I'm having a problem with dates.

[Arch]

Now that I have your attention.. Take a look at this document that was FOIA'd...

winsome.cnchost.com/204/MOU_11_15_07.pdf

Apparently we were already dealing with St. John's AME in mid November 2007.

When did we, the public and owners of District 204, hear about it? Over 2 months after the fact?

I am curious how this fits into the timeline for the ongoing court case that is still underway for backing out of a purchase allowed from the condemnation case.


The public needs to know about these things in a more timely fashion and things like this shouldn't only be available if one goes through the FOIA process 17.5 months later.

[JB]

Apr 2, 2009 14:48:34 GMT -6 Arch said:

Now that I have your attention.. Take a look at this document that was FOIA'd...

winsome.cnchost.com/204/MOU_11_15_07.pdf

Apparently we were already dealing with St. John's AME in mid November 2007.

When did we, the public and owners of District 204, hear about it? Over 2 months after the fact?

I am curious how this fits into the timeline for the ongoing court case that is still underway for backing out of a purchase allowed from the condemnation case.


The public needs to know about these things in a more timely fashion and things like this shouldn't only be available if one goes through the FOIA process 17.5 months later.

Dealing? They'd already negotiated a purchase price, for heaven's sake.

[Arch]

Apr 2, 2009 15:03:44 GMT -6 JB said:

Apr 2, 2009 14:48:34 GMT -6 Arch said:

Now that I have your attention.. Take a look at this document that was FOIA'd...

winsome.cnchost.com/204/MOU_11_15_07.pdf

Apparently we were already dealing with St. John's AME in mid November 2007.

When did we, the public and owners of District 204, hear about it? Over 2 months after the fact?

I am curious how this fits into the timeline for the ongoing court case that is still underway for backing out of a purchase allowed from the condemnation case.


The public needs to know about these things in a more timely fashion and things like this shouldn't only be available if one goes through the FOIA process 17.5 months later.

Dealing? They'd already negotiated a purchase price, for heaven's sake.

I went back and read that the authorization for negotiating a purchase and sign a contract with them was granted at the 1/22/08 special meeting... Well, at least according to the Board of Education minutes...

winsome.cnchost.com/204/Board_brd_min_012208specialmtg.pdf

What gives?

[twhl]

Apr 2, 2009 14:48:34 GMT -6 Arch said:

Now that I have your attention.. Take a look at this document that was FOIA'd...

winsome.cnchost.com/204/MOU_11_15_07.pdf

Apparently we were already dealing with St. John's AME in mid November 2007.

When did we, the public and owners of District 204, hear about it? Over 2 months after the fact?

I am curious how this fits into the timeline for the ongoing court case that is still underway for backing out of a purchase allowed from the condemnation case.


The public needs to know about these things in a more timely fashion and things like this shouldn't only be available if one goes through the FOIA process 17.5 months later.

Here's your timeline:

October 2007: The district begins negotiations on four possible sites for Metea, which it does not disclose.

October 2007: The school board announces it cannot afford the Brach-Brodie property and asks the court for a new trial.

November 2007: The Brodie trust files a motion asking the courts to force the district to either buy their property or pay additional fees.

January 2008: A judge denies the district's request for a new trial.

January 2008: District administrators recommend building Metea on 87 acres off Eola Road just south of the Illinois Prairie Path. The parcel, owned by St. John AME Church and Midwest Generation, would cost $16.5 million. (Same month they had a MOU with Mid Gen)

March 2008: School board approves $9 million in steel bids for Metea and an annexation agreement with the city of Aurora while waiting for permission to release environmental reports on the site.

March 2008: The Aurora City Council approves the annexation agreement for the Eola Road site.

April 2008: District 204 releases environmental reports that show only 15.5 acres of the 87-acre site are contaminated with diesel fuel and PCB contaminants and can be remediated. NSFOC attorney Shawn Collins says the tests are inadequate. Brodie attorney Steve Helm files a complaint saying both a previous settlement agreement and a successful referendum request require the district to purchase the Brach-Brodie land. The district denies any such obligation.

April 2008: Midwest Generation announces it is stepping away from negotiations to sell roughly 37 acres to the district, citing "serious public opposition and a deep division within the community."

My question is why did we pay full price of $225k per acre when we almost doubled the acres we purchased but didn't have to since the original AMES contract was contingent on signing on with Mid Gen ?? I think they knew this was going to happen in March.

" School board President Mark Metzger called the situation "disappointing" but said there were indications for the past few weeks that the deal could fall through.

"We've had discussions with them (Midwest Generation) for several weeks and they expressed nervousness about the situation," he said.

So why did we approve $9m in steel contracts in March if Mid Gen was having major concerns way back then? AMES was Plan B and always was. It was probably Plan A for awhile, just never discussed.

[twhl]

I'm having a problem with dates too:

Daily Herald
4/16/008

Metzger said AMES did a soil test at the same time as D204 did on "the property the Church was keeping" in Feb 2008. Now why in the world do you think they might do that ..................

[doctorwho]

Apr 2, 2009 17:10:51 GMT -6 twhl said:

Apr 2, 2009 14:48:34 GMT -6 Arch said:

Now that I have your attention.. Take a look at this document that was FOIA'd...

winsome.cnchost.com/204/MOU_11_15_07.pdf

Apparently we were already dealing with St. John's AME in mid November 2007.

When did we, the public and owners of District 204, hear about it? Over 2 months after the fact?

I am curious how this fits into the timeline for the ongoing court case that is still underway for backing out of a purchase allowed from the condemnation case.


The public needs to know about these things in a more timely fashion and things like this shouldn't only be available if one goes through the FOIA process 17.5 months later.

Here's your timeline:

October 2007: The district begins negotiations on four possible sites for Metea, which it does not disclose.

October 2007: The school board announces it cannot afford the Brach-Brodie property and asks the court for a new trial.

November 2007: The Brodie trust files a motion asking the courts to force the district to either buy their property or pay additional fees.

January 2008: A judge denies the district's request for a new trial.

January 2008: District administrators recommend building Metea on 87 acres off Eola Road just south of the Illinois Prairie Path. The parcel, owned by St. John AME Church and Midwest Generation, would cost $16.5 million. (Same month they had a MOU with Mid Gen)

March 2008: School board approves $9 million in steel bids for Metea and an annexation agreement with the city of Aurora while waiting for permission to release environmental reports on the site.

March 2008: The Aurora City Council approves the annexation agreement for the Eola Road site.

April 2008: District 204 releases environmental reports that show only 15.5 acres of the 87-acre site are contaminated with diesel fuel and PCB contaminants and can be remediated. NSFOC attorney Shawn Collins says the tests are inadequate. Brodie attorney Steve Helm files a complaint saying both a previous settlement agreement and a successful referendum request require the district to purchase the Brach-Brodie land. The district denies any such obligation.

April 2008: Midwest Generation announces it is stepping away from negotiations to sell roughly 37 acres to the district, citing "serious public opposition and a deep division within the community."

My question is why did we pay full price of $225k per acre when we almost doubled the acres we purchased but didn't have to since the original AMES contract was contingent on signing on with Mid Gen ?? I think they knew this was going to happen in March.

" School board President Mark Metzger called the situation "disappointing" but said there were indications for the past few weeks that the deal could fall through.

"We've had discussions with them (Midwest Generation) for several weeks and they expressed nervousness about the situation," he said.

So why did we approve $9m in steel contracts in March if Mid Gen was having major concerns way back then? AMES was Plan B and always was. It was probably Plan A for awhile, just never discussed.

I believe it was Plan A from right before the 2006 vote however no one would ever tell you we couldn't afford BB when they likely had that knowledge when BB asked for $660K/acre. However it was easier to just deny there was a plan B- because mentioning it would jeopordize the ref passing- as they knew that location would never pass --- the same reason it never went back to vote.


Yes JC -- we know 'bait and switch' when we see it....

[slp]

Apr 2, 2009 20:24:26 GMT -6 doctorwho said:

Apr 2, 2009 17:10:51 GMT -6 twhl said:

Here's your timeline:

October 2007: The district begins negotiations on four possible sites for Metea, which it does not disclose.

October 2007: The school board announces it cannot afford the Brach-Brodie property and asks the court for a new trial.

November 2007: The Brodie trust files a motion asking the courts to force the district to either buy their property or pay additional fees.

January 2008: A judge denies the district's request for a new trial.

January 2008: District administrators recommend building Metea on 87 acres off Eola Road just south of the Illinois Prairie Path. The parcel, owned by St. John AME Church and Midwest Generation, would cost $16.5 million. (Same month they had a MOU with Mid Gen)

March 2008: School board approves $9 million in steel bids for Metea and an annexation agreement with the city of Aurora while waiting for permission to release environmental reports on the site.

March 2008: The Aurora City Council approves the annexation agreement for the Eola Road site.

April 2008: District 204 releases environmental reports that show only 15.5 acres of the 87-acre site are contaminated with diesel fuel and PCB contaminants and can be remediated. NSFOC attorney Shawn Collins says the tests are inadequate. Brodie attorney Steve Helm files a complaint saying both a previous settlement agreement and a successful referendum request require the district to purchase the Brach-Brodie land. The district denies any such obligation.

April 2008: Midwest Generation announces it is stepping away from negotiations to sell roughly 37 acres to the district, citing "serious public opposition and a deep division within the community."

My question is why did we pay full price of $225k per acre when we almost doubled the acres we purchased but didn't have to since the original AMES contract was contingent on signing on with Mid Gen ?? I think they knew this was going to happen in March.

" School board President Mark Metzger called the situation "disappointing" but said there were indications for the past few weeks that the deal could fall through.

"We've had discussions with them (Midwest Generation) for several weeks and they expressed nervousness about the situation," he said.

So why did we approve $9m in steel contracts in March if Mid Gen was having major concerns way back then? AMES was Plan B and always was. It was probably Plan A for awhile, just never discussed.

I believe it was Plan A from right before the 2006 vote however no one would ever tell you we couldn't afford BB when they likely had that knowledge when BB asked for $660K/acre. However it was easier to just deny there was a plan B- because mentioning it would jeopordize the ref passing- as they knew that location would never pass --- the same reason it never went back to vote.


Yes JC -- we know 'bait and switch' when we see it....

I think you are right Dr.

We were 'played'.

[rew]

I was at the "infamous" Howie meeting at the White Eagle Clubhouse in August of 2005. People asked about a new ref for the BB land and Howie told the audience BB was out, no longer an option. At the time I thought it was because BB was sold, but maybe Howie realized they could never get it at their price.

If we were played, I think some board members were as well. I do not think most would have put themselves through those boundary meetings, knowing it was all for show.

Maybe some, like MM, HC knew it was a real long shot or maybe they were truly out of their league and clueless. It would be immoral to cost the district what it did in time delays just playing politics. I still think if there was the slightest chance they were going to walk away from BB, they should have pulled the plug end of 06.