By NANCY KIMBALL

The Daily Inter Lake

Budgets and taxes dominated questions from about 150 Kalispell business people after hearing the school district's plan for a second high school and an expanded junior high Tuesday.

District 5 Superintendent Darlene Schottle laid out the school board's request for $39.8 million for a second high school and renovations at Flathead High, and another $10.9 million to expand and renovate Kalispell Junior High.

A public vote on the bonds is being piggybacked with the Nov. 2 general election. If approved, the schools would open in fall 2007.

"We've been working on this for at least five years," Schottle told the crowd gathered for the Kalispell Chamber of Commerce luncheon meeting. "Some tell me they have been working on it in some form for more like 30 years."

Her backup team included school board chairman Don Murray and Time To Build political action committee chairwoman Mary Lerner, who is heading up the effort to get out the "yes" vote.

On one level, all three were preaching to the choir, as the Chamber already has endorsed the projects.

But it was no slam-dunk. Some in the audience questioned the school's ability to levy enough in taxes to operate the schools after construction, some held out the unknown of 2005 legislative action regarding school funding, and still others wondered about curriculum offerings in two separate high schools.

The long-range facilities plan, Schottle explained, began with a desire to best serve all 7,500 current Flathead Valley students who eventually will study at Flathead High.

The school wants excellent academics and activities, relief from overcrowding, a better connection among students, schools that will serve diverse student needs and a way to include ninth-graders in a high school building.

Conservative population estimates put growth at 1 percent in coming years. Elementary building capacities, both in Kalispell and the rural schools, almost have been reached.

The school wants to limit the transitions students make to two: one into the junior high/middle school and one into high school. A bigger junior high would allow more academic and activity offerings, which encourage success in high school, planners say.

The junior high plan would add a bank of classrooms, probably for sixth-graders, to the rear of the building and a gym, commons and cafeteria - the first in years - at the front.

About $5 million would be spent to update Flathead High School. The new high school initially would hold 1,200 students, under current plans, but its gym, auditorium, cafeteria and common areas would accommodate growth to about 1,500.

Both high schools would have a "comprehensive" curriculum, Schottle said, meaning that a student could spend all four years at the same school and receive all the core requirements and electives for a full high school diploma. Curriculum would be split somewhat and eventually help form each school's personality.

She emphasized the difference between the bond which the school is requesting now - she equated it to a mortgage - and a tax levy request that will be needed for money to operate and maintain the schools after opening in 2007.

The first questioner asked whether the district had determined a budget for the first year after the 2007 school opening.

Board chairman Murray explained that budgets cannot be set until the school knows per-student and other funding coming from the state each year. But, Schottle added, the high school district still is $800,000 shy of its mandated budget cap, so it has room to grow.

The elementary budget, on the other hand, has been capped for several years and would require a new levy in order to run the junior high expansion.

Although firm figures for the levy are not available, enrollment growth and rising property values, she said, should ease the impact on individual taxpayers.

Another listener wanted to know the difference between current and projected per-student costs in two separate schools.

That figure will change very little, Schottle said, as teachers will be assigned the same student ratio as now, about 25 to one. It will, however, mean fewer small classes in core curriculum. Costs will rise, though, from more secretaries, custodians and other support staff for a second high school.

The level of athletic competition concerned one man. Both schools will be rated Class AA.

The elephant in the room reared its head with one question:

"Do we know what will happen if state funding does not change?" in response to a pending appeal to a court ruling that the legislature does not adequately fund public education.

Schottle said the school hopes to provide additional staff and programming through the proposal, but is not counting on an increase in order to run the new and expanded schools.

Curriculum impact from a move to two high schools was questioned.

The superintendent said principals will be given specific student and teacher numbers a year in advance, from which they must build a schedule of curriculum offerings for a full four-year education. Some classes - she cited German 4 as an example - may be offered only in alternating years because of lower student enrollment.

A final question asked Schottle to address teacher and community concerns in forming a middle school philosophy.

She cited the successful middle school model followed at Linderman School a few years ago, a culture which "they are very excited about going back to there," she said. The other component of that, she said, is purely the physical component of housing separate grades in a common building.

Junior High and Linderman staff will be discussing potential arrangements in the next two weeks, she said.

Reporter Nancy Kimball can be reached at 758-4483 or by e-mail at nkimball@dailyinterlake.com