Where to build MV

[Arch]

macy said:

momto4 said:

In absence of ANY other issues, come up with a boundary scenario that works well for the majority of the district with either of these location. I don't know of one. This is why I'm referring to them as bad locations.

Until I know the cost difference I will never consider an alternate location bad just based on having to redraw boundaries.

Are you saying that despite the cost difference we can't switch and potentially save millions because there is no way to redraw boundaries?

If you are, I completely disagree. Boundaries were brutal and will be again if we have to redo. But, I personally can't justify paying millions more. I'm sure many may disagree with me and that's okay.

It's just my opinion that we need to look into the other options at this point.

You are assuming no delays and therefore no additional costs or provisions aside from just the land cost. Who is going to do the site plan and building engineering based on that plan for the south land for free?

[warriorpride]

gatormom said:

eagledad said:

WP I can see where you're coming from. In speaking to people througout the community it seems that Paul Lehman is almost universally disliked, especially by those west of Eola Rd.

Apparently he has pulled a number of jerk stunts over the years. Not exactly a pillar of the community.

I'm sure suing Naperville over the height of a bridge didn't help, and I think there is still a chunk of sidewalk (like 100 feet) that Macom was supposed to put in in White Eagle, but never has (at least according to Leroy).

Needless to say, Paul ain't exactly loved around the area.

West of the tracks. We can talk about it over a cold one some day.

Yes - and the damage Lehman's done is still not repaired. Why do you think WV has to have those realtor showcases? This is another instance of an intangible factor - there's not a specific $ amount to assign to it - but it there & it needs to be considered.

[macy]

archwinsome said:

macy said:

Until I know the cost difference I will never consider an alternate location bad just based on having to redraw boundaries.

Are you saying that despite the cost difference we can't switch and potentially save millions because there is no way to redraw boundaries?

If you are, I completely disagree. Boundaries were brutal and will be again if we have to redo. But, I personally can't justify paying millions more. I'm sure many may disagree with me and that's okay.

It's just my opinion that we need to look into the other options at this point.

You are assuming no delays and therefore no additional costs or provisions aside from just the land cost. Who is going to do the site plan and building engineering based on that plan for the south land for free?

No, I didn't assume anything... Momto4's post to my was stated as this "In the absence of other issues."

Just to clarify.. I take the other issues seriously as well.

[Arch]

macy said:

archwinsome said:

You are assuming no delays and therefore no additional costs or provisions aside from just the land cost. Who is going to do the site plan and building engineering based on that plan for the south land for free?

No, I didn't assume anything... Momto4's post to my was stated as this "In the absence of other issues."

Just to clarify.. I take the other issues seriously as well.

We already worked out the math yesterday to show where the 'millions more' really isn't and could easily slip into being 'millions less' going with BB when time and money are factored in if there are more time delays before anything gets started on an alernate site.

[EagleDad]

A blast from the past. Not familair with this "White Eagle Lakes". I wasn't very in-tune withe sector G when I lived in Cowlishaw. Someone fill me in, this the land that became tallgrass and now Lehman is looking to see back? Did it get rezoned form commercial to residential? If so, how many students did Macom add to the problem we face today back then?


findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_19991109/ai_n13836037

Schools fight plan for homes

Chicago Sun-Times, Nov 9, 1999 by ABDON M. PALLASCH
A Naperville school board is fighting to keep children from moving into the neighborhood.

"We don't oppose residential development per se," said Mark Metzger, chairman of Indian Prairie School District 204. "What we oppose is that it was supposed to be commercial."

At stake is a 300-acre parcel - the last major undeveloped piece of land in Naperville - just a stone's throw from the district's crown jewel: the $64 million Neuqua Valley High School.

The district built Neuqua two years ago, and it constructed four new elementary schools this year based on population projections that count on part of that huge parcel being developed as an industrial park.

Now the developer, The Macom Corp., wants to switch zoning so he can build homes on the whole site; that throws off the district's math.

"We typically won't begin to see dollar 1 from a new (residential) development until two years after we start educating the kids," Metzger said. A commercial development "generates tax revenue but no expenses in the form of kids to educate. It's like free money."

"We have always been banking on this being a business park," said school board member Jeannette Clark. "The city of Naperville is one of the fastest-growing if not the fastest-growing areas in the state. Pretty soon there will not be any land left. It's very important we maintain that balance of business and residential land use."

[macy]

archwinsome said:

macy said:

No, I didn't assume anything... Momto4's post to my was stated as this "In the absence of other issues."

Just to clarify.. I take the other issues seriously as well.

We already worked out the math yesterday to show where the 'millions more' really isn't and could easily slip into being 'millions less' going with BB when time and money are factored in if there are more time delays before anything gets started on an alernate site.

I didn't work the same outcome with my math... Until we hear what the other options would cost, we are missing some variables required to find the real difference.

[momof3]

macy said:

Are you saying that despite the cost difference we can't switch and potentially save millions because there is no way to redraw boundaries?

If you are, I completely disagree. Boundaries were brutal and will be again if we have to redo. But, I personally can't justify paying millions more. I'm sure many may disagree with me and that's okay.

It's just my opinion that we need to look into the other options at this point.

yes, look at other options, but the additional layer complicating a final decision is the operating referendum -

if history is the best predictor of future behavior, the CFO'ers that have advocated a no vote on every past referendum will probably advocate a no vote on the operating ref - so they are 'lost' votes no matter the outcome - if no 3rd hs is built and we need $$ for portables, I just can't believe they would support that either

Supporters of the 3rd high school regardless of location will probably vote yes on the op ref but probably aren't enough to get it passed

So the sb has to keep in mind how to make the most of the other groups of folks to make happy - if they build the school where they said they would for the amount they said they'd do it for, I think that gives the op ref a good chance.

And as far as building the "best" school possible - the students at NV seem fine with no planetarium and the students at WV seem fine with no bell, so I just don't think there is going to be some outcry over the facility at MV. imo.

[Arch]

macy said:

archwinsome said:

We already worked out the math yesterday to show where the 'millions more' really isn't and could easily slip into being 'millions less' going with BB when time and money are factored in if there are more time delays before anything gets started on an alernate site.

I didn't work the same outcome with my math... Until we hear what the other options would cost, we are missing some variables required to find the real difference.

The neat part is, they are all COSTS not SAVINGS and I included BB fees being $0.00 which everyone knows is already over a million dollars.

So please, go find the other 'costs' and factor them in as well. Don't take too long though because there's a clock ticking.

[EagleDad]

Apparently, the land where White Eagle Lakes was to be is now the senior development (Carillon) north of 95th, at 248th. so - probably not a lot of kiddies coming from there.

I guess I didn't realize Macom was Carillon also. They would be like all of the devlopment in sector G then, right?

[macy]

eagledad said:

Apparently, the land where White Eagle Lakes was to be is now the senior development (Carillon) north of 95th, at 248th. so - probably not a lot of kiddies coming from there.

Do they pay the same tax structure or do they get a reduced percentage because they are (for the most part) senior citizens?

[rew]

White Eagle Lakes was originally platted by Macom to be single family homes. It became Carrillon Club and over 55 after much fighting with the City/SD. Then Macom argued that an over 55 community should be exempt from paying the school portion of their property taxes.

[EagleDad]

From what I'd heard they pay a ton. A friend of mine's parents were interested in relocating there (from a 4 bedrooom home in Hobson west, they down't want the upkeep and stairs are getting tough).

Taxes were 12-14K. They had a lot bought and backed out.

The good news as Carillon was a Macom development, they have a lot of experience moving roads (248th).

[macy]

Sorry to say for those poor folks, but glad to have them in the district... No kids and some hefty tax revenue..

[doctorwho]

rew said:

White Eagle Lakes was originally platted by Macom to be single family homes. It became Carrillon Club and over 55 after much fighting with the City/SD. Then Macom argued that an over 55 community should be exempt from paying the school portion of their property taxes.

Is that where Old Chicago Amusement park was once located ?

[momto4]

macy said:

archwinsome said:

You are assuming no delays and therefore no additional costs or provisions aside from just the land cost. Who is going to do the site plan and building engineering based on that plan for the south land for free?

No, I didn't assume anything... Momto4's post to my was stated as this "In the absence of other issues."

Just to clarify.. I take the other issues seriously as well.

I guess I wasn't clear either then. I meant in not taking into account all the other reasons that St. John's and Macom sites would potentially be undesirable, that if we went on location only, they would be bad locations. And not because we would have to redraw boundaries, I am not at all opposed to that if that needs to be done someday, but because there is no good way to redraw the boundaries.

As someone else mentioned earlier this week, the location is permanent and we need to make sure we put the school in the right place. From any way I look at it, both St. John's and Macom are the wrong place for this school. If those parcels were free and ready to build next week then I think they'd deserve serious consideration as to how to overcome the other negatives but otherwise, no.