<body><div><img src="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?type=thumbnail_580x000&amp;url=1A7Pkn_1Gy0Ictd00" alt="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?url=1A7Pkn_1Gy0Ictd00" width="504" height="289" >The Aurora School Board reviewed feedback Monday after two public meetings focused on a proposed school bond issue and also discussed plans to continue sharing information and seeking public input.A majority of Monday’s monthly school board meeting was devoted to the proposed facilities project, with Supt. Jody Phillips and board members sharing specific feedback they have heard, as well as points of information they feel need more public attention. More than 200 people combined attended information sessions Oct. 26 and Nov. 4, with an additional 25 reportedly logged in to the second presentation via Zoom.“I just want to get your thoughts, get your feelings as to where we’re at and then talk about where we go,” Phillips began. “I do think we have good momentum right now, and I don’t mean that by yes or no. The feedback is that the last two presentations provided a lot of information that they didn’t have. A common response was that it was great information, so I do think we have momentum in that people’s awareness is higher and the level of information is more, though obviously still more needs to be given. A lot of people know this is going on, which is what we want.”The next step in an organized effort to share information about the proposed bond issue will be to post background information about the 3-1/2 year process leading to this point, including charts about cost estimates and tax impact, as well as initial drawings of the two options being considered. Phillips said that website is being designed now and will be publicized when it is posted.He then suggested three dates for community open houses, at which time anyone interested could walk through the elementary, middle school and high school facilities to see classrooms and areas not generally seen by the public. Those dates are tentatively set for Nov. 19, Dec. 7 and Dec. 15, with Phillips noting that some events, including an elementary music concert, coincide with the open house dates with the hope that people could take time after the event to tour the facilities.“The response from the community advisory group last year and the response from our staff touring the other buildings, and then the response from people touring after the community presentations has been ‘I didn’t realize it was the way it was,’” Phillips reported. “So the whole goal is to get people into the building so that they can see, and while they’re here point out the areas that are in need.”Board member Chad Carlson asked if it will be possible to offer more specific drawings of the proposed plans, both internal and external, to give district patrons a clearer understanding of what the designs entail.“I know we’re talking about the exterior now, but I still think you have to have a little bit of detail on the inside,” Carlson said. “It doesn’t have to be full blown, but if we’re spending this money people want to know what they’re buying. We need some high-level drawings of interior and exterior. Words just don’t work. You can footnote that these are renderings, but even if it is a conceptual drawing it speaks volumes.”Phillips said he will discuss that request with the architect, BVH, adding that he believes it should be possible to create some type of a more detailed illustration.“We have to be able to show them something, which could be something similar to what was done back in 1975,” he said. “So yes, that is something that we need to have and would obviously be part of the website.”Which of 2 options?Phillips then said that one key piece of feedback will be which of the two proposed options the public prefers. Option F features a new standalone high school just east of 4th Street, while Option G would feature a new high school in basically the same location as the existing facility, which would required a phased construction approach involving more time and money. The estimated cost range of the two options is between $80.8 million and $84.2 million.Carlson noted that one question he has heard repeatedly about Option F involves the gap between the existing middle school and the stand-alone high school.“We haven’t talked about that street in detail as far as clarification if it would be closed or not,” he said. “That might be one of the hurdles that we need to talk about or have a better answer on. I would say there is a strong suggestion because of those questions that they want the two schools married up, so is there a possibility of closing 4th Street and building on top of it or somehow attaching them, or at least having a really green breezeway?”Phillips answered by saying that the reason the architects suggested Option F is that it would be easier and more cost-effective to build a stand-alone high school rather than addressing the project in stages.“Marrying the two buildings, I think, is going to be an issue east of here because all the infrastructure runs that way as well,” Phillips added. “I’ll talk to Cleve (Reeves, a lead architect with BVH) about that and see.”“Another thing I think is worth thinking about,” added board member Brock Wyatt, “is even if we can’t connect them today, we should be thinking about that for 20, 25, 30 years from now. If one of those options is better than the other to eventually connect them, we should consider that.”Some of the other questions raised from initial feedback focused on the need for two-story construction at the high school, versus one-story, as well as the perceived need to build a new bus barn. On that topic, Phillips said the bus barn is not currently part of the bond issue proposal, and in his view could be better addressed outside the proposal.“To me, that’s the answer,” he said. “I’ve also heard that not as much about the bus barn, but about the gym space. The message that I’ve given people in response has been we chose to focus on academic components of the facilities versus everything else.”Carlson said he was pleased in a way to hear that people are questioning various aspects of the proposal.“I was glad to see some criticism of the bond,” he said. “That’s the one thing I’ve been wanting to hear more of. If there’s concern I think we heard more of that from this last survey, which is good. I mean, we can’t refine the design or refine our decision if we don’t have all the input.”“And I am appreciative of respectful criticism,” Phillips added. “I think everything that was given to us was done respectfully and in a very productive, constructive manner.”Plans moving forwardPhillips then reported that work has begun to prepare a document providing answers to some of the most asked questions. He also noted that following the open houses, a survey will be distributed to the public in various forums, including the district website, social media and Aurora News-Register, seeking specific feedback about the bond issue proposal. That survey will remain open until January, he said, closing shortly after the first of the year in order to allow time to share the results with the board Jan. 11.Admin reportsIn other action at Monday’s meeting:* High school principal Doug Kittle reported that a new classroom management program, Securly, will be implemented this week, allowing teachers and staff to limit access to various programs;* High school assistant principal Tracy Jacubowski reported good success with the John Baylor ACT prep course. She noted that the average ACT score for this year’s seniors a year ago was 18.93, while the results from the tests taken by the same group in October rose to 19.78. She said the plan is to begin targeting students who could benefit from the ACT prep program before taking the test in April;* Activities Director Jay Staehr reported that winter practices were set to begin this week, with the second half of middle school winter athletic competitions beginning Tuesday;* Middle school principal Jeremy Wieseler reported that the honors convocation was held Oct. 27, noting that attendance at parent-teacher conferences was down this year;* Elementary assistant principal Nick Lonowski reported that parent-teacher conferences Oct. 22 drew 99 percent participation;* Special education and early childhood director Jessica Block reported that the early childhood program continues to grow, with several new applicants reaching out recently;* Supt. Phillips reported that the district audit was recently completed and that he is anxious for the new AQUEST classifications to be released later this month, which he hopes will offer a more accurate way of tracking student progress in the classroom. He also said strategic planning has begun regarding the district’s high-ability learners program, which will be a K-12 conversation involving parents.The only action item on Monday’s agenda was to approve the tool to be used to evaluate Supt. Phillips performance, with board members to offer feedback to board president Dan Pachta by Dec. 2. The evaluation results will be on the December board agenda.</div></body>

Block Source: Aurora News Register

Misinformation

Clickbait

Old or repetitive news

Explicit content

Location not relevant

The Aurora School Board reviewed feedback Monday after two public meetings focused on a proposed school bond issue and also discussed plans to continue sharing information and seeking public input. A majority of Monday’s monthly school board meeting was devoted to the proposed facilities project, with Supt. Jody Phillips and...

Aurora School Board reviews feedback on proposed bond issue

NewsBreak

The Aurora School Board reviewed feedback Monday after two public meetings focused on a proposed school bond issue and also discussed plans to continue sha

Aurora School Board reviews feedback on proposed bond issue

Comments