|
|
Post by bob on Sept 27, 2006 7:54:42 GMT -6
So where did this breakdown of the $124 million come from? I am trying to find the original source and having no success.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Sept 27, 2006 13:17:15 GMT -6
Where do you propose wvhsparent, and what is the cost? I said it before....80+ acres at Eola and Molitor The AME church.....They did give a price to the SB (which they never disclosed), but they got the land in 2003 for 8 million. I bet they could offer the church half of what they are trying to get BB for and the Church would make out well. another thought I had was I wonder how much the land at Rt 59 and Ferry is cgoing for (S/W corner) could the SD buy that and swap the church for it? I have been talking to a lot of people up in the north (and a couple of aldermen) they all agree a northern site would be better. One arguement before was it's (BB) central location...all well and good when it's the ONLY facilty not 1 of 3. I bet you if they (the SB) wanted to, they could have negotiations done with AME before the end of the year and actually have funds left over. But I am realistic and due to certain egos this will never happen. Are we going to move most of the kids up north then also ? The center of population is near Neuqua HS.... not near Stonebridge. |
|
|
|
Post by blankcheck on Sept 27, 2006 14:49:16 GMT -6
I have been reading about the breakdown in costs in the newspaper. If those are not correct, then the SB should correct that information. I can not find the cost breakdwon on their web page.
Also Bob, regarding the cutting of costs for the new HS, I am just going on past performance of the district by cutting out a part and then including it on the next referendum like I refered to with Neuqua and the additional gym they put on.
WVHS- to answer your question - really is a mute point because I still feel that additions could have been put onto Neuqua. Actually, I think they planned on that if you look at how all the rooms are configured. I can not figure out why they are so bent on BB property. If the cost of the HS is going up, they have to cut costs somewhere. Since the land is not locked in I would be looking at that. Again - mute point from me - I still do not believe that we need another HS. Another middle school, yes.
I had offered up alternatives such as Tel Labs up north. Renting out space just like the Frontier campus in the south. Again, mute point.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Sept 27, 2006 16:01:34 GMT -6
I said it before....80+ acres at Eola and Molitor The AME church.....They did give a price to the SB (which they never disclosed), but they got the land in 2003 for 8 million. I bet they could offer the church half of what they are trying to get BB for and the Church would make out well. another thought I had was I wonder how much the land at Rt 59 and Ferry is cgoing for (S/W corner) could the SD buy that and swap the church for it? I have been talking to a lot of people up in the north (and a couple of aldermen) they all agree a northern site would be better. One arguement before was it's (BB) central location...all well and good when it's the ONLY facilty not 1 of 3. I bet you if they (the SB) wanted to, they could have negotiations done with AME before the end of the year and actually have funds left over. But I am realistic and due to certain egos this will never happen. Are we going to move most of the kids up north then also ? The center of population is near Neuqua HS.... not near Stonebridge. Yes - It would mean a different set of Boundaries  <<GASP!>> Which would lead to an implosion down south............ IMHO the "center of population" argument is not valid when one has mutiple facilities. read 3 I does not really matter though because they want BB, and nothing else matters to them...it's turned into an ego thing. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Sept 27, 2006 16:15:53 GMT -6
We would need a new referendum and that one wouldn't pass.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Sept 27, 2006 16:17:30 GMT -6
Well I can't find anyone from the SD or SB using those percentages.
|
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Sept 27, 2006 19:48:11 GMT -6
We would need a new referendum and that one wouldn't pass. Why? The referendum was for a third high school. It does not tie us the SD to BB. Talk about FUD....  |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Sept 27, 2006 19:48:17 GMT -6
We would need a new referendum and that one wouldn't pass. A new ref for what? a different site? I do not recall anything on my ballot that listed the location..... |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Sept 27, 2006 20:34:14 GMT -6
I thought the ref ties us to the site. I looked for the actual wording on the SD site but couldn't find it.
If I am wrong, I made a honest mistake.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Sept 27, 2006 20:43:27 GMT -6
Will County Ballot question (This was the same for DuPage) Indian Prairie Community Unit School District No. 204 (DuPage and Will Counties): Shall the Board of Education of Indian Prairie Community Unit School District Number 204, DuPage and Will Counties, Illinois, acquire and improve a high school site, build and equip one new high school building and issue the bonds of said School District to the amount of $124,660,000.00 for the purpose of paying the costs thereof? www.willclrk.com/images/pdffiles/20060321VoterInformationGuide.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Sept 27, 2006 20:50:37 GMT -6
Hey, look. I'm wrong. Now I have to be wrong about 9900 more times to catch up with Lacy.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Sept 27, 2006 21:10:02 GMT -6
Hey, look. I'm wrong. Now I have to be wrong about 9900 more times to catch up with Lacy. I am so disappointed in you bob....  (Tounge firmly in cheek) I still respect you though  |
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Sept 28, 2006 8:27:42 GMT -6
Hey, look. I'm wrong. Now I have to be wrong about 9900 more times to catch up with Lacy. Having different opinions/viewpoints doesn't make one "wrong". Not in this country anyway. And remember Bob, you called me "the ultimate". Gotta love that. |
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Sept 28, 2006 18:06:57 GMT -6
While the referendum did not explicitly state the site on the ballot, it (and the boundaries) were certainly implicitly defined by the public meetings and in many things leading up to it.
Should the site become unfeasible (and I'm not one to judge it as this just because we need to follow the normal legal wranglings), I don't think another referendum would be technically needed, but it would be well advised to seek, and incorporate community feedback.
Let me reiterate, the sky is not falling, chicken little.
|
|
<<GASP!>>
(Tounge firmly in cheek)
