|
|
Post by fence on Apr 26, 2008 10:29:20 GMT -6
Not building a 3rd HS wouldn't of course not "solve" anything when it comes to BB. We still have to pay it, no matter what. But the damages should be a factor our decision of what property makes the most sense. But I digress. In my mind, we approved a certain $ amount to build this HS. The BB damages need to be a part of that amount. Take the referendum amount, subtract the damages, and tell me what's left. If we can't build the HS for the amount left over, don't build one. Otherwise come back to the voters and tell them what the new amout is and get approval for it. The fact that they can turn a $124M referendum into a potential $200M fiasco and then ask me to pay for it blows my mind. They made a gross miscalculation and part of our 3rd HS money is going to pay for it. Use whatever is left over for a 3rd HS. If there's not enough, we need to figure out how to solve our problem with the remainder, not keep adding to the bill. Well, this is about as much fun as physics class  My issue like others have already mentioned is that the MGEN site choice was poor from a perception and PR perspective. It was destined to create controversy, especially after the SB themselves publicly ruled it out. As for BB, just call it for the disaster that it is. $8M in damages or $20M or $80M is irrelevant to me - wasting any number of millions in tax dollars is just wrong. There is no getting past that for me as I pay my tax bill and watch my home value plummet and fight with each other over the contract we just signed for the next piece of property. It is unfair, irresponsible, and inexcusable that we are entering in to a land contract with this hanging over our heads. Literally wasting what amounts to $1,000 per student on the low end to pay damages to BB because we were stupid is just enough to make sick. Imagine what could have been done with that money. It is disgraceful. Alright, that's enough. I don't think that AME is the problem or that another piece of property is the answer. I think we need to concede that we've made a mess, stop, and take time to reevaluate, and that means thinking about whether or not we really need to build the school at all, considering enrollment, cost of damages, the extra help WV needs, and track record of poor decision making and execution. It's like what they say to addicts when they're on a road they don't want to be on - stop and do the opposite. I'm sorry if someone has addressed this later in the thread, but after reading it I just had to jump in. How does not building a 3rd HS address the BB issues? We're still not buying the property and we'll still be liable for any damages there? While it is my position they will be minimal, if any, this argument just doesn't make sense to me. Those lawsuits won't just vanish if a 3rd high school does. |
|
|
|
Post by rural on Apr 26, 2008 10:29:22 GMT -6
My other concerns with working at close to capacity or beyond at our schools is:
What happens to electives? Will they be replaced by the need for extra core classes due to space limitations and restrictions?
I'm not trying to imply that this will be the end result. I'm just saying that I don't know the answers to these questions. Do you?
|
|
|
|
Post by fence on Apr 26, 2008 10:38:18 GMT -6
I guess I'm saying we have the freedom to make those decisions. Scullen seems to get all core and electives in and we've been over capacity since opening. Central has been using portables and heaven knows what else for decades and they're kicking our butts. People who have been here longer than I have stated that NV was built for add ons/portables. So my position is that saying we need bricks and morter or we'll lose electives, teacher attention, quality of education is a cop out of the largest proportions. My HS district split campuses, others split shifts, others built portables, others have year round school, others change curriculum, others have internships and independent projects, etc. There are about a million different ways to provide a quality education. We're smart people, I'm sure we'd come up with something. If we can't then there's our biggest problem. My other concerns with working at close to capacity or beyond at our schools is: What happens to electives? Will they be replaced by the need for extra core classes due to space limitations and restrictions? I'm not trying to imply that this will be the end result. I'm just saying that I don't know the answers to these questions. Do you? |
|
|
|
Post by rural on Apr 26, 2008 10:54:48 GMT -6
I disagree. My biggest issue would be class size.
However, I have heard over and over again how the problem with NV is not the ability to add on, but the ability of the hallways/cafeteria/common areas to accomodate the additional student population.
As for Central/North, my nieces have told me stories about hall monitors with megaphones directing the flow of student traffic in the halls between periods. Red-striped portions of the halls determined as no-standing zones. Scuffles starting between classes because kids are bumping up against each other and aggravations are heightened. Can it work? Yes. Is it optimal? Hardly.
|
|
|
|
Post by fence on Apr 26, 2008 11:19:32 GMT -6
You disagree that there are many ways to deliver a quality education that doesn't involve building a new school for our now smaller student surplus? Class size objections imply that we'd be able to do nothing but simply add more kids to existing classrooms. Further implies that another HS would decrease class size, which isn't necessarily true. And it certainly wouldn't for WV in 2009/10/11, when the LARGEST classes pass through. Which is why we're building a new HS. Ironic, isn't it, as we're talking about optimal? Anyway, my point is that there are solutions that address our current problems, because they are not the same problems we thought we'd be facing when we started this 3 years ago. And "optimal" has to intersect with "financial" somewhere. I'm just trying to find where that is. I don't believe it is building a HS at AME, paying double in damages for what we'd pay for land had we outright bought it, and disrupting students to meet a federal obligation that will not fix any underlying issues. In the name of assuring us that this is the cost of keeping class sizes down. Talk about FUD. I disagree. My biggest issue would be class size. However, I have heard over and over again how the problem with NV is not the ability to add on, but the ability of the hallways/cafeteria/common areas to accomodate the additional student population. As for Central/North, my nieces have told me stories about hall monitors with megaphones directing the flow of student traffic in the halls between periods. Red-striped portions of the halls determined as no-standing zones. Scuffles starting between classes because kids are bumping up against each other and aggravations are heightened. Can it work? Yes. Is it optimal? Hardly. |
|
|
|
Post by rural on Apr 26, 2008 11:29:03 GMT -6
You disagree that there are many ways to deliver a quality education that doesn't involve building a new school for our now smaller student surplus? Class size objections imply that we'd do nothing, and simply add more kids to existing classrooms. Further implies that another HS would decrease class size, which it wouldn't. And it certainly wouldn't for WV in 2009/10/11, when the LARGEST classes pass through. Which is why we're building a new HS. Ironic, isn't it, as we're talking about optimal. Anyway, my point is that there are solutions that address our current problems, because they are not the same problems we thought we'd be facing when we started this 3 years ago. And "optimal" has to intersect with "financial" somewhere. I'm just trying to find where that is. I don't believe it is building a HS at AME, paying double in damages for what we'd pay for land had we outright bought it, and disrupting students to meet a federal obligation that will not fix any underlying issues. In the name of assuring us that this is the cost of keeping class sizes down. Talk about FUD. I disagree. My biggest issue would be class size. However, I have heard over and over again how the problem with NV is not the ability to add on, but the ability of the hallways/cafeteria/common areas to accomodate the additional student population. As for Central/North, my nieces have told me stories about hall monitors with megaphones directing the flow of student traffic in the halls between periods. Red-striped portions of the halls determined as no-standing zones. Scuffles starting between classes because kids are bumping up against each other and aggravations are heightened. Can it work? Yes. Is it optimal? Hardly. I disagree that no school is the answer. Are there options to the problems this district faces? Of course there are. I just don't think that No third HS is the best one. First and formost, financially speaking, is that this option does not dismiss the BB lawsuits. They will still be there even if a HS is not. How is that for FUD? |
|
|
|
Post by fence on Apr 26, 2008 11:40:52 GMT -6
There will be damages for BB because of past decisions but that should NOT a driver to continue down the path of building a 3rd HS if it is no longer a fiscally reasonable situation. In your defense, the damages are not a driver to NOT build either. The damages should just be treated as a line item in a budget that we still need to adhere to. With the $ we approved in the referendum, can we build a 3rd HS after we pay the damages to BB or can't we? And if the answer is no, then what is our solution? One option would be to create a non-traditional school on the 25 acres at BB. I bet that even with the damages, that would come under $124M. It solves any potential issue with "class size" because it would relieve any overflow that we might have, and would enable us to create an innovative format that addresses where we think our biggest need is, whatever that is after we take a minute to actually evaluate it. The problem is that people are fixated on a solution and they're not trying to figure out what the actual problem is. In my line of work, I am given a budget for my team, and we need to accomplish our objectives within that budget. I don't get to say I can't accomplish them because I don't have a perfect world scenario and an endless budget. I get to think of ways to succeed in spite of the restrictions that exist. You disagree that there are many ways to deliver a quality education that doesn't involve building a new school for our now smaller student surplus? Class size objections imply that we'd do nothing, and simply add more kids to existing classrooms. Further implies that another HS would decrease class size, which it wouldn't. And it certainly wouldn't for WV in 2009/10/11, when the LARGEST classes pass through. Which is why we're building a new HS. Ironic, isn't it, as we're talking about optimal. Anyway, my point is that there are solutions that address our current problems, because they are not the same problems we thought we'd be facing when we started this 3 years ago. And "optimal" has to intersect with "financial" somewhere. I'm just trying to find where that is. I don't believe it is building a HS at AME, paying double in damages for what we'd pay for land had we outright bought it, and disrupting students to meet a federal obligation that will not fix any underlying issues. In the name of assuring us that this is the cost of keeping class sizes down. Talk about FUD. I disagree that no school is the answer. Are there options to the problems this district faces? Of course there are. I just don't think that No third HS is the best one. First and formost, financially speaking, is that this option does not dismiss the BB lawsuits. They will still be there even if a HS is not. How is that for FUD? |
|
|
|
Post by rural on Apr 26, 2008 11:49:59 GMT -6
On this we can definitely agree. I have always felt--since before the last referendum--that the scale of this project was out of line for the need. I was in the minority, and here we are. Unfortunately, our SB has followed a linear path in the most convoluted way possible to this place. We are now the owners of 80+ acres on Eola Rd. Where do you suggest going from here?  |
|
|
|
Post by player on Apr 26, 2008 11:51:57 GMT -6
Not building a 3rd HS wouldn't of course not "solve" anything when it comes to BB. We still have to pay it, no matter what. But the damages should be a factor our decision of what property makes the most sense. But I digress. In my mind, we approved a certain $ amount to build this HS. The BB damages need to be a part of that amount. Take the referendum amount, subtract the damages, and tell me what's left. If we can't build the HS for the amount left over, don't build one. Otherwise come back to the voters and tell them what the new amout is and get approval for it. The fact that they can turn a $124M referendum into a potential $200M fiasco and then ask me to pay for it blows my mind. They made a gross miscalculation and part of our 3rd HS money is going to pay for it. Use whatever is left over for a 3rd HS. If there's not enough, we need to figure out how to solve our problem with the remainder, not keep adding to the bill. I'm sorry if someone has addressed this later in the thread, but after reading it I just had to jump in. How does not building a 3rd HS address the BB issues? We're still not buying the property and we'll still be liable for any damages there? While it is my position they will be minimal, if any, this argument just doesn't make sense to me. Those lawsuits won't just vanish if a 3rd high school does. Arch and fence: Here's what I believe the SB is using as math to look at costs. This assumes: a) Capital expenses only - no OpEx b) School gets built at Eola as per original building design at original cost estimate c) Brodie lawsuit will prevail as per statute, but likely no more (this merits more discussion) d) NSFOC lawsuit has not material consequences e) The 25 acres of BB land we own gets sold at fair market value So: AME land costs $19M - established BB 25 acres will be sold for, oh, say $5M Brodie law suit damages. Here's where it gets interesting. The Brodie lawsuit explicitly asks for $2.5M for loss of property value for the 55 acre property where they have 50% stake. Their experts estimate the loss in market value to be $2.5M of which Brodie wants half. Now, as far as I can see, there is no precedent for awarding these types of damages in case of Abandonment - in fact, the Brodie lawsuit explicitly states that the statute is silent on this aspect. This is fundamentally different from the PREIT award which was a result of the condemnation for remediation between anticipated property lines - see below. It is not clear to me if the PREIT settlement of $2.5M was actually paid, or is even valid as the PREIT deal fell through. However, that was damages due to the condemnation (working on water retention, drainage etc.) and not due to Abandonment, which is what this case is about. For the sake of argument, lets include that. Illinois State statute 735 ILCS 30/10‑5‑110 (Eminent Domain Act) states: ...... (e) If a plaintiff does not accept an offer as provided in subsection (c) and if the final just compensation for the defendant's interest is determined by the trier of fact to be equal to or in excess of the amount of the defendant's last written offer under subsection (b), then the court must order the plaintiff to pay to the defendant that defendant's attorney's fees as calculated under subsection (f) of this Section. The plaintiff shall also pay to the defendant that defendant's reasonable costs and litigation expenses, including, without limitation, expert witness and appraisal fees, incurred after the making of the defendant's last written offer under subsection (b). (f) Any award of attorney's fees under this Section shall be based solely on the net benefit achieved for the property owner, except that the court may also consider any non‑monetary benefits obtained for the property owner through the efforts of the attorney to the extent that the non‑monetary benefits are specifically identified by the court and can be quantified by the court with a reasonable degree of certainty. "Net benefit" means the difference, exclusive of interest, between the final judgment or settlement and the last written offer made by the condemning authority before the filing date of the condemnation complaint. The award shall be calculated as follows, subject to the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct: (1) 33% of the net benefit if the net benefit is $250,000 or less; (2) 25% of the net benefit if the net benefit is more than $250,000 but less than $1 million; or (3) 20% of the net benefit if the net benefit is $1 million or more. (g) This Section does not apply to the acquisition of property under the O'Hare Modernization Act. (Source: P.A. 94‑1055, eff. 1‑1‑07.) In this particular case, I read this as meaning that BB lawers are entitled to 20% of what they increased the value of the property over the last firm SB offer by going to a jury trial = ($518K-$225K)*55 acres*20%=$3.3M or so. So the grand total = $2.5M (damages to 55acres)+2.5M (damages due to PREIT deal) + $3.3M (attorneys fees) = $8.3M, which is why I kept mentioning the $8M number. So if we bring it all together, Total cost of property at AME= $19M (capex)+ $8M (damages)-$5M(sales of 25 acres)=$22M. I suspect this is why the SB is stating that "AME land will save the district money" as they are looking at $31M-$22M=$9M as net savings. Nota bene, this is CapEx, and I know Arch has numbers for increases in transportation costs of 9% (any $ figures for this, Arch?) which should be added in to make a true TCO. Now, some of the assumptions could be questioned. For example: - the 25 BB acres could be a turd, and we are unable to get what we want for it - Construction cost overruns due to accelerated timelines. I have heard this before, and I believe the SB claims the overrns would be the same for BB. - Brodie damages, through some unknown mechanism, are greater - NSFOC has material impact - Add your own.... So fence, this is why I suspect the SB is charging along feeling very secure in their current position in spite of pending lawsuits. So as I said before, unless some one can manifestly prove that the SB actions in acquiring AME were ILLEGAL (political misrepresentation would not count here - the SB can and will argue that until the Sep 2007 verdict, all their actions were single-mindedly focused on BB), I see very little chance of derailing AME using financial arguments. Now thats the math as I see it. I'd love to see what others see. Disclaimer: I ain't no lawyer, so I may be full of it  Cheers, K. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 26, 2008 12:14:07 GMT -6
Player: the 9% was the cost savings BG made for option 5A at BB over current. Since we know this board likes to trumpet savings (even when they are complete BS) they would have said we had savings with the new HS @ Eola. They did not, in fact said the transportation costs work out the same as we have today (no 9% savings).
Since our gas price contract expires (or already did) and we have no savings to mention before that higher price hits us, we know we are giving up the 9% in transportation savings annually by not going with 5A@BB.
Transportation costs are what? 11-13 million a year? I thought that was the number thrown out before.
If anyone knows, please clarify. We will be stuck missing that savings forever. As buildout eventually continues in the future in the south, we will have to shift more kids NORTH to MV to balance out the enrollment. Again, this will ADD to the transportation costs to bus areas like WE or Springbrook to MV as they have to pull more from the south to WV which will bump those areas out of WV and up north. (Owen east too). Again.. an increase in transportation costs annually, not a savings.
|
|
|
|
Post by fence on Apr 26, 2008 12:16:46 GMT -6
Arch is the details guy so I'm sure he can work this point for point, but I'm a big picture sort of person and you lost me at your first point - capex vs. opex. I'm sure that in this vacuum, a school can be built on AME on budget. I don't question that, and must be nice that this is our yardstick.... They can take the referendum and without having to deal with any of the shrapnel, they can build a school on AME and come in on budget. Congrats.
My problem with that is that you don't get to build the HS in a vacuum. You have to answer for opex because that is part of the long term cost.
And more importantly, in this case, we have received the gift of seeing the future, because here we are 3 years later having survived crowded schools no worse for wear, with an opportunity to see that the projections on enrollment that have actually NOT materialized, we are in a housing downturn, and a focus on belt tightening is in our best interest, where 3 years ago, we were partying it up without a care.
So, instead of talking about building a HS on budget in a vacuum, and who would win what in court, and who is "secure" that we won't be taken to the cleaners, why are we not using this gift and taking this as an opportunity to make our decision based on the future instead of the past?
Let's look at enrollment, let's look at NCLB, let's look at what the future needs of this district are going to be 5 years from now, let's look at what we're on the hook for, and then let's figure out what we need to do.
And to your point about the SB feeling "secure" in their current position in court, I think the last time I heard that, we ended up here.....
Oh, and I am of the mind that it doesn't have to be illegal to be irresponsible.
|
|
|
|
Post by player on Apr 26, 2008 12:21:48 GMT -6
Player: the 9% was the cost savings BG made for option 5A at BB over current. Since we know this board likes to trumpet savings (even when they are complete BS) they would have said we had savings with the new HS @ Eola. They did not, in fact said the transportation costs work out the same as we have today (no 9% savings). Since our gas price contract expires (or already did) and we have no savings to mention before that higher price hits us, we know we are giving up the 9% in transportation savings annually by not going with 5A@BB. Transportation costs are what? 11-13 million a year? I thought that was the number thrown out before. If anyone knows, please clarify. We will be stuck missing that savings forever. As buildout eventually continues in the future in the south, we will have to shift more kids NORTH to MV to balance out the enrollment. Again, this will ADD to the transportation costs to bus areas like WE or Springbrook to MV as they have to pull more from the south to WV which will bump those areas out of WV and up north. (Owen east too). Again.. an increase in transportation costs annually, not a savings. If I understood you right, that would mean that transport@Eola would be 9% more that transport@BB, right? Using a $12M number, thats an extra $1M/year in Opex for the Eola site. So over the years, any CapEx savings would erode for Eola - breaking even with BB over several years. Thats a valid argument. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by player on Apr 26, 2008 12:44:25 GMT -6
Arch is the details guy so I'm sure he can work this point for point, but I'm a big picture sort of person and you lost me at your first point - capex vs. opex. I'm sure that in this vacuum, a school can be built on AME on budget. I don't question that, and must be nice that this is our yardstick.... They can take the referendum and without having to deal with any of the shrapnel, they can build a school on AME and come in on budget. Congrats. My problem with that is that you don't get to build the HS in a vacuum. You have to answer for opex because that is part of the long term cost. And more importantly, in this case, we have received the gift of seeing the future, because here we are 3 years later having survived crowded schools no worse for wear, with an opportunity to see that the projections on enrollment that have actually NOT materialized, we are in a housing downturn, and a focus on belt tightening is in our best interest, where 3 years ago, we were partying it up without a care. So, instead of talking about building a HS on budget in a vacuum, and who would win what in court, and who is "secure" that we won't be taken to the cleaners, why are we not using this gift and taking this as an opportunity to make our decision based on the future instead of the past? Let's look at enrollment, let's look at NCLB, let's look at what the future needs of this district are going to be 5 years from now, let's look at what we're on the hook for, and then let's figure out what we need to do. And to your point about the SB feeling "secure" in their current position in court, I think the last time I heard that, we ended up here..... Oh, and I am of the mind that it doesn't have to be illegal to be irresponsible. Now, that I agree with wholeheartedly. That is what I think is the right thing to do - lets look at NCLB, enrollment, special needs,... the kind of stuff that has more impact on kids that shiny new schools. Looking at the drop in enrollment numbers, I believe there may be ways to solve the 1000-1500 excess capacity needs is some more cost effective fashion. Which was, I believe, the CFO's stance (that predates me, so I'm still learning about what the tumultuous pre-referendum climate was). And you're right - the economic climate is very different today than 3 years ago. Unfortunately, unless the litigation dislodges someone, I don't believe there is any mechanism to revisit that. Perhaps one outcome will be new referendum for a 3'rd HS which I predict will fail resoundingly. Yeah -the SB's track record for predicting legal outcomes isn't exactly stellar And oh, my bad - Capex = Capital expenses for acquisition of land, buildings etc. Opex = operating expenses to actually run the infrastructure year over year. They typically come from different budgets. My impression is that the referendum was only for capital stuff. There should be other operating expense implications hiding in our future. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by fence on Apr 26, 2008 13:12:14 GMT -6
I think that's why alot of people (like me) don't agree with the NSFOC technical premise, but support the spirit of fiscal responsibility and taking this as a perfect opportunity to reevaluate our needs. If it takes a lawsuit by the residents to get the SB to do that, then no matter what the foundation, it's more good than bad. Yes, this was (sort of) CFOs position, and alot of us did agree with them to a certain extent. The problem was, we couldn't see the future and didn't want to take an unnecessary chance, so we all said go ahead, invest the money because the benefit outweighs the risk. Now that we are currently IN our future (weird, isn't it) it appears that blankcheck and letsgetcreative, our fine friends from back in the day, could in fact, predict the future. Who knew..... So the situation has changed, destiny has put us in a spot where we have the benefit of re-evaluation, so let's do it. Oh, and I am painfully familiar with capex/opex but my objection to the situation is beyond the line item and to the basic strategy, which I feel we've lost. Well, maybe both, but details sometimes hurt my brain Arch is the details guy so I'm sure he can work this point for point, but I'm a big picture sort of person and you lost me at your first point - capex vs. opex. I'm sure that in this vacuum, a school can be built on AME on budget. I don't question that, and must be nice that this is our yardstick.... They can take the referendum and without having to deal with any of the shrapnel, they can build a school on AME and come in on budget. Congrats. My problem with that is that you don't get to build the HS in a vacuum. You have to answer for opex because that is part of the long term cost. And more importantly, in this case, we have received the gift of seeing the future, because here we are 3 years later having survived crowded schools no worse for wear, with an opportunity to see that the projections on enrollment that have actually NOT materialized, we are in a housing downturn, and a focus on belt tightening is in our best interest, where 3 years ago, we were partying it up without a care. So, instead of talking about building a HS on budget in a vacuum, and who would win what in court, and who is "secure" that we won't be taken to the cleaners, why are we not using this gift and taking this as an opportunity to make our decision based on the future instead of the past? Let's look at enrollment, let's look at NCLB, let's look at what the future needs of this district are going to be 5 years from now, let's look at what we're on the hook for, and then let's figure out what we need to do. And to your point about the SB feeling "secure" in their current position in court, I think the last time I heard that, we ended up here..... Oh, and I am of the mind that it doesn't have to be illegal to be irresponsible. Now, that I agree with wholeheartedly. That is what I think is the right thing to do - lets look at NCLB, enrollment, special needs,... the kind of stuff that has more impact on kids that shiny new schools. Looking at the drop in enrollment numbers, I believe there may be ways to solve the 1000-1500 excess capacity needs is some more cost effective fashion. Which was, I believe, the CFO's stance (that predates me, so I'm still learning about what the tumultuous pre-referendum climate was). And you're right - the economic climate is very different today than 3 years ago. Unfortunately, unless the litigation dislodges someone, I don't believe there is any mechanism to revisit that. Perhaps one outcome will be new referendum for a 3'rd HS which I predict will fail resoundingly. Yeah -the SB's track record for predicting legal outcomes isn't exactly stellar And oh, my bad - Capex = Capital expenses for acquisition of land, buildings etc. Opex = operating expenses to actually run the infrastructure year over year. They typically come from different budgets. My impression is that the referendum was only for capital stuff. There should be other operating expense implications hiding in our future. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 26, 2008 13:20:00 GMT -6
My other concerns with working at close to capacity or beyond at our schools is: What happens to electives? Will they be replaced by the need for extra core classes due to space limitations and restrictions? I'm not trying to imply that this will be the end result. I'm just saying that I don't know the answers to these questions. Do you? I would think the rational thing to do would be for our SD to investigate places like New Trier and Stevenson - who have national reputations as outstanding schools- at 4500 - 5000 students each. Use an Appreciative Inquiry approach to this and copy what works - instead of always feeling they know th answers to everything. I don't think for a miute running closer to capacity should force any of the things to happen you mention, if properly prepared and planned for - but yet they could happen if we don't investigate how to operate under those conditions. It will all depend on those running the show here and how well they listen and learn from others ......what are the odds ? |
|
