District 204 high school over budget

[blankcheck]

Bob- Please, get a grip. Bottom line - You have no answers to any of my questions, which I think are valid questions. Not everyone can move - and yes God willing - we will all see tomorrow. Your comment though does nothing to address the real issue at hand.

[lacy]

BC, I agree with you completely. I'm sure that none of the people who keep claiming the problems with BB are no big deal would enter into such an ageement with their own money.

It's time to go back and look at all the sites the school district considered.

BTW, isn't HC quoted as saying that a jury will decide the BB land price? Why does this point keep getting argued? And like you said, what difference does it make? The point is the cost of the BB land is a BIG unknown. In conjuction with other rising costs, BB looks cost prohibitive.

And I firmly believe that many who support that site do so for selfish reasons. It's not about the good of the district, it's about what they think is best for their kid or their neighborhood.

[bob]

BC, why freak out over info that we will all get when the QT happens. The BB official value will be known and then we can make judgements from there.

The jury may never even get the case so why worry until it gets there.

No reason to go Chicken Little.

And Lacy, you are against the third HS why worry. You want this to fail, all of it.

[warriorpride]

wvhsparent said:

eagledad said:

If it's mininformation, I' like to know the source, because I was under the impression that the church would sell only if the SD bought them new land AND built them a new church.

Again that was on of those little Hooke/Howie interviews where I think Howie's brain was in neutral.

It was addressed in M2's report on why they chose BB, which had a few other glaring problems, which I brought up to him.
I tried to search for the report, but I think the SD cleaned up the website and a lot of those documents are no longer there. What I recall about the AME site was the SD claimed they priced it high, but never disclosed the price.

There were other negatives cited for the Eola site, among them:
- The proximity to heavy duty power lines - I'm not defending this as valid, just restating what was said.
- Other than what's been said about the price being potentially pretty high & the church wanting the SD to build that a new church on another parcel (purchased by the SD), the other big negative stated was the population density of the SD. The population density of 204 is in the southern 1/2 of the 204 boundaries (i.e. BB is located much closer to the "middle" of the population density). In order to draw boundaries to get 1/3 of the kids to go to an HS on Eola, they said that they'd have to go 75th St, or even further south. This would not only present boundary challenges, when you look at where WV's current boundaries fall, but would create inefficient (i.e. longer AND more expensive) bus routes.

disclaimer: these are not my opinions, but rather, what was stated at one of the information meetings

[chicoryowl]

I think Bob is spot on. I think many of you are getting worked up by the BB lawyers throwing out crazy numbers.

Nobody can guarantee what the cost of the land is going to be. But what makes the other parcels such a better option? What were the drawbacks to the other parcels that caused the district to bypass them? And what makes it likely that we'll be able to acquire them in time to break ground next spring? And at a price that is guaranteed to be better than what we'll end up paying with BB? People are wigging out about rising construction prices, but timing plays into that. The price escalated some $14M in the year between the referendums (I think that was the cost). So is there any concern about delays and the resultant cost on the project?

Also, it seems to me that people think that the board only budgeted $257K/acre. That's the offer price. As was confirmed at a meeting, they budgeted more (though they wouldn't come close to disclosing for obvious reasons). I don't think anybody on this board knows what they board has budgeted. And yet, I see a lot of people getting worked up because it could be more than the $257K/acre. I don't think anybody knows what the board has budgeted and what final cost presents a problem.

In addition, why would you assume that the price isn't going to be a lot closer to $257K/acre than $600K acre? The $257K figure is taken from a price, agreed by BB, less than a year earlier. And they are OFFERING a commercial parcel at $400K nine months after the condemnation was filed. If commercial is more expensive than residential, than what is the ASKING price on an adjacent residential parcel? Let alone the assumed sale price.

And finally, the BB lawyers haven't filed any of their appraisals yet. So they can throw out any amount they want at a meeting, for desired effect. Nobody likes uncertaintly, but I don't think it warrants grasping other options when they might not be better.

[d204taxpayer]

chicoryowl said:

I think Bob is spot on. I think many of you are getting worked up by the BB lawyers throwing out crazy numbers.

Nobody can guarantee what the cost of the land is going to be. But what makes the other parcels such a better option? What were the drawbacks to the other parcels that caused the district to bypass them? And what makes it likely that we'll be able to acquire them in time to break ground next spring? And at a price that is guaranteed to be better than what we'll end up paying with BB? People are wigging out about rising construction prices, but timing plays into that. The price escalated some $14M in the year between the referendums (I think that was the cost). So is there any concern about delays and the resultant cost on the project?

Also, it seems to me that people think that the board only budgeted $257K/acre. That's the offer price. As was confirmed at a meeting, they budgeted more (though they wouldn't come close to disclosing for obvious reasons). I don't think anybody on this board knows what they board has budgeted. And yet, I see a lot of people getting worked up because it could be more than the $257K/acre. I don't think anybody knows what the board has budgeted and what final cost presents a problem.

In addition, why would you assume that the price isn't going to be a lot closer to $257K/acre than $600K acre? The $257K figure is taken from a price, agreed by BB, less than a year earlier. And they are OFFERING a commercial parcel at $400K nine months after the condemnation was filed. If commercial is more expensive than residential, than what is the ASKING price on an adjacent residential parcel? Let alone the assumed sale price.

And finally, the BB lawyers haven't filed any of their appraisals yet. So they can throw out any amount they want at a meeting, for desired effect. Nobody likes uncertaintly, but I don't think it warrants grasping other options when they might not be better.

Well, according to this article in today's Herald the district has budgeted $24 million for land. If I did my calculations correctly, that equates to approximately $436,000 an acre.

District 204 high school over budget
Leaders blame cost of building materials

By Sara Hooker
Daily Herald Staff Writer
Posted Thursday, September 14, 2006

The rising cost of building materials is pushing the budget for Indian Prairie’s proposed third high school beyond its limit.

Unit District 204 Superintendent Howard Crouse said the 3,000-student facility — expected to be finished in fall 2009 — is over its $82.5 million budget.

Crouse would not reveal how much the project’s over budget, saying specific numbers are being prepared for the next school board meeting. He blamed the cost of raw materials, which are “are going up practically by the minute.”

Voters in March approved a $124.7 million tax increase for the new school, to be built near 75th Street and Route 59.

That includes $82.5 million for the building, $24 million for land and site work, $10 million for furnishings, $4.5 million in professional fees, and $3.7 million for miscellaneous expenses and contingency money.

“(The overage) is not insurmountable,” Crouse said. “It’s just taking longer to get there. Frankly, I’d rather be where we are today than find out when we put things out to bid that we’re over budget.”

The district still needs to acquire an additional 55 acres to begin construction.

Officials filed a condemnation suit in December and recently requested the state legislature for quick-take powers to begin building on the land immediately.

A jury ultimately will determine the final cost of the land.

Crouse said he is not worried the land cost could drive budget decisions — and cuts — down the road.

“That’s still to be determined, and we’ll only deal with that if we need to,” Crouse said. “I think we can go off on wild suppositions about the difference between fair market value and what somebody wants for property, but the reality is until we have a number established by a jury.”

The board meets again at 7:30 p.m. Sept. 25 at its education center, 780 Shoreline Drive, Aurora.

[e-mail]

[blankcheck]

Thats land AND site work - not just land alone.

[d204taxpayer]

blankcheck said:

Thats land AND site work - not just land alone.

BC, thanks for pointing that out. So is it fair then to assume that of the $24m $14m is budgeted for land and the cost for the site work would be the remaining $10m? Is $10m for site work a reasonable amount to expect? Wow, it's almost the price of another 55 acres of BB.

[blankcheck]

so now the new school 90 million? Plus, they are 5.1 million over buget so they are now looking at 95 million? That would leave a little under 30 million for the land, site work, furnishings, professional fees and misc. expenses?
Oh, but then they are looking at cutting that cost by $300,000 by taking the "black box" out of the plans. (Only to add it back in with the 2009 referendum). Since when did the school go from 82.5 million to 90 million?

[bob]

so now the new school 90 million? Plus, they are 5.1 million over buget so they are now looking at 95 million?

From the Herald article

Indian Prairie officials need to whittle down a $5.l million difference between what architects say it will cost to construct the district’s third high school and how much money they have for the $82.5 million project.

82.5 + 5.1 = 87.6 not $95 million.

Is that just a $8.4 million FUD charge from CFO?

And they are not adding $5.1 to cost, they are going to ring out some savings to get back on budget.

[wvhsparent]

I would wait till the real bids come out before getting real worried...it's still early in the process.

I have to credit the SB for actually coming forth with type of info in a timely fashion...it's a nice for a change.....

[blankcheck]

Not CFO - just reading two stories in the paper. The Sun states that " On paper, a third high school in Indian Prairie School District 204 is $5.1 million more that the projected $90 million price tag."

The Daily Herald states "Indian Prairie officials need to whittle down $5.1 million etc.... to construct the district's third high school and how much money they have for the $82.5 million project"

So which one is right? Again, both articles mention cutting the black box area.

[204parent]

blankcheck said:

Not CFO - just reading two stories in the paper. The Sun states that " On paper, a third high school in Indian Prairie School District 204 is $5.1 million more that the projected $90 million price tag."

The Daily Herald states "Indian Prairie officials need to whittle down $5.1 million etc.... to construct the district's third high school and how much money they have for the $82.5 million project"

So which one is right? Again, both articles mention cutting the black box area.

What do you recommend? What would you do if you were on the SB?

[ilove204]

Run for the hills!!!!!!!!!

'cause when they come back and ask for more $, the sh** is really going to hit the fan.

[bob]

They are not coming back for more. The will cut back on the HS before they ask for money.