Metea site getting costlier

[bob]

lacy said:

Gatordog,

First, the BB land is $31 million. Secondly, it's my understanding that BB would have the right to seek reimbursement not that we would automatically owe it if we pulled out. I'm wondering it that could be negotiated down as part of selling the 25 acres back to them (which I think they would be delighted to have back). Even if not, we come out ahead by selling the land back ($2 million net gain).

Lastly, who says we couldn't start construction just as quickly somewhere else? And I would like to see the backup figures on how they arrive at $8 million more to delay construction. That seems high.

Even if we take all of this at face value, we're still $4 million ahead.

It seems they keep feeding us just a little bit of information and seeing how we digest it. I think the public is due a full accounting of both the situation and the finances.

Not a net gain but a net loss of $4mil.
We paid $6 million and got $2 million back.

[Arch]

lacy said:

.

Lastly, who says we couldn't start construction just as quickly somewhere else? And I would like to see the backup figures on how they arrive at $8 million more to delay construction. That seems high.

Unless there is a site plan, survey and architectural signoff based on the land plans, construction isn't going to start any time soon for another piece of property.

I believe the suggestion was made out in the open by someone here that if someone wanted the district to buy that land then they should step up to the plate and do this work ahead of time to make it easier for the school board to jump ship off of BB to the south side. If they did it, great. Lets see it. Show us it could start immediately. If not, don't complain when time-delays factor into a decision as to why gong south isn't such a great idea due to rising costs that are tied to time. There will be no savings because of it.

Lastly, some never thought the land would be decided to be such a high price. Obviously it was. Now, for some to say that construction costs are rising by what seems like a high amount is all of a sudden a foreign thing? If we go by the last 'Oh Crap', we have to believe and bank on the high side of the cost windows. I'd rather make a decision assuming 8 million and have it be true then hope for only 2.5 million and have it turn out to be 8.

[wvhsparent]

gatordog...should your math be 31mil for the BB site? that is an extra million you left off.

Who here thinks we will ever see any concrete numbers on the alt. sites? I am under the impression we will only get fuzzy math numbers, nothing firm.

I sure hope I am wrong.

[dpc]

lacy said:

It seems they keep feeding us just a little bit of information and seeing how we digest it. I think the public is due a full accounting of both the situation and the finances.

I completely agree. Sadly, I don't think the SB or administration think they are accountable to anyone but themselves. At this stage, I've resigned myself to the fact that they will purchase BB at whatever cost and they will pull money from god knows where to build the school.

[gatordog]

I updated my early post with BB land tranaction by $1 mil.....thanks everyone.

So looking at the two estimated cost factors of legal cost and contruct delay (from experts who are way better qualified to speak of dollar and time impact....to ignore such commentary is not financial prudent)

We are at Macom savings of <$4million. Best case. Looks to me like we are congealing around a dollar number to assess the value to the district of the macom site.

[concerned]

I have been holding back due to being soooo angry. My biggest concern with the last referendum was the condemnation suit. I heard over and over agian by the SB that they were confident in getting this land and there was no plan B. Look at my past posts how I stated this over and over again. The SB kept us from focusing on this issue by bringing up boundaries, threatening us with split shifts ect. ect. We need to demand the SB show us the enrollment figures and really see if we need to go forward with this mess!!! I have no agenda except that we demand that the SB do the right thing with our money and for our kids!!

With all these broken promises it is very hard for me to trust the SB. If split shifts were needed and we have had these delays then why are we not seeing the SB deal with the crowding issues as we try and get land for the 3rd HS? It is time to re-evaluate and do the right thing. The SB can redeem themselves by admitting their mistakes and move forward and make the right decisions.

[lacy]

bob said:

lacy said:

Gatordog,

First, the BB land is $31 million. Secondly, it's my understanding that BB would have the right to seek reimbursement not that we would automatically owe it if we pulled out. I'm wondering it that could be negotiated down as part of selling the 25 acres back to them (which I think they would be delighted to have back). Even if not, we come out ahead by selling the land back ($2 million net gain).

Lastly, who says we couldn't start construction just as quickly somewhere else? And I would like to see the backup figures on how they arrive at $8 million more to delay construction. That seems high.

Even if we take all of this at face value, we're still $4 million ahead.

It seems they keep feeding us just a little bit of information and seeing how we digest it. I think the public is due a full accounting of both the situation and the finances.

Not a net gain but a net loss of $4mil.
We paid $6 million and got $2 million back.

I don't agree with your math, but thanks for reminding us that BB will actually cost $37,550,000 - because we already paid over $6 million for the first 25 acres.

Since that money has been spent - we could sell back for $6 million+ which would be money we don't currently have which we could add to the referendum money, taking out of this any money owed for the legal fees. And thanks to Gatormom for reminding us that we always heard this figure was $1 million. It has suddenly jumped to $4 million. And I'm still under the impression they have the right to ask for reimbursement - it's not automatic. Still wondering if that could be negotiated if we sell back.

Why wouldn't they be delighted to have land back that they sold for substantially less than what the appraisers proved in court it is worth today?

And why buy 80 acres at BB when less would be required at Macom (or St. John)?

[lacy]

concerned said:

I have been holding back due to being soooo angry. My biggest concern with the last referendum was the condemnation suit. I heard over and over agian by the SB that they were confident in getting this land and there was no plan B. Look at my past posts how I stated this over and over again. The SB kept us from focusing on this issue by bringing up boundaries, threatening us with split shifts ect. ect. We need to demand the SB show us the enrollment figures and really see if we need to go forward with this mess!!! I have no agenda except that we demand that the SB do the right thing with our money and for our kids!!

With all these broken promises it is very hard for me to trust the SB. If split shifts were needed and we have had these delays then why are we not seeing the SB deal with the crowding issues as we try and get land for the 3rd HS? It is time to re-evaluate and do the right thing. The SB can redeem themselves by admitting their mistakes and move forward and make the right decisions.

I agree about the enrollment. Based on the little information we have, it looks like we would have excess seats of about 1000.

Yes, the WVHS freshman center is converted back to a middle school, but the NVHS gold campus remains. Therefore the total NVHS capacity is about 4000 (1000 or so at 9th grade and 3000 at main campus). So you have 3000 each at WVHS and MVHS and 4000 at NVHS with only only about 9000 kids at any point in the pipeline and enrollment dropping.

Purchasing BB at all costs and then building more capacity than what enrollment suggests just does not represent sound analysis IMO.

[Arch]

lacy said:

bob said:

Not a net gain but a net loss of $4mil.
We paid $6 million and got $2 million back.

I don't agree with your math, but thanks for reminding us that BB will actually cost $37,550,000 - because we already paid over $6 million for the first 25 acres.

Since that money has been spent - we could sell back for $6 million+ which would be money we don't currently have which we could add to the referendum money, taking out of this any money owed for the legal fees. And thanks to Gatormom for reminding us that we always heard this figure was $1 million. It has suddenly jumped to $4 million. And I'm still under the impression they have the right to ask for reimbursement - it's not automatic. Still wondering if that could be negotiated if we sell back.

Why wouldn't they be delighted to have land back that they sold for substantially less than what the appraisers proved in court it is worth today?

And why buy 80 acres at BB when less would be required at Macom (or St. John)?

Here is what you are not understanding. If we walk away and do not build a school on the 25 acres, we *MUST* sell it back to BB at cost minus fees.

There is *NO* negotiating because we have NOTHING to negotiate with. The cost (to them)/sellback price is fixed. It's $6 million. nothing more, nothing less. Now, don't count those proceeds yet because we also owe legal fees. It's in the original sale agreement of the 25 acres which was in a PDF file on here over a year ago. There is nothing to negotiate.

[Arch]

lacy said:

concerned said:

I have been holding back due to being soooo angry. My biggest concern with the last referendum was the condemnation suit. I heard over and over agian by the SB that they were confident in getting this land and there was no plan B. Look at my past posts how I stated this over and over again. The SB kept us from focusing on this issue by bringing up boundaries, threatening us with split shifts ect. ect. We need to demand the SB show us the enrollment figures and really see if we need to go forward with this mess!!! I have no agenda except that we demand that the SB do the right thing with our money and for our kids!!

With all these broken promises it is very hard for me to trust the SB. If split shifts were needed and we have had these delays then why are we not seeing the SB deal with the crowding issues as we try and get land for the 3rd HS? It is time to re-evaluate and do the right thing. The SB can redeem themselves by admitting their mistakes and move forward and make the right decisions.

I agree about the enrollment. Based on the little information we have, it looks like we would have excess seats of about 1000.

Yes, the WVHS freshman center is converted back to a middle school, but the NVHS gold campus remains. Therefore the total NVHS capacity is about 4000 (1000 or so at 9th grade and 3000 at main campus). So you have 3000 each at WVHS and MVHS and 4000 at NVHS with only only about 9000 kids at any point in the pipeline and enrollment dropping.

Purchasing BB at all costs and then building more capacity than what enrollment suggests just does not represent sound analysis IMO.

So are you now saying even if they abandon BB but go south, that enrollment now does not even justify putting a 3rd HS on the Macom property ??

Or, are you saying if we purchased BB, built less capacity and stayed under budget for the entirety that it would be the best solution since it satisfies both the cost and capacity ??

[justme]

Good lord! Why do we keep suggesting that we continue to throw more money into this money pit? How many more inconsistancies need to come up before enough is enough? How many times is it okay for the SB to mess up the finances before people step up and say something. I am absolutely saying something and I am encouraging anyone who agrees to do the same. For me ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! NO BB. Period!

[Arch]

justme said:

Good lord! Why do we keep suggesting that we continue to throw more money into this money pit? How many more inconsistancies need to come up before enough is enough? How many times is it okay for the SB to mess up the finances before people step up and say something. I am absolutely saying something and I am encouraging anyone who agrees to do the same. For me ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! NO BB. Period!

You somehow believe that if they are that incompetent with one site they will all of a sudden be completely competent at another and not turn it into another money pit too? That's a heck of a leap of faith to make.

[wvhsparent]

archwinsome said:

justme said:

Good lord! Why do we keep suggesting that we continue to throw more money into this money pit? How many more inconsistancies need to come up before enough is enough? How many times is it okay for the SB to mess up the finances before people step up and say something. I am absolutely saying something and I am encouraging anyone who agrees to do the same. For me ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! NO BB. Period!

You somehow believe that if they are that incompetent with one site they will all of a sudden be completely competent at another and not turn it into another money pit too? That's a heck of a leap of faith to make.

Good point Arch.........but until I see numbers...I am willing to hold out hope.
Although Howie (the main incompetent) is gone....

[concerned]

archwinsome, I think the SB really needs to look at the enrollment numbers and see if this is truely a bubble or do we really need the 3rd high school. We now at least have one more year of enrollment numbers to look at. The SB then should find the most cost effective way to deal with the crowding issue. I am very upset with their all on BB or nothing approach.

And no they should not build a lesser school to fit into budget, but I do feel they have been very irresponsible with the taxpayer's money. This mess proves it. There should of been a plan B to fall on. Now we are scrambling and if the school is built paying millions more.

[rew]

Please define "bubble". Do you consider it to be one yr increase, five year increase, ten yr increase???