Call to action 8/6 for quick take

[wvhsparent]

gatordog said:

justme said:

Okay, to play devil's advocate a bit, what recourse would the taxpayers have if the courts set the price per acre at around $500,000 (which would not surprise me)? What if the SB agrees to pay that?

Justme,
If SB gets land now and starts construction now and later the court says to pay $500,000 per acre....then SB is paying about $13 million more than expected($27.5 mil - 14 mil).

However, as discussed in another thread, with construction cost going up 10% (or more) per year, by starting now there is opportunity to save 10% on the $100 million dollar construction component of Metea Valley HS, or about $10 million. Then add in the on-time completion of school and no need to pay for for 1 yr temporary solution for overcapacity at WV and NV (and Middle Schools).

So to answer your question about "what if SB pays 500k per acre"...I think IF we can get construction going very soon, the net cost to the taxpayer at that land price would be about zero. I believe the biggest cost risk to the taxpayers would be in losing a construction season.

#1 I do not agree with that arbitrary 10% const cost BS.
and IF Costco paid 526+/acre and the other parcels (off of rt59) went for more than that. It stands to reason that the parcel will be in excess of 500k/acre.

The "if that's what it costs" arguement is going to be brought up then I would add "then that's not where we should build".

I too believe that the SB wants BB no matter what the cost will end up being.

[blankcheck]

75th & Beebe. Beebe I believe is the turn in lane that runs between Lowes & Costco. It then proceeds a curve and exits back onto 75th street. That would put Lowes, Staples & X-Sport Fitness in that area. Since this parcel sold in two parts - part 1 and part 2. X-Sport had to have bought one of the parcels. X-Sport is not on Rt. 59.

[wvhsparent]

I hope everyone is right; That it will come in closer to 257k/acre the SB offered, and I hope if the legislation passes, then BB will actually negotiate and we really won't need the QT, as their stalling tactics will be meaningless, like the M2 says.

I am not holding my breath though.

[warriorpride]

1) Holmes has egg on her face - thanks to all that called her on this

2) Boy I look forward to the land purchase soap opera ending soon

3) The land comps in Naperville and/or "Commercial on Rt 59" are not reasonable comps. The BB land is zoned RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY (strike one) land IN AURORA (strike 2). White Eagle isn't even a fair comparison, since the Aurora & Naperville houses are side by side. But I can guarantee you that the same townhouses built in a Naperville and am Aurora subdivision would have different prices. And the same goes for the land. I just hope that the SB is able to hammer this point home when presenting the comps.

4) Why would the SB even bother with QT, when the trial is only a month away? Would the price be decided differently if QT vs. not QT?

[gatordog]

wvhsparent said:

gatordog said:

#1 I do not agree with that arbitrary 10% const cost BS.

WVHSparent,

What I posted concerning construction cost is NOT arbitrary. There is Construction Index Data out there showing these very large cost increases in this segment of the economy. (My understanding is to a large degree its driven by global demand for building materials...even if they arent building like crazy in Ashwood Park , they are in China and India )

For those interested in data, this was discussed in the "No Tax Hike for MVHS" thread.
www.ipsd204.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=newhighschool&action=display&thread=1181654245&page=3

I recall you didnt agree with this data then, wvhparent. But this is a matter of the construction economy. Its neither arbitrary nor BS . In fact I would say "your not being in agreement" is what is arbitrary here

[movingforward]

bob said:

justme said:

That's an interesting point. White Eagle is in Naperville and Aurora. Maybe the White Eagle residents could shed some light on the differences. How different are the home values? I think this could be helpful because they are in the same area.

Doesn't the Aurora part of WE have Naperville adresses or is that an urban legend?

While I don't think the Aurora vs. Naperville address' for White Eagle is relevant to the high school land issue at hand, I do find the topic interesting as it pertains to Macom and Lehman.

It is my understand that back when White Eagle subdivision was being developed by Macom, that Paul Lehman in an effort to have a more 'saleable' area wanted the entire subdivision to have a Naperville address (even though half of the subdivision is actually in Aurora) His wish was granted.

Interestingly, he was initially prevented access to Aurora water supplies until he agree to display a City of Aurora sign at the entrance of White Eagle.

So it is true and not urban legand... all White Eagle residents have a Naperville mailing address, however , the Aurora residents have utilities such as electric and garbage pick up through the city of Aurora as well as all other Aurora services (library)

I find it disturbing that even back then Macom has an 'issue' with Aurora which he apparently still seems to have to this day.

His dealings then and now (with respect to having an apparent bias against Ashwood attending WVHS) only go on to further any 'negative' unjustified reputations of Aurora for this entire community.

[justme]

warriorpride said:

1) Why would the SB even bother with QT, when the trial is only a month away? Would the price be decided differently if QT vs. not QT?

Absolutely! Also, why should the Senate make this such a high priority when the ENTIRE state of Illinois is impacted with the budget issue? How about balancing the budget first and letting the courts handle our land issue. IMO this makes IP 204 residents look selfish. Kind of embarrassing...

[blankcheck]

I agree justme! Lets leave the legislative body to focus on the state and getting a balanced budget for all concerned.

[movingforward]

justme said:

warriorpride said:

1) Why would the SB even bother with QT, when the trial is only a month away? Would the price be decided differently if QT vs. not QT?

Absolutely! Also, why should the Senate make this such a high priority when the ENTIRE state of Illinois is impacted with the budget issue? How about balancing the budget first and letting the courts handle our land issue. IMO this makes IP 204 residents look selfish. Kind of embarrassing...

This is a hunch/guess....Is the school board concerned that the BB attorneys will drag out the trial ,whereas, QT allows immediate access to building?

Does anyone know what is anticipated on Sept. 17? How long should a trial of this type take? And what stall tactics (continuances, setting new trial dates, etc. )could be anticipated by the BB folks?

My worry is that the trial could be a circus and would significantly delay the start of construction. Gotta love lawyers!

[driven]

Hooray!

I just spoke the Senator Holmes office. In order to get Senator Holmes on board with the QT issue the SB has promised not to come to the taxpayers for any more money and that MV would be COMPLETED in 2009, all amenities included. If anything is different, the SB will have completely lost the trust of Senator Holmes and her office.

[movingforward]

driven said:

Hooray!

I just spoke the Senator Holmes office. In order to get Senator Holmes on board with the QT issue the SB has promised not to come to the taxpayers for any more money and that MV would be COMPLETED in 2009, all amenities included. If anything is different, the SB will have completely lost the trust of Senator Holmes and her office.

Driven,

Exactly. That is why they halted HB 153 and 'hijacked' HB 1926. Senator Holmes wanted certain assurances .

The school board had already assured the district in a recent letter that they had no intentions of asking the voters for more money for the third high school if the price paid for the land was more than anticipated. Does anyone have that letter handy?

This was a political move on Holmes' part to be sure that her support of QT would not adversely affect her voters with additional tax increases.

[blankcheck]

From what I am reading of HB1926, no where does it state that the SD shall not go back to the taxpayers for more money.

[justme]

blankcheck said:

From what I am reading of HB1926, no where does it state that the SD shall not go back to the taxpayers for more money.

I didn't see that either. I also didn't see anywhere that the school is guaranteed to be completed by 2009. Actually, I thought that certain things couldn't possibly be done by 2009.

[wvhsparent]

gatordog said:

wvhsparent said:

gatordog said:

#1 I do not agree with that arbitrary 10% const cost BS.

WVHSparent,

What I posted concerning construction cost is NOT arbitrary. There is Construction Index Data out there showing these very large cost increases in this segment of the economy. (My understanding is to a large degree its driven by global demand for building materials...even if they arent building like crazy in Ashwood Park , they are in China and India )

For those interested in data, this was discussed in the "No Tax Hike for MVHS" thread.
www.ipsd204.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=newhighschool&action=display&thread=1181654245&page=3

I recall you didnt agree with this data then, wvhparent. But this is a matter of the construction economy. Its neither arbitrary nor BS . In fact I would say "your not being in agreement" is what is arbitrary here

OK - I accept your challenge.

From Turner Const's Own site.

www.turnerconstruction.com/corporate/content.asp?d=20


This data shows me that while 2005 and 2006 had large increases 9.5% and 10.6% respectively, and 2004 was a tad over 5%.
I would account late 05 and 06 to Katrina and co. Prior to that the index rose less than 5% and so far for 07 we are at 3.5%. Which is more realistic.
So I stand by my arbitrary statement for the 10% increase. Unless you can show me compelling data that differs.

[justme]

driven said:

Hooray!

I just spoke the Senator Holmes office. In order to get Senator Holmes on board with the QT issue the SB has promised not to come to the taxpayers for any more money and that MV would be COMPLETED in 2009, all amenities included. If anything is different, the SB will have completely lost the trust of Senator Holmes and her office.

So what if the SB looses the trust of Senator Holmes? In the end they will have gotten what they want anyway. What real consequences will the SB suffer if they break their word to her? None I suspect.