|
|
Post by macy on Oct 3, 2007 7:51:10 GMT -6
Why can't I get my question answered?? Who on the board, who was 100% behind BB two weeks ago is now unwilling to pay the $30M?? I don't think it's fair to ask that question with so many unknowns out there. Availability of other land? Cost difference? Time frame? Attorney fees? How many semis Arch will videotape today on 248 and Wolf's Crossing? (LOL thinking about that one) Yada... Yada... and Yada.. Once all the above and more information is provided by the district, I know I can give you an answer but not before then. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Oct 3, 2007 7:51:31 GMT -6
Why can't I get my question answered?? Who on the board, who was 100% behind BB two weeks ago is now unwilling to pay the $30M?? I'm on record of wanting to just pay it and get it built. Then, it's done. |
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Oct 3, 2007 7:57:45 GMT -6
DELETED as earlier advised
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 3, 2007 8:04:02 GMT -6
Why can't I get my question answered?? Who on the board, who was 100% behind BB two weeks ago is now unwilling to pay the $30M?? Stated that way, me. But macy's post is how I feel. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 3, 2007 8:07:11 GMT -6
I don't think guns ablazing were ever mentioned. If nothing was wrong, why did a certain committee financials contribution decreased by $2000 from it's pre-election report to post election report? Did someone have to return some money? bob, As I was informed the error was on the part of the governmental agency. You scutiinize everything so well how did you miss this? Fact is some folks were very foul in terms of their treatment towards the church you now want to make nicey nicey with. Reminds me of that old saying about the people you meet going up the ladder are the very ones you meet coming down. I can't respond because the mod said so. But if anyone cares to further discuss please Pm me. |
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Oct 3, 2007 8:07:54 GMT -6
Why can't I get my question answered?? Who on the board, who was 100% behind BB two weeks ago is now unwilling to pay the $30M?? That would likely be me - with a caveat. I can't walk away from BB fully until I know the costs and time frames of another site, and the sunk costs of BB. I believe we now have 23 days to get that answer. |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Oct 3, 2007 8:12:14 GMT -6
Fair enough, thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Oct 3, 2007 8:15:04 GMT -6
Why can't I get my question answered?? Who on the board, who was 100% behind BB two weeks ago is now unwilling to pay the $30M?? I don't think it's fair to ask that question with so many unknowns out there. Availability of other land? Cost difference? Time frame? Attorney fees? How many semis Arch will videotape today on 248 and Wolf's Crossing? (LOL thinking about that one) Yada... Yada... and Yada.. Once all the above and more information is provided by the district, I know I can give you an answer but not before then. I also want to know all of the above ( sans the trucks ) - also - however the bottom line for me is this - I still believe that BB is the best property for this district - and as long as they can bring it to fruition ( equitably resourced school) without coming back for more builiding funds - let's get this over with and build. I hate the thought of giving that money to BB, ( also really hate giving them $5M in legal fees for their ability to delay this) but I also hate to give it to others who blame a local HS rather than a temporarily stagnant market), for their sales woes. And do not want to try and force a church to sell if they are not willing - they would have to change their minds willingly |
|
|
|
Post by macy on Oct 3, 2007 8:17:55 GMT -6
I don't think it's fair to ask that question with so many unknowns out there. Availability of other land? Cost difference? Time frame? Attorney fees? How many semis Arch will videotape today on 248 and Wolf's Crossing? (LOL thinking about that one) Yada... Yada... and Yada.. Once all the above and more information is provided by the district, I know I can give you an answer but not before then. I also want to know all of the above ( sans the trucks ) - also - however the bottom line for me is this - I still believe that BB is the best property for this district - and as long as they can bring it to fruition ( equitably resourced school) without coming back for more builiding funds - let's get this over with and build. I hate the thought of giving that money to BB, ( also really hate giving them $5M in legal fees for their ability to delay this) but I also hate to give it to others who blame a local HS rather than a temporarily stagnant market), for their sales woes. And do not want to try and force a church to sell if they are not willing - they would have to change their minds willingly Just for the record, the truck comment was a joke... I thought it would be obvious but maybe not to all... Is 5 million an accurate number for attorney fees? |
|
|
|
Post by al on Oct 3, 2007 8:25:12 GMT -6
Why can't I get my question answered?? Who on the board, who was 100% behind BB two weeks ago is now unwilling to pay the $30M?? I was quite confident that the BB negotiations would not pan out as the SB "wished." I will continue to hold the SB responsible for the likely delay as they re-evalute the other options that they never took seriously at the onset. The writing was always on the wall as far as the difficulty in dealing with the BB estate, as anyone who was even superficially aware of the Costco negotiations knows. The "we will get it because we want it" attitude of the SB has been stunning. That said, if the court awarded the price the SB was looking for I would support the school there as I support a 3rd school anywhere the costs are realistic. I voted Yes. But to pay more than twice what was planned? That's insane. I understand we approved the referendum and the letter of the law has us committed to it as it is worded (as a total land/school package price), so if they decide to cut costs and stay within the allocated money then we are stuck with it... but honestly, do you think if the Ref was worded with the lot costs vs. building cost broken out with the $500K/acre number - does anyone think it would have passed? Not a chance. (IMHO) That the SB would even consider the loophole of possibly cutting back on the building to accomodate inordinate land costs and still fit within the total approved amount goes against the original intent of the Ref. and while I'm on a rant  , why were we willing to take on the BB estate, which was destined to be messy, but we ran scared from taking on the mayor of Bolingbrook, or didn't really get into deep negotiations with some of the other sites? Anyone think any of those options would have been harder or less successful than our fun with BB? Ok - enough... I support a 3rd high school, and will support BB ONLY if and when we are assured that a real attempt at negotiation has been made with the other sites. I honestly feel there is fiscally responsible solution with some creative thinking with either Macom, St. Johns and possible some others. Yes we will have to change the boundaries... so what? Send my kids to any of the three - we'll deal with it. |
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Oct 3, 2007 8:25:22 GMT -6
I want to know....how many people who, as of two weeks ago, were 1) supportive of the third HS, 2)supportive of the BB location, and 3) supportive of the boundary decision, have changed their opinion? We all know that excludes some of you and you have adequately voiced your objections. I would like to know for whom the price has changed your opinion of BB from a positive to a negative??. Good question (this is the crux of the issue) My support has always been third HS and build it with the $124.7 mil bond issue. Nothing more nothing less. And I have common sense expection for district to chose a site that is best for long term. Nothing has changed over last two weeks except concern that SD can deliver the approved third HS on budget. Given costs of other possibly available site, both upfront knowns (or rather "sorta kinda" knowns) and long term costs....I feel BB is optimal from benefit vs cost perspection. I am very optimistic that the SD has enough to fund MV at BB.My best guess estimate is $30 million for land and $105 million for bldg=$135 mil total. Using the availabe $10 mil in land-cash donations and interest gets us there. I am open to bldg cost reduction ideas as well if needed. It is fair and reasonable (I would go as far as saying its good government) to apply the land-cash donations and interest from these bonds to this project. The land-cash funds are very appropriate to use for school building construction, and this should be the last bldg we ever construct as a district. I dont care if they keep cash in the bank....they are not a for profit outfit that passes such to shareholders. Actually for a govt entity told by the community to deliver something, I fundamentally would say its "wrong" to keep cash in the bank when money is there for it. Just I I would say it would be fundamentally wrong for the SD to take money from other things we have told them to fund (staffing, services, etc) to fund a building project. I think MV at BB is best choice. I think it will meet the 2006 ref budget contraint and be best long term site. |
|
|
|
Post by macy on Oct 3, 2007 8:28:23 GMT -6
Why can't I get my question answered?? Who on the board, who was 100% behind BB two weeks ago is now unwilling to pay the $30M?? I was quite confident that the BB negotiations would not pan out as the SB "wished." I will continue to hold the SB responsible for the likely delay as they re-evalute the other options that they never took seriously at the onset. The writing was always on the wall as far as the difficulty in dealing with the BB estate, as anyone who was even superficially aware of the Costco negotiations knows. The "we will get it because we want it" attitude of the SB has been stunning. That said, if the court awarded the price the SB was looking for I would support the school there as I support a 3rd school anywhere the costs are realistic. I voted Yes. But to pay more than twice what was planned? That's insane. I understand we approved the referendum and the letter of the law has us committed to it as it is worded (as a total land/school package price), so if they decide to cut costs and stay within the allocated money then we are stuck with it... but honestly, do you think if the Ref was worded with the lot costs vs. building cost broken out with the $500K/acre number - does anyone think it would have passed? Not a chance. (IMHO) That the SB would even consider the loophole of possibly cutting back on the building to accomodate inordinate land costs and still fit within the total approved amount goes against the original intent of the Ref. and while I'm on a rant , why were we willing to take on the BB estate, which was destined to be messy, but we ran scared from taking on the mayor of Bolingbrook, or didn't really get into deep negotiations with some of the other sites? Anyone think any of those options would have been harder or less successful than our fun with BB? Ok - enough... I support a 3rd high school, and will support BB ONLY if and when we are assured that a real attempt at negotiation has been made with the other sites. I honestly feel there is fiscally responsible solution with some creative thinking with either Macom, St. Johns and possible some others. Yes we will have to change the boundaries... so what? Send my kids to any of the three - we'll deal with it. Wow.. Al, I couldn't have said it better. I'm completely in the same mindset as you... |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Oct 3, 2007 8:28:44 GMT -6
The only thing that bothers me about evaluating other sites is that we have evaluated BB for probably three yrs, we have a plan, we have bids etc. I wonder how feasible it is to really evaluate any other site in 23 days.
I think we need to accept that to walk away from BB, is to go with a guess at best. And, yes, SSM this is where you come in and say 'plan B, I told you so"...
Maybe the SB has a secret Plan B, ready to unveil. But otherwise, I have come to the conclusion, we really have no choice but to proceed.
|
|
|
|
Post by al on Oct 3, 2007 8:32:03 GMT -6
Wow.. Al, I couldn't have said it better. I'm completely in the same mindset as you... scary... ain't it  |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Oct 3, 2007 8:34:16 GMT -6
al,
Very well written.
|
|
, why were we willing to take on the BB estate, which was destined to be messy, but we ran scared from taking on the mayor of Bolingbrook, or didn't really get into deep negotiations with some of the other sites? Anyone think any of those options would have been harder or less successful than our fun with BB?
