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.
Gonna be a wild ride if he pushes lots of students out of Porter Ridge and SunValley to Monroe. Forecast out 10 years and the population booms will continue happening on the county borders, thus forcing the bodies towards the center of the county. Hold on tight!
Quite a few board members pushed for the new Sun Valley. They even came up with the joint campus for SV and the Technology Center. Most of the current board was against it. Maybe they will just redistrict their kids out of SV and not have to worry about it (i.e. Wesley Oaks).
I thought the BOCC voted down the CCEP? And the agreed on a smaller bond.
I heard that acronym is dead now. The only point I was making was that there seemed to be quite a few board members who were in favor of a new SV, but the County and the current BOE leadership were dead set against it.
I thought the BOCC voted down the CCEP? And the agreed on a smaller bond.
You are correct in that the current BOE voted down the bonds request attached to the CCEP, (and approved a smaller bond issue. Theory being you eat an elephant small bites at a time.) but regardless of name, the CCEP in some variation or acronym must exist. A plan not to plan will fail. Remember the last crop of Commissioners admonished the BOE because they didn't think there was enough long range planning. Staff and BOE have always produced a 5 year plan, construction, maintenance, and financial. It was made clear during the BOE/BOCC trial that a 5 year plan was in effect. It was called the CFS and then CFP once adopted. There has always been a continuing plan, and a constantly changing plan. Nothing different going on with this BOE or Staff.
You are correct in that the current BOE voted down the bonds request attached to the CCEP, (and approved a smaller bond issue. Theory being you eat an elephant small bites at a time.)
I believe it was a take it or leave it from the county. Some members of the county just want kids moved to where there are open seats.
There are only four returning members on the current BOE. How could they have voted it down? The bond was voted on before they were elected.
Rancher has it right there. The previous school board voted for the smaller bond, but listening to snippets of meetings it seems like it was take a smaller bond or get nada. It looked like Ms. Boyd and Ms. Merrell worked out the details with the county and then brought it to the larger board.
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.
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.
