|
|
Post by JB on Apr 12, 2008 8:08:45 GMT -6
If the above is true, we should send e-mail out to the board members, politely suggesting that it is already mid-April; doubtful 2009 opening anyway, for 3 mil - lets go BB and get the community to shut-up. Don't they have to sell to us for the 516K an acre or did that go away? Hi Sushi, When I look at the budget link you provided, it looks like construction cots drop about $5MM next year - I have to guess this is due to avoiding the expediting cost. If we avoid this cost for 2010, we are "only" $3MM over budget. AME would be $9.5MM under. |
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Apr 12, 2008 8:16:09 GMT -6
What happens to the wetlands mitigation costs? Was that on MWG land and would it still have to be done?
|
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Apr 12, 2008 8:25:05 GMT -6
What happens to the wetlands mitigation costs? Was that on MWG land and would it still have to be done? Wetlands are on the AME - yes still have that expense. Also don't forget that if we open in 2010 we are $3M short on BB BUT we save a year of operating expenses on Metea due to the 2010 opening. Anyone remember how much Howie said it would cost annually to operate the new school? I don't remember the number, but it was over $3M. And yes, they are suing us to force us to buy the property at the jury award. |
|
|
|
Post by JB on Apr 12, 2008 8:31:47 GMT -6
What happens to the wetlands mitigation costs? Was that on MWG land and would it still have to be done? The original 2006 site selection report, which was for the church property, noted that there were wetlands issues on the Eastern side of the parcel. |
|
|
|
Post by JB on Apr 12, 2008 8:38:22 GMT -6
And if we buy those 37 acres from the church at AME prices ($245k/acre) instead of MWGEN prices (~$121.3k/acre), we will need to pony up another $4.6MM.
|
|
|
|
Post by rew on Apr 12, 2008 8:39:16 GMT -6
I thought the 49 acres included the wetlands already. I think we gave them an ultra sweet deal we paid $12M for their 49 but 10 of it was wetlands... fiscal responsibility can get expensive!
|
|
|
|
Post by sushi on Apr 12, 2008 8:46:43 GMT -6
So then BB becomes even more affordable.
This is such crap; I cannot believe this.
ETA: What am I missing in this? "only 3mil" when we talking about 146M and satisfying the lawsuits seems like a bargain.
|
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Apr 12, 2008 9:02:50 GMT -6
So then BB becomes even more affordable. This is such crap; I cannot believe this. ETA: What am I missing in this? "only 3mil" when we talking about 146M and satisfying the lawsuits seems like a bargain. I have thought the exact same thing from the get-go. We will probably toss away far more than $3M defending the BB suits over the next few years. You did see those numbers on the district website, right? It's 3.1M. |
|
|
|
Post by sushi on Apr 12, 2008 9:09:39 GMT -6
Right, 3.1. I rounded.
|
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Apr 12, 2008 12:12:13 GMT -6
Well, all I can say is if the SB buys this land on Monday w/o releasing all the numbers, I will be one disappointed person.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 12, 2008 12:15:57 GMT -6
Well, all I can say is if the SB buys this land on Monday w/o releasing all the numbers, I will be one disappointed person. I will too because lots of groups have it in their sights from many different angles just waiting for a clear shot. When that happens, the 3rd HS idea is dead for good, I'm afraid. I'd love to be wrong about that but I don't think it will survive this round at all. |
|
