends and neighbors. If kids are not on the same track they will only be in the same school 1/2 of the time and rarely off at the same time. Even when they are in school together they would always be separated in their track groups. I don't think this will have the full support of everyone in the clusters since it changes the paradigm of how their entire year is planned.

Redistrict
I agree that they do this way too often. Many in the past have been the result of new schools, so those are acceptable ones. Others around the Porter Ridge and Sun Valley areas were the result of over crowding and were short term band-aids. Those were trying to minimize as few people as possible without impacting the whole district and because of the changing populations they had to go back/forth with their year to year decisions. Therefore, I see we need a 4-5 year solution until we do have those new schools built. By doing a large long-term focused change like this, it prevents the year to year changes needed and does provide stability for that 4-5 year timeframe. Then we have new schools and hopefully don't have to do this again for another 5+ years after (If that's the case I sure hope its for new schools planned and built in advance of the growth; not a reaction like this one is).

Just my 2 cents. Nit-pick away. However that, to me, is the most viable way to solve the overcrowding issue right now.
I agree that its a no brainer that Redistrict is probably the quickest and easiest method to alleviate over crowding….BUT is quickest and easiest always the BEST?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Charlotte
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:32 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top