SB Options for BB now

[doctorwho]

archwinsome said:

doctorwho said:

WHile 10,000 is a way to go -- 9700 was the other part of that figure , and I can think of 2 other ways we more quickly approach that ( adding on to the amount already in the system which would overload the HS's badly) - 1. the housingmarket returns and the remaining property gets built in the next few years 2. we leave BB and we jam a bunch more housing in there -- neither of those is going to lower the already far higher than capacity number already in queue

Add to that, we've had a decent amount of turnover in the neighborhood this summer and 4 are in the process of vacating right now.. the ones leaving had no kids in the system... the ones moving in will if they stay for a while (several preschool aged kids). Yes, a micro-view of just this immediate area, but with the age of some of the people in our neighborhood, I believe this is going to pick up some.

same thing in our area right next to you - original owners leaving ( kids out of the system) and younger families with kids moving in.

[Arch]

doctorwho said:

archwinsome said:

Add to that, we've had a decent amount of turnover in the neighborhood this summer and 4 are in the process of vacating right now.. the ones leaving had no kids in the system... the ones moving in will if they stay for a while (several preschool aged kids). Yes, a micro-view of just this immediate area, but with the age of some of the people in our neighborhood, I believe this is going to pick up some.

same thing in our area right next to you - original owners leaving ( kids out of the system) and younger families with kids moving in.

There's a difference in the kid dynamics too. Before, there seemed to be multiple years between each of the kid's ages.. Now, they seem to be back to back. Again, anecdotal and just a microview of this area, but that's a key difference I'm noticing w/ the new families moving in.

[proschool]

Jury ruling makes third high school pricey

September 29, 2007
By BRITT CARSON SUN-TIMES NEWS GROUP
AURORA -- The number-crunching has begun for the Indian Prairie School District.

With a jury's ruling this week setting the price for the land for Metea Valley High School at more than twice what the district expected to pay, school administrators are focusing their efforts on how to make it possible.

The school board expected to pay about $257,500 per acre for 55 acres on 75th Street west of Illinos 59, commonly called the Brach-Brodie property. But a DuPage County jury late Wednesday awarded a $518,000 per acre price tag for the land, plus $2.5 million in damages to the remaining property facing Illinois 59.

That brings the total price of the land to $31 million and leaves about $93 million for the construction of Metea Valley.

The school board is expected to discuss the jury's decision at a special meeting at 7 p.m. Monday, but the board does not expect to take action.

"We need to have some long discussions with staff on where we are and where we aren't," said Mark Metzger, school board president. "Clearly, we are not in a position where we can take any kind of rapid or immediate action. We need to consider what our options are and what are the consequences of accepting those options."

The board has 30 days to act. If it agrees to purchase the land, it may then take immediate possession and start construction.

The school district currently owns 25 acres adjacent to the 55 it is seeking. Together, it would make an 80-acre campus for the district's third high school.

Superintendent Stephen Daeschner said his staff is "gathering information so we can discuss options with our board. ... Our options must not only be driven by doing what's best for kids, but they must be fiscally responsible."


Additional revenue

In 2006, Indian Prairie voters approved a $124.6 million referendum to fund the construction of Metea Valley. The bonds were issued in July 2006 and have been gaining interest. In May, David Holm, assistant superintendent for business and finance, said the interest was at $10.5 million from the $62.3 million bonds.
That, combined with $2 million in land-cash donations the district saved and $900,000 in construction money from other projects, could give the district an extra $13 million for the project.

Metzger said although that doesn't cover the entire extra cost, it does mean the district has options.

"Certainly there is some cushion provided by that, but it also doesn't fill the entire gap," Metzger said.

[EagleDad]

archwinsome said:

dpc said:

Do you really think the SD will be able to make up the shortfall in available funds resulting from the higher land price and still stay within the amount the taxpayers approved for a comprehensive third high school?

Yes, I think they can... but it would depend on what one calls 'comprehensive'. If your definition includes Roman Columns and Marble counter tops in the science labs then don't hold your breath.

I'm fine with Tuscan Columns and Corian.

It's jack stands and particle board that I don't want to see. One can cut bulding materials too far in an effort to reduce costs, as evidenced in my first home in naperville. We need to build these schools for 50-100 years of daily use, not 10 years and throw them away.

If cost cutting on construction materials went too far, I'd rather see a slightly scaled back structure (I really like the 2500 suggestion, rew). But, I'll wait to see what the administration brings forward as the options.

[southsidemom]

dpc said:

The SD has no choice but to go back to the drawing board and re-evaluate the situation as the data that was provided to the taxpayers at the time of the referendum ito justify the need for the third high school is no longer valid:

1. Land cost is significantly higher than estimated
2. Enrollment is significantly lower than projected

To do anything other than go back to the drawing board, re assess the situation in light of new information and come up with a new proposal to put forth to the taxpayers is wrong at best and a blatant disregard of the of the SB's fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers.

Amen to that!

[proschool]

The money is there from interest and land/cash donations so don't see where the lack of money is an issue.

The voters told the board exactly what to do in the referendum. I don't see how the school board can ignore that.

The school board has a little bit of the time to see if they can alter the location and save some money. If they can do save a significant amount of money then I am all for it as long as long as the school gets built on time.

If they move the site they will have to go through the boundary process again.


The mentality that we should stop everything to explore options to save money led to the defeat of the first referendum and it cost us millions of dollars.

[blankcheck]

Pro-This whole mess has cost us millions of dollars already. So do we continue to keep compounding the mess with more money?

[dpc]

proschool said:

The mentality that we should stop everything to explore options to save money led to the defeat of the first referendum and it cost us millions of dollars.

I didn't say stop everything but rather the situation should be reevaluated in light of the rising costs and lower than purported projected enrollment.

Your mentality, I am sad to say, is consistent with the SD and SB's mentality that it is BB at any and all costs.

[proschool]

blankcheck said:

Pro-This whole mess has cost us millions of dollars already. So do we continue to keep compounding the mess with more money?

This is the way I see it. It cost us money by not passing the referendum in the first place. Everyone thought that it would be harmless to take time and decise if a school was needed or not. The asumption was that we could save some money but it cost us millions.

When we build the school on time we will not be "compounding the mess." We will just be paying the extra cost of not passing the first referendum.

Holding off in the hope of saving money and spending more money in the long run will be compounding the mess.

If there is a not a viable option on the table in thirty days that is sure to save money and finish on time, then it is time to move on BB.

[dpc]

Does it strike anyone as odd that the SD is just now looking at new ways to save money on the cost of the 3HS? Shouldn't they be doing this all along?

[proschool]

dpc said:

proschool said:

The mentality that we should stop everything to explore options to save money led to the defeat of the first referendum and it cost us millions of dollars.

I didn't say stop everything but rather the situation should be reevaluated in light of the rising costs and lower than purported projected enrollment.

Your mentality, I am sad to say, is consistent with the SD and SB's mentality that it is BB at any and all costs.

Absolutely explore the options. There are 30 days.

[dpc]

proschool said:

dpc said:

I didn't say stop everything but rather the situation should be reevaluated in light of the rising costs and lower than purported projected enrollment.

Your mentality, I am sad to say, is consistent with the SD and SB's mentality that it is BB at any and all costs.

Absolutely explore the options. There are 30 days.

Then we agree. Much can be done in 30 days if the right resources are dedicated to the task at hand. I must say that I am relieved (actually thrilled) that Dr. D will be spearheading this situation rather than HC.

[bob]

dpc said:

proschool said:

Absolutely explore the options. There are 30 days.

Then we agree. Much can be done in 30 days if the right resources are dedicated to the task at hand. I must say that I am relieved (actually thrilled) that Dr. D will be spearheading this situation rather than HC.

Praise the Lord.

[momof3]

Is it unreasonable to think that the president of the Brach foundation could fix this mess with one phone call (we pay them the full amount and then the foundation grants us back a gift)? Are there any Loyola grads out there willing to grovel? (I believe he and his wife are both Loyola grads...) Name the high school after them?

www.luc.edu/law_eupdate/07_march/simongift.html

[proschool]

bob said:

dpc said:

Then we agree. Much can be done in 30 days if the right resources are dedicated to the task at hand. I must say that I am relieved (actually thrilled) that Dr. D will be spearheading this situation rather than HC.

Praise the Lord.

Amen to that. If not for Howie contuction would have started over a year ago.