|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 7, 2008 15:16:04 GMT -6
Can someone tell me if there is any truth to something I heard......? Is it true that the school board received certain monies to finance the new school that are dependant on the doors being open for attendance for the 2009-2010 school year? The gym, auditorium, pool etc could remain undone, but the doors being open for attendance would be required to receive certain financing? Is there truth to that? I have not heard anything about this. From whom would these 'monies' come? |
|
|
|
Post by proschool on Feb 7, 2008 15:28:01 GMT -6
Can someone tell me if there is any truth to something I heard......? Is it true that the school board received certain monies to finance the new school that are dependant on the doors being open for attendance for the 2009-2010 school year? The gym, auditorium, pool etc could remain undone, but the doors being open for attendance would be required to receive certain financing? Is there truth to that? I have not heard anything about this. From whom would these 'monies' come? Those monies are the $900,0000 that are set aside for portables that we won't need if the builind opens in 2009. |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Feb 7, 2008 15:28:30 GMT -6
In looking at the land report, the cost of construction is $126.3M at MWG and $123.4M at BB, both 2009 openings. I don't see additional hurry up costs for BB, just land costs.
My best guess for the addtional $3M at MWG is arch/eng fees, mitigation of wetlands?
I think the original $10M hurry up costs was a quote from MM back in September.
|
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Feb 7, 2008 15:35:00 GMT -6
That is correct 4.5 million was the recent quote. I believe it was mentioned to be 10M to get the BB Metea built by 2009. Out of curiosity, does anyone know specifically why there is a 5.5 million dollar difference on the 'rush job' ? Who did the 10M number come from & when was it stated? I'm not going to defend it, but if it was a while ago, it's possible that it was a worst-case estimate. The most recent numbers came out in the recommendation, so those are most likely the best estimates. |
|
|
|
Post by WeBe204 on Feb 7, 2008 15:51:07 GMT -6
Out of curiosity, does anyone know specifically why there is a 5.5 million dollar difference on the 'rush job' ? Who did the 10M number come from & when was it stated? I'm not going to defend it, but if it was a while ago, it's possible that it was a worst-case estimate. The most recent numbers came out in the recommendation, so those are most likely the best estimates. It was just an estimate that was being tossed around over the summer based on commments MM made about how much the trial delay was costing the project and why the quick take was needed. I completely agree that it was out dated and not updated for this current round of land estimates. I used "I believe" since I do not have the exact data handy. |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Feb 7, 2008 15:54:23 GMT -6
In the DH back in 10/07 in an article about MVHS
"Officals have estimated that the project will cost an additional $8M more if construction doesn't start until March."
It's an interesting quote because, does it mean that includes addt'l hurry up costs, or is that how much more the school is costing us at any site by starting in spring. In which case the $8M more that BB cost above MWG is wiped out?
Also another quote I found from 03 regarding Oswego HS...(sorry no source)
"Doug Gallois, district construction director said the board should shoot for a bid opening of first quarter 2008 in order for the school to open in the fall of 2011."
Wow are they pokey in Oswego!
They also state their HS will cost $35K per student, same bid openings. (3000 X 35K = 105M)
Wow do they build cheap schools in Oswego!
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Feb 7, 2008 15:59:06 GMT -6
In the DH back in 10/07 in an article about MVHS "Officals have estimated that the project will cost an additional $8M more if construction doesn't start until March." It's an interesting quote because, does it mean that includes addt'l hurry up costs, or is that how much more the school is costing us at any site by starting in spring. In which case the $8M more that BB cost above MWG is wiped out? Also another quote I found from 03 regarding Oswego HS...(sorry no source) "Doug Gallois, district construction director said the board should shoot for a bid opening of first quarter 2008 in order for the school to open in the fall of 2011." Wow are they pokey in Oswego! They also state their HS will cost $35K per student, same bid openings. (3000 X 35K = 105M) Wow do they build cheap schools in Oswego! Plainfield East was built for $52M total cost ! Est opening Fall 2008 www.learningcommunity202.org/pehs/ |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 7, 2008 16:02:02 GMT -6
Do they really need it that soon? (plainfield) ha ha ha
|
|
|
|
Post by rew on Feb 7, 2008 16:09:37 GMT -6
Another intersting thought... we have lost two construction seasons by not having the land when the ref passed, so that's an estimated $16M in added cost of delay and now we are incurring an additonal 4.5M in hurry up costs and $5M in legal fees.
Additional cost = $25.5M . It would have been cheaper to pay BB $600K/acre in Spring of 06.
|
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Feb 7, 2008 16:46:02 GMT -6
$10M came from letter to BB attorneys explaining why we couldn't buy the property. Numbers pulled from the air to suit an arguement at the time, probably. But of course that's not happening now to suit a new argument. ipsd204.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=newhighschool&action=display&thread=1197078028Exhibit D: "Acceleration costs to enable the high school to open in 2009 will approach $10,000,000. What was financially feasible in June of this year is no longer feasible." |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Feb 7, 2008 17:37:56 GMT -6
Thanks d204mom. So the $8M is in addition to the "hurry up costs". But. as you say, it's all probably made up numbers.
When you're spending $125M, what's the problem if you guesstimate $10M here, $8M there, especially when it's other people's money.
|
|
|
|
Post by rew on Feb 7, 2008 18:53:26 GMT -6
Dr Who, $52M, how can that be? It is for 2500 students right? They began construction Spring 06. Are you sure?.
Oswego is budgeting $87.5M for their 2500 student HS for 2011.
D203 has budgeted $87M for Central...no land costs.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Feb 7, 2008 21:43:51 GMT -6
Dr Who, $52M, how can that be? It is for 2500 students right? They began construction Spring 06. Are you sure?. Oswego is budgeting $87.5M for their 2500 student HS for 2011. D203 has budgeted $87M for Central...no land costs. Article: $52 Million High School To Rise in Plainfield Publication: Midwest Construction Delivery: Immediate Online Access Publication Date: 01-AUG-07 Format: XML document -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Article AbstractGround has broken for the $52 million Plainfield East High School in southwest suburban Plainfield, Ill. Henry Bros. Co. Breaks Ground on Fourth High School for Plainfield School District Ground has broken for the new, $52 million Plainfield East High School in Plainfield. Henry Bros. Co. will be serving as general contractor for this two-year project. Architects are Naperville, Ill.-based Healy Bender & Associates, Inc. The new 100 acre Plainfield East High School will be located on 119th Street near Plainfield-Naperville Road. The High School itself will be approximately 270,000 square feet and include a new stadium, competition ball fields and tennis courts. Plainfield Community Consolidated School District 202 is planning to open nine new schools in the next five years. Plainfield East High School is the largest project in Henry Bros. Co. history as a general contractor. The construction project team consists of Bob Nielsen, Senior Project Manager, Kevin Dardugno, Project Manager, Greg Etters, Superintendent, and Barb Mitchell, Project Coordinator. Construction of the New High School is scheduled for completion in summer of 2008. |
|
|
|
Post by momof156graders on Feb 7, 2008 23:25:33 GMT -6
I have not heard anything about this. From whom would these 'monies' come? Those monies are the $900,0000 that are set aside for portables that we won't need if the builind opens in 2009. So if the doors are not open, the $900,000 is considered "funding"? If doors not open, and the portables are in use, then is that another reason we could see an excess of the costs? |
|
