District seeks authority to "quick take" BB Land

[blankcheck]

Then the SB needs to clarify those 25 acres. Are they all wetlands, 10 acres wetlands etc. How many acres do you need to build a middle school or an elementary school? I know that I have heard the numbers before but I just can't remember.

[bob]

The only place where there MIGHT be an area classified as wetlands is an small area where the football stadium is planned. Now someone elese can figure out if that area falls into the 25 acres we all ready own.

[cantretirehere]

I remember reading in the papers some time this spring that when architects did an analysis of the currently owned portion of the property they said that it was more suited to be a water retention area or parking lot than as a site for a building.

I believe this was prior to the vote. I don't know what portion of the entire property the SD owns.

[wvhsparent]

cantretirehere said:

I remember reading in the papers some time this spring that when architects did an analysis of the currently owned portion of the property they said that it was more suited to be a water retention area or parking lot than as a site for a building.

I believe this was prior to the vote. I don't know what portion of the entire property the SD owns.

That's what I recalled too...and it is getting confused as wetlands

[proschool]

cantretirehere said:

I remember reading in the papers some time this spring that when architects did an analysis of the currently owned portion of the property they said that it was more suited to be a water retention area or parking lot than as a site for a building.

I believe this was prior to the vote. I don't know what portion of the entire property the SD owns.

There may be other reasons to say that they are more suited for water retention than the fact that they may be wetlands. I don't even know if can use wetlands for water retention.

The 25 acres is closest to the water reention areas of Thatchers Grove and Chicory Place. Perhaps that has someting to do with it.

If you think about it placing the retention areas of the property farthest from 75th Street will probably mean less alnd and money used up on streets and infrastructure.

[bob]

From Mark Metzger

The 25 acres we now own are not wetlands. Perhaps people have
forgotten that the most-often discussed "Plan B" scenario included a
middle school on that site. If the land was wetlands or unbuildable,
we couldn't do that.

My best guess is that Sara got the idea from the fact that part of the
currently-owned 25 acres is set aside for stormwater management in the
current version of the site plan. She may have assumed that the land
already has water there, which it doesn't, but you'd have to ask her
to know for sure.

a follow up

I confirmed with Sara that my guess was correct -- her reference was to the present site plan's designation of those lands as being set aside for water retention. If you're interested in the why, there are some particularly good reasons to use that land for those purposes, not the least of which is the adjacency of Calvary's retention area.

[wvhsparent]

There'a a rumor floating about that CFO plans to make a scene at the SB mtg on this "wetland issue" so be prepared........

[EagleDad]

That is what I am hearing also, apparently CFO is going to try to make a last stand, and try to muddy the non-existant "waters" (sorry for the pun) of the third HS at next Monday's normal school board meeting.

Based on this, I'm planning on attending.

If anyone else is thinking of going, say so here, maybe we could grab a beer afterwards, you know, catch up on old times.

[warriorpride]

wvhsparent said:

There'a a rumor floating about that CFO plans to make a scene at the SB mtg on this "wetland issue" so be prepared........

These people really do need to get a hobby. They can't really think that they are going to cause the 3rd HS to not be built, can they?

Yes, as many people as possible should go, to prevent CFO from turning this into something that it shouldn't. In addition, anyone that is close to any non-CV SB member might want to alert them to this possibility. Thank goodness for this proboards site...

[chicoryowl]

"Yes, as many people as possible should go, to prevent CFO from turning this into something that it shouldn't."

I'm going to try to go to the meeting. Say something simple. Hopefully it won't be a problem making it by 8.

Quick question: does anybody know if either the school board has issued a clarification or The Daily Herald has issued a correction on the "wetlands" issue?

[EagleDad]

I will not be able to make tonight's SB meeting, a work emergency has come up

[chicoryowl]

Here's my take of the meeting. You didn't miss much, unless you count C. Vickers representing the interests of somebody other than our school district.

-The district lawyer got up and gave an overview of quick take.
-Mark Metzger started off by asking the lawyer to comment on the 25 acre parcel to address rumors that it was wetlands and unsuitable for building. He replied it was "high and dry and ready to go."
-They opened up comment. The lawyer for the Brodie estate got up and started presenting his case. The key thing was that he said the land was worth something astronomical like $500K per acre. Metzger questioned him where he got the number. Then they said that comments should be directed to the quick take.
-The lawyer for the Brach estate got up. He threw out a number of around $600K per acre.
-The school board asked some questions of our lawyer about the range of exposures.
-Our appraisals value the land at $250K per acre.
-Apparently the $257/acre for the 25 acre parcel was agreed to in early 2005. The condemnation was in 12/05. Glawe brought up that it was ridiculous for the land to appreciate that much in the space of a year.
-They discussed that they could get quick take and not use it if they so choose, but they felt they should get it.
-Christine Vickers then asked something along the lines of "Quick take usually leads to people getting top dollar." And then I can't exactly recall the rest. However, Metzger called her on it. He asked the lawyer if quick take would lead to higher value and the lawyer said the jury would have no knowledge that a quick take had taken place.
-CV then complained about the resolution that was being drafted. I believe it was the portion attesting to a good faith effort being made to negotiate the land, but am not sure. She said she was made aware of correspondence during a deposition.
-The lawyer said she wasn't present at the time the attestation referred to.
-J. Clark said she was there and felt very comfortable attesting. The other board members chimed in the same.
-They voted. You'll need to sit down for this. Everybody but CV voted to approve. She voted against. HARD TO BELIEVE.

[wvhsparent]

Thanks Chicory for that report.....

[gatormom]

CV was mumbling about appraisals and not getting one, but Petesch reminded her she was not at the meeting where the appraisal in question was given out.

[bob]

CV HAS GOT TO GO!

SHE HAS NO CLUE AND IS AN EMBARRASSMENT TO THE SD.