More than 100 participants came out Tuesday evening to learn more about a new 20-year master plan for the Jefferson City schools that has been in the works for more than a year.
The meeting was hosted at Lewis and Clark Middle School by the Long Range Facility Planning Committee, a group of about 40 individuals representing key community stakeholder groups.
Although listeners had lots of questions, most appeared to accept the premise the school district will need to build more facilities to handle future increases in enrollment. According to demographic data, the district's enrollment is anticipated to rise from 8,768 students last school year to more than 9,300 a decade from now.
Plans to construct a new $13.8 million elementary school on the city's east end and spend $5.5 million to expand Callaway Hills Elementary School - to meet the district's current needs - did not generate audience questions to indicate those proposals are controversial.
Questions and conversation about what to do about Jefferson City High School were more prevalent.
For several months, members have weighed three main ideas for solving overcrowding issues at the high school.
The task force presented its main recommendation - renovating the existing JCHS campus and building a new senior high on land east of Missouri 179 - but they also explained two alternate concepts they contemplated and rejected, mainly because they were deemed too expensive or unpopular with voters already.
The preferred recommendation calls for spending $40 million to renovate the 609 Union St. campus and $76.4 million to build a new high school.
Lisa May touched a nerve when she asked the planners how they will persuade voters to accept a proposal that is more expensive than the one voted down in April 2013. That spring voters rejected the Board of Education's request to issue $79 million in general obligation bonds to build a new high school to replace the 1964-era building that has served the community for decades.
"This proposal calls for even higher taxes," May said.
Lorelei Schwartz handled the response.
"What it came down to is, we had to look at what is best for kids," Schwartz said. "If (the community) chooses not to support that, we'll have to go back to the drawing board."
Schwartz said the committee came down on the side of two schools because "we heard so many people say, "We want two high schools.' We are trying to accommodate the community."
She noted the committee worked hard to confine their discussions to bricks-and-mortar issues.
"It was extremely difficult for this committee to stay on task," she said. "Of course we wanted to talk about (general obligation) bond issues, academies and community trust."
But, as co-chair, she felt it was important to keep focused on the final goal. "We have to make a plan for 20 years," she said. "It is going to cost money."
She said committee members understood their final proposal might not be the cheapest or the most-affordable option. "But we had to look at what is best for kids," she reiterated.
May responded: "I asked a question I already knew the answer to. The answer is: The community will have to come together."
Others in the room indicated their support for that sentiment.
Although many seemed supportive of the two-school concept, a few warned committee members the April 2013 bond issue wasn't defeated because the public didn't care for the "mega school" concept. They suggested the real stumbling block to its passage was the steady stream of older voters who came to the polls that day opposed to raising more taxes.
Questions about how academies would fit into the committee's plan for two high schools abounded. Some listeners wanted to know if the seven career academies would be split between the two high schools - which would create expensive transportation problems - or if the academies would be duplicated at each site.
Each table was assigned a spokesperson to give voice to "burning" questions or opinions shared by several people.
Pam Murray noted, at her table, people felt strongly that both high schools should be "equal in all respects, except age."
At Greg Gaffke's table, people wanted to know why the district doesn't move forward with plans to accommodate 1,800 students at each high school earlier than 2034.
And at Chris Straub's table, some listeners wanted to know if the district would consider expanding the Jefferson City Academic Center or opening a second pre-school.
Kenny Southwick, a facilitator from the architectural firm ACI Boland, reminded listeners the 20-year plan was created by members of the community. He said the district can't build more facilities without money.
"This isn't the board's plan. This isn't the superintendent's plan. What you have here is the community's plan," he said. "At some point people will have to make a decision: Is it worth it to me?"
Southwick said the committee's plan is to consider citizen's input and take the proposal to the Board of Education in December.
If the board approves the plan, the next most-suitable date for an election is April 2015 - one of the only dates in that year's election calendar when a bond issue can pass with four sevenths of the vote, instead of two-thirds.