|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 27, 2008 15:51:26 GMT -6
The real rub will be if we really could have still afforded BB but someone had to try to show we couldn't without having all of their homework done.
Worse than that would be having the homework done and outright falsifying the numbers to fit an agenda.
|
|
|
|
Post by rew on Jun 27, 2008 16:35:30 GMT -6
I am convinced if we could afford the AME land at $19M, then BB was affordable at $31M in October, because the AME land is $19M + $5M expedite + $5M in legal fees = $29M and we haven't even touched redesign, site plan issues etc that were mandated by the change in site. That question has been answered for me.
I do not buy that Turner would mistakenly overestimate by $20M.
But, maybe the $123 includes furnishings and computers, landscaping, athletic fields etc and the $102M is just the building. But if that's the case, how can they be discussing adding to the project? Wouldn't it be better to try to hold the school to the original $124M cost, perhaps not issue the "sneaky" extra $8M in bonds??
|
|
|
|
Post by specailneedsmom on Jun 27, 2008 20:28:07 GMT -6
Ahhh......but it's all legal and all within the SB's discretion so nobody has to be held to anything. Whether BB was affordable or not doesn't matter anymore, right.
|
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Jun 27, 2008 21:33:06 GMT -6
It's the deception that gets me.
Why manipulate numbers like we're all idiots?
Why not just say - we are sick of dealing with BB?
Why not just go on an albatross rant about the REAL reason behind the site switch? (oops, nevermind)
|
|
|
|
Post by proschool on Jun 27, 2008 22:00:50 GMT -6
It's the deception that gets me. Why manipulate numbers like we're all idiots? Why not just say - we are sick of dealing with BB? Why not just go on an albatross rant about the REAL reason behind the site switch? (oops, nevermind) Being sick of dealing with BB would never hold up as an excuse. We would have been done having to deal with them when we gave them what they were asking for. Worst case BB would continued to give us a hard time but they could have left us off the hook for millions of dollars. |
|
|
|
Post by lorip on Jun 27, 2008 22:15:05 GMT -6
I am convinced if we could afford the AME land at $19M, then BB was affordable at $31M in October, because the AME land is $19M + $5M expedite + $5M in legal fees = $29M and we haven't even touched redesign, site plan issues etc that were mandated by the change in site. That question has been answered for me. I do not buy that Turner would mistakenly overestimate by $20M. But, maybe the $123 includes furnishings and computers, landscaping, athletic fields etc and the $102M is just the building. But if that's the case, how can they be discussing adding to the project? Wouldn't it be better to try to hold the school to the original $124M cost, perhaps not issue the "sneaky" extra $8M in bonds?? What you are forgetting is that $5M expedite would've had to been calculated in for BB as well to make the 2009 date. That's been stated before. Also, the $5M in legal fees was for the condemnation suit and would have to be factored in regardless of which location was chosen. That's been stated before. So we're really back to $19M for AME vs. $31M for BB. No manipulatoin of numbers. |
|
|
|
Post by proschool on Jun 27, 2008 22:29:21 GMT -6
I am convinced if we could afford the AME land at $19M, then BB was affordable at $31M in October, because the AME land is $19M + $5M expedite + $5M in legal fees = $29M and we haven't even touched redesign, site plan issues etc that were mandated by the change in site. That question has been answered for me. I do not buy that Turner would mistakenly overestimate by $20M. But, maybe the $123 includes furnishings and computers, landscaping, athletic fields etc and the $102M is just the building. But if that's the case, how can they be discussing adding to the project? Wouldn't it be better to try to hold the school to the original $124M cost, perhaps not issue the "sneaky" extra $8M in bonds?? What you are forgetting is that $5M expedite would've had to been calculated in for BB as well to make the 2009 date. That's been stated before. Also, the $5M in legal fees was for the condemnation suit and would have to be factored in regardless of which location was chosen. That's been stated before. So we're really back to $19M for AME vs. $31M for BB. No manipulatoin of numbers. I disagree. The plans for the school were completed at BB. then they were rushed through again for Midgen and rushed again for AME. That has to be one hell of a lot of work and nobody did it for free. We have to pay BB's legal fees if condemn a property and then abondon it. We would not be paying BB attorney fees if we did not abondon it. |
|
|
|
Post by lorip on Jun 27, 2008 22:38:51 GMT -6
What you are forgetting is that $5M expedite would've had to been calculated in for BB as well to make the 2009 date. That's been stated before. Also, the $5M in legal fees was for the condemnation suit and would have to be factored in regardless of which location was chosen. That's been stated before. So we're really back to $19M for AME vs. $31M for BB. No manipulatoin of numbers. I disagree. The plans for the school were completed at BB. then they were rushed through again for Midgen and rushed again for AME. That has to be one hell of a lot of work and nobody did it for free. We have to pay BB's legal fees if condemn a property and then abondon it. We would not be paying BB attorney fees if we did not abondon it. Damages for "abandoning" are different than the fees for going through QT and condemnation. The district always knew there would be fees associated with QT and condemnation. They budgeted for this even when they still thought they'd get BB. As for the expedite costs, I am referring to the cost of the materials. The plans that were drawn up for BB are the same plans used for AME. They only slightly changed for MGEN. Sure, no one did them for free, but they basically used the same site plans for each site, just manipulated the drawings a bit to fit on the land. In fact, BB and AME plans are virtually identical. If someone is getting paid $5M to copy and paste these plans, then I want that job.  The $5M in expedite is the difference it is to build the school now vs. starting in 2006. Even if BB would have been purchased in January of 2008, the cost would have been $5M more because of increase in materials. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 27, 2008 23:32:31 GMT -6
What was the construction cost diff to buy it the day after the verdict?
|
|
|
|
Post by proschool on Jun 27, 2008 23:40:00 GMT -6
Cutting and pasting plans form another site may be cheap but it's seldom very smart.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 27, 2008 23:48:17 GMT -6
With the 4th approaching, it begs the question..
Are they going to have fireworks at the football games adjacent to a non-odorized natural gas transit line?
|
|
|
|
Post by rew on Jun 28, 2008 6:21:47 GMT -6
OK this is the best I can figure on the numbers...
2006:
$95M for bldng cost +
$20M land cost(incl. cushion for condemnation) +
$9M furnishings etc =
$ 124M (amt of ref)
2008
$102M for bldng cost (7% inc.) +
$20M land cost +
$10M etc (generous 10% increase) =
$132M
So where did the January land report numbers come from??
Recall in January, we had $147M in the "inbox", which included bonds , interest, etc??
|
|
|
|
Post by rew on Jun 28, 2008 7:04:14 GMT -6
I would also ask...are the BB walk away fees coming from the ref funds or are they coming from the general operating funds?
They were budgeted into the land report as part of the cost of the new high school, and no one would argue that, but are they coming from the new HS budget or seperate from the budget?
Lori p : while the plans for the building seem to have stayed pretty much the same, retention, sewer lines, access, all changed. No they did not have to go back to square one, but they certainly went backa few steps and we have never been told exactly what that cost.
I did not bring up these issues, the SB did when they "patted themselves on the back" for "saving" money and can't wait to spend all those "savings". It's idiotic, they haven't laid a single brick.
|
|
|
|
Post by rew on Jun 28, 2008 7:16:34 GMT -6
I would still like to know...where did the $123M est construction costs come from back in January?
I was told by AT that MV at BB would have to eliminate the athletic fields, the gym/or auditorium/ and 500 seat capacity. I was told by MM that MV at BB would have to eliminate the athletic fields, the pool and one other big box (gym or auditorium).
|
|
The $5M in expedite is the difference it is to build the school now vs. starting in 2006. Even if BB would have been purchased in January of 2008, the cost would have been $5M more because of increase in materials.