|
|
Post by warriorpride on Sept 27, 2007 15:40:47 GMT -6
I'm sure the SB knows the enrollment figures. I think that is a huge piece of the puzzle as to how they proceed. Spending those additional funds for the land HAVE to come from somewhere : Build a smaller school, build the school without a stadium & pool ..... Whatever. Point is is that something will have to give. Just saying go ahead with BB does not show good fiscal responsibility. We already know that there'll be a lot more HS kids over the next few years. Bob quoted a number a few weeks ago - was it something like 1,200 more in 4 years? With this & some MSs over capacity now, what other numbers so we need to look at? |
|
|
|
Post by blankcheck on Sept 27, 2007 15:49:13 GMT -6
How long this trend will last.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Sept 27, 2007 16:04:40 GMT -6
If enrollment dips, how many years shall we wait to consider it a 'trend' to know for certain?
If it's down, say 100 students overall then do you suggest that the 3rd HS is no longer needed just from that one number or should we wait another year or two to see before doing anything about building a 3rd HS that is needed for the students already in the system today?
The public voted to build a 3rd HS. The unknowns are now known w/ BB. Macom land still has unknowns attached to it. Even with his overly optimistic assurances of getting the issues resolved in 60 days, that puts us near December for having it. As it sits, we can pull the trigger on BB and have it immediately if I understand the ruling.
|
|
|
|
Post by macy on Sept 27, 2007 16:47:14 GMT -6
If enrollment dips, how many years shall we wait to consider it a 'trend' to know for certain? If it's down, say 100 students overall then do you suggest that the 3rd HS is no longer needed just from that one number or should we wait another year or two to see before doing anything about building a 3rd HS that is needed for the students already in the system today? The public voted to build a 3rd HS. The unknowns are now known w/ BB. Macom land still has unknowns attached to it. Even with his overly optimistic assurances of getting the issues resolved in 60 days, that puts us near December for having it. As it sits, we can pull the trigger on BB and have it immediately if I understand the ruling. Have BB immediately for $518K an acre... yes, that is the scenario.. Way too much money to pay for land. With such a high cost per acre what get's sacrificed? Something for sure. It may be an amenity to the building? or something that has to be cut from the budget somewhere elsewhere. The question is, where will the money come from and what is to be sacrificed? The board passed a resolution not to come out for more money for Metea... that leaves cutting something else. That's where I am very uncomfortable. In my opinion, that is way to high a price to pay for land. |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Sept 27, 2007 16:50:23 GMT -6
What about selling the property that Wheatland currently sits on??? It is on Rt 59, and in Naperville and must be worth at least $600/acre.
|
|
|
|
Post by macy on Sept 27, 2007 16:51:44 GMT -6
What about selling the property that Wheatland currently sits on??? It is on Rt 59, and in Naperville and must be worth at least $600/acre. Where did you get that estimate per acre? Seems a bit high to me. Also, that is slated to become a much needed preschool for 204. eta... Also, that would take a good amount of time. Something we don't have. |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Sept 27, 2007 17:03:38 GMT -6
How can you say that price is high, when the jury just said that interior acreage zoned residential is worth $520???
|
|
|
|
Post by macy on Sept 27, 2007 17:10:11 GMT -6
How can you say that price is high, when the jury just said that interior acreage zoned residential is worth $520??? Well.... Because that was a jury... Number one. Number two, the real estate market is a bit depressed lately... Number three, there is a building (school) on that site that would be rather unattractive to most buyers.. and might include associated tear down renovation costs. It isn't an empty parcel. Where are you coming up with 600K an acre? Just curious. I have no idea what that parcel of land (Wheatland) is worth. I just think assigning a number as high as 600K based on the jury verdict can't be right. |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Sept 27, 2007 17:16:40 GMT -6
The Preit parcel in Aurora sold for $571/acre. I would think that Wheatland land is worth a pretty penny and granted you have to tear a building down. Why should a jury verdict not reflect market value?
|
|
|
|
Post by macy on Sept 27, 2007 17:22:41 GMT -6
The Preit parcel in Aurora sold for $571/acre. I would think that Wheatland land is worth a pretty penny and granted you have to tear a building down. Why should a jury verdict not reflect market value? You might be correct, unfortunately, I think selling that land would take more time than we have right now and I'm not sure that's in the best interest of the children of the district. I'm pleased with the fact it is being converted to a preschool as I think that is well needed. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Sept 27, 2007 17:24:52 GMT -6
The Preit parcel in Aurora sold for $571/acre. I would think that Wheatland land is worth a pretty penny and granted you have to tear a building down. Why should a jury verdict not reflect market value? Cause what a jury says doesn't reflect what the free market value of a piece of land. Don't forget if BB is disgarded we have to pick up their legal fees for the last how many years. That could be a pretty penny, |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Sept 27, 2007 17:24:53 GMT -6
After getting over the disbelief and disappointment in the general public selected for the jury I've reached the conclusion that we should just bite the bullet and get the land and move forward. I think the value of money over time in further delays to find a new site, set a price (or condemn again.. gee how much faith do you have in the public now?) or have a price set comparable to what the jury decided will not 'save' any money and will probably cost WAY MORE than this stupid silly price for BB. Bite whatever budgetary bullets in the meantime. Silly question.. the 'promise' to not go back to the tax payers for more $$... was that just specifically regarding QT or was that a blanket open ended 'no matter what we will not ask for more' type of non legally binding deal?  I'm not convinced that this is the best solution, especially from a PR standpoint. I feel that if the SB moves forward with BB at this juncture, they will severely jeopardize the '09 referendum. All faith and trust will be gone. I think they should sereiously consider the Macom property. Mr. Lehman knows that it's in his own best interest to sell this property as the location for the 3rd high school (and I think it's been firmly established that he only acts in his own best interest), so I believe he will sell us the property at the original offering price, which is substanitially lower than BB. The location is not ideal, but neither was BB. I am with you on the PR troubles. But Macom is not a good site as it is too far south. What happens when/if the Student population drops and a HS is no longer needed....which one do you drop? If you go with the oldest, that then means both HS are south of 87th st. Unacceptable to me. |
|
|
|
Post by macy on Sept 27, 2007 17:25:59 GMT -6
Macom land:
From what I remember the district would need to purchase 62 acres to build on Macom property.
If I'm correct, the price tossed out was 327K per acre. If the 25 acres we own at BB land were sold and netted 6 million, the offset of purchasing the Macom land would result in a (roughly) 15 million dollar cost for land at that site?
Does anyone remember the specifics of the Macom offer?
15 million vs. 31 million is a no brainer for me?
But, I'm not sure if my memory is correct.
Anyone out there remember the specifics?
|
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Sept 27, 2007 17:27:31 GMT -6
I'm not convinced that this is the best solution, especially from a PR standpoint. I feel that if the SB moves forward with BB at this juncture, they will severely jeopardize the '09 referendum. All faith and trust will be gone. I think they should sereiously consider the Macom property. Mr. Lehman knows that it's in his own best interest to sell this property as the location for the 3rd high school (and I think it's been firmly established that he only acts in his own best interest), so I believe he will sell us the property at the original offering price, which is substanitially lower than BB. The location is not ideal, but neither was BB. I am with you on the PR troubles. But Macom is not a good site as it is too far south. What happens when/if the Student population drops and a HS is no longer needed....which one do you drop? If you go with the oldest, that then means both HS are south of 87th st. Unacceptable to me. Talk about bad PR, what happens when we have to evict the elderly couple from their home? At some point, we need all the land. |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Sept 27, 2007 17:27:32 GMT -6
The Preit parcel in Aurora sold for $571/acre. I would think that Wheatland land is worth a pretty penny and granted you have to tear a building down. Why should a jury verdict not reflect market value? Cause what a jury says doesn't reflect what the free market value of a piece of land. Don't forget if BB is disgarded we have to pick up their legal fees for the last how many years. That could be a pretty penny, Are you sure about that? They won... IMHO if it is determined that that is too much then we walk away, and they can sell it to whomever they want. I thought we would only have to pay if we pulled out before the verdict. Can any lawyers confirm? |
|
