|
|
Post by sushi on Apr 8, 2008 5:44:57 GMT -6
Trust wants original Metea site bought
By Melissa Jenco | Daily Herald Staff
Published: 4/8/2008 12:17 AM
An attorney filed a new complaint against Indian Prairie Unit District 204 Monday afternoon in an effort to force it to buy the Brach-Brodie land for Metea Valley High School.
Steve Helm, attorney for the Brodie trust, said both a previous settlement agreement and a successful referendum require the district to purchase the site it originally selected off 75th Street and Commons Drive near Aurora.
But District 204 attorney Rick Petesch contends the district was never under any such obligation.
The new filing came just as the district took another step forward Monday in purchasing land at an alternate Aurora site off Eola Road.
District 204, which includes portions of Naperville, Aurora, Bolingbrook and Plainfield, already owns 25 acres of the Brach-Brodie site and had planned to purchase an additional 55 acres for the 3,000-student Metea Valley High School.
However, plans fell through in September when a jury set the price of the land at $31 million -- about $17 million more than the district anticipated -- and the district later decided to pursue the Eola Road site for $16.5 million instead.
But Helm said Monday when the district purchased the first 25 acres of the Brach-Brodie site in 2005, the settlement agreement between the two required the district, pending a successful referendum, to proceed with purchasing the rest of the land.
"The jury set the price and the district reneged on an obligation to buy it," Helm said.
Petesch hadn't seen the official complaint late Monday but disputed that claim.
"It left open the option to pursue it but we weren't obligated to pursue it," Petesch said.
He said if the trust wants to revert to the original settlement it should also honor the price of the land at that time of $257,000 an acre. The jury's verdict in September put the cost at $518,250 an acre.
Helm's complaint also says the district should be obligated to purchase the Brach-Brodie property because that's what it told voters in its 2006 referendum when they agreed to the $124.7 million tax hike for the new school.
Petesch refuted this argument as well and said the referendum language was not tied to a particular site and the district always kept the option open to abandon the Brach-Brodie property.
The Brodie trust already said last month it will be asking to be reimbursed about $13 million in legal fees and damages to the remaining property. The Brach estate plans to file for its own fees.
But Helm said Monday the attorney fees and expenses are "insufficient to cover the loss." His new complaint seeks additional damages if a judge does not force the district to purchase the property, though it does not specify a dollar amount.
In the new filing, the Brodie trust says it should be compensated for the reduction in value of the 55-acre parcel and the loss of the $2.5 million in damages to the adjacent land a jury had ordered the district to pay if it purchased the property.
In addition, the trust is asking for damages due to the loss of a $40.2 million contract it had with the Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust.
That group planned to purchase 71 additional acres at the site with the understanding it would work out issues such as shared storm water detention and sewer and water facilities with District 204, according to Helm.
But due to delays in learning the fate of the adjacent land, he said the Pennsylvania trust has since backed out of the contract.
Petesch said he doesn't believe the law supports such claims for damages.
"They're entitled to their attorney fees and costs because of abandonment and that's the state of the law in Illinois," Petesch said.
A hearing date has not yet been set for Monday's complaint. However, the trust's motions to recoup attorney fees are due back in court May 13 if the district does not purchase the property.
|
|
|
|
Post by cornholio on Apr 8, 2008 6:16:37 GMT -6
This is the 3rd lawsuit filed to bring the High School back to BB.
Is anyone keeping track of how much money is being spent to defend these cases?
|
|
|
|
Post by rew on Apr 8, 2008 6:17:29 GMT -6
Isn't this really BIG news??
The district SHOULD argue that the agreement holds and, like Petish says, force the sale at the stated price.
Let's go before the judge and argue the district agrees, we want to fulfill the agreement and buy the remaining 55 acres at the agreed price of $257/acre!
|
|
|
|
Post by JB on Apr 8, 2008 6:19:52 GMT -6
Well I guess that answers the question if BB is still available.....  Now a prudent adminstrative would perform a net present value analysis on both "investment" options. This should also be done for several scenarios, i.e. no BB damages, $5 Mill damages, etc, so we understand the range of impacts. We should also add the increase in legal fees as an expense, if they actually knew that. For our $150,000,000 investment, I think we deserve the courtesy of seeing the results of this simple spreadsheet exercise. |
|
|
|
Post by JB on Apr 8, 2008 6:38:24 GMT -6
Isn't this really BIG news?? The district SHOULD argue that the agreement holds and, like Petish says, force the sale at the stated price. Let's go before the judge and argue the district agrees, we want to fulfill the agreement and buy the remaining 55 acres at the agreed price of $257/acre! $257/acre? I'll buy it and donate it for that price  I do think this opens the door for negotiation. And if BB is saying $518,250/acre, it certainly throws a wrench in Judd's comment last night about BB raising the price, doesn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 8, 2008 6:49:41 GMT -6
Well I guess that answers the question if BB is still available..... Now a prudent adminstrative would perform a net present value analysis on both "investment" options. This should also be done for several scenarios, i.e. no BB damages, $5 Mill damages, etc, so we understand the range of impacts. We should also add the increase in legal fees as an expense, if they actually knew that. For our $150,000,000 investment, I think we deserve the courtesy of seeing the results of this simple spreadsheet exercise. a simple spreadsheet exercise - done with an independent accounting firm  also answers the question that BB is not really interested in selling -- at this point is anything we hear the whole truth any more ? |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 8, 2008 6:55:35 GMT -6
This is the 3rd lawsuit filed to bring the High School back to BB. Is anyone keeping track of how much money is being spent to defend these cases? \\Of course Preitt backed out - it's not only the cost of sharing water retention with someone who 'promised' to buy the neighboring land, it is the lost revenue of 3000 students and their parents at the lifestyle mall --- Anyone who thinks we're walking away from this scott free- regardless of previous precedent is kidding themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by sushi on Apr 8, 2008 7:06:01 GMT -6
Could it have anything to do with all the empty retail space up and down 59?
Could it also be that the BB atty's are aholes and extremely difficult to deal with (as reported by speaker/developer last night)?
They have no incentive to sell this land IMO. The gravy train will dry up - now they have billable hours out the ying-yang and will ride this as long as they can.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 8, 2008 7:08:17 GMT -6
Could it have anything to do with all the empty retail space up and down 59? jut add it to the list of things our experts will have to try and convince the judge of -- the list on the other side of the ledger grows larger every day. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 8, 2008 7:09:46 GMT -6
Could it have anything to do with all the empty retail space up and down 59? Could it also be that the BB atty's are aholes and extremely difficult to deal with (as reported by speaker/developer last night)? you mean that same developer who claims to know more about chemical analysis than a phd in chemistry - and also gave us that nugget about males scoring higher at WV than NV ? Yeah - I'll put my faith in him,, |
|
|
|
Post by sushi on Apr 8, 2008 7:12:21 GMT -6
Missed that "claim". Obviously the remark about the WV males scoring higher was just a jab at NV, a payback if you will. Trying to be cute - whatever.
The point he was trying to make was as a developer was this is not an unusual occurance.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 8, 2008 7:14:01 GMT -6
Could it have anything to do with all the empty retail space up and down 59? Could it also be that the BB atty's are aholes and extremely difficult to deal with (as reported by speaker/developer last night)? They have no incentive to sell this land IMO. The gravy train will dry up - now they have billable hours out the ying-yang and will ride this as long as they can. have you tallied up the hours for OUR law firm ? What % of their business is 204 ? |
|
|
|
Post by WeBe204 on Apr 8, 2008 7:18:19 GMT -6
Let me update my list of things I would like to see worked out.... 1) 25 archers of land sold 2) Brach and Brodie Trust Legal Fees and Damages 3) Brodie Trust new complaint 4) NSFOC Lawsuit I hope we can see the two legal strategies here. Brach and Brodie are going to continue to pepper complaints at the district. This further increases the time the school starts construction and the time we have the BB issues settled. This is what we called in the real world. Increased risk. On the other hand, the district is going to continue to build as fast as it can. I guess the legal defense here is if the district has built the new school the judge will take pitty on the district. Believe me I have all the faith in the world when Whit Law speaks about how the district will be victorious. This again speaks volumes to me about the people who once said they had a healthy mistrust the school board but now support their every maneuverer. If it matters, you credibility in my eyes is ZERO. Please someone call this all FUD. I do believe these are real concerns. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 8, 2008 7:18:48 GMT -6
Missed that "claim". Obviously the remark about the WV males scoring higher was just a jab at NV, a payback if you will. Trying to be cute - whatever. The point he was trying to make was as a developer was this is not an unusual occurance. paraphrase: I'll watch the tape to get the word by word told GV that ' in response to the chemical guy' I deal with this stuff al the time ... and this appears fine yeah nice jab at NV-- how freakin' childish -- at that point I negate anything he said before that -- |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 8, 2008 7:25:37 GMT -6
Let me update my list of things I would like to see worked out.... 1) 25 archers of land sold 2) Brach and Brodie Trust Legal Fees and Damages 3) Brodie Trust new complaint 4) NSFOC Lawsuit I hope we can see the two legal strategies here. Brach and Brodie are going to continue to pepper complaints at the district. This further increases the time the school starts construction and the time we have the BB issues settled. This is what we called in the real world. Increased risk. On the other hand, the district is going to continue to build as fast as it can. I guess the legal defense here is if the district has built the new school the judge will take pitty on the district. Believe me I have all the faith in the world when Whit Law speaks about how the district will be victorious. This again speaks volumes to me about the people who once said they had a healthy mistrust the school board but now support their every maneuverer. If it matters, you credibility in my eyes is ZERO. Please someone call this all FUD. I do believe these are real concerns. As I will say again, move the site to Hamman and the majority of the 'silent majority' goes away - and goes back to Vote No . The anti nsfoc site would read quite differently |
|
