Metea site getting costlier

[Arch]

concerned said:

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.

There are still homes to be built in the district which will generate students in the future. Just looking at enrollment numbers today is again not looking at all of the facts to base such a critical decision on.

Far too often also, commercial zoning is being allowed to be zoned residential. That too must be taken into account. The enrollment numbers (even though I believe they are up overall for the student population this year) do not tell the whole picture. We can spend X amount more time going back over all of that and still arrive at the same conclusion as the voters did before: Yes, we need a 3rd HS. Now, it will just cost XXX millions more thanks to yet another delay.

[bob]

Lacy , I believe

the $1 million is the BB lawyer fee if we sell back the 25 acres (which I forgot in my last posts)

pass on the 55 then another $4 million

I see it as leaving BB and selling back the the 25 acres is a loss of $5 million.

That would add a cost of about $77k/acre for the Macom site with 65 acres

or 62,500/acre for an 80 acre site.

[dpc]

archwinsome said:

concerned said:

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.

There are still homes to be built in the district which will generate students in the future. Just looking at enrollment numbers today is again not looking at all of the facts to base such a critical decision on.

We've already been told by the SB Pres. (in his letter of a few days ago) that they are justifying the need for the 3HS based on current system enrollment so your point about future homes is irrelevant.

I have a major issue with MM's thinking. Obviously, he and most of the other SB members don't remember that all of the district's and 204Kids 3HS marketing materials claimed the need was there based on future enrollment trends as opposed to current system enrollment. So now they are justifying buying BB at all costs based on a change in their thinking which could very well be different than those of the Yes voters.

This is a gross abuse of power IMHO.

[rew]

Has anyone calculated what a $15M increase for land, costs the owner of $300,000 home in annual property taxes... Or what it would mean per household over the life of the bond?


(This is saying IF we paid for the increased cost with an additional ref...It is purely hypothetical)

[rew]

DPC, how can you say "based on a change in their thinking, which could very well be different from those of YES voters." I would think that sticking to $124M and building at BB is what people voted YES for. A different site or different total cost would be a change in thinking.

[Arch]

dpc said:

archwinsome said:

There are still homes to be built in the district which will generate students in the future. Just looking at enrollment numbers today is again not looking at all of the facts to base such a critical decision on.

We've already been told by the SB Pres. (in his letter of a few days ago) that they are justifying the need for the 3HS based on current system enrollment so your point about future homes is irrelevant.

Sorry, I think for myself and don't accept/reject based on a letter. Future places that will be built, that will add kids to the enrollment *ARE* relevant. While it is still forecasting one can look at past new development and see how many kids came from those places. Even if you divide the number in half (for argument's sake that the number generated will not equal those in the past) you still get a number greater than 0.

[lacy]

bob said:

Lacy , I believe

the $1 million is the BB lawyer fee if we sell back the 25 acres (which I forgot in my last posts)

pass on the 55 then another $4 million

I see it as leaving BB and selling back the the 25 acres is a loss of $5 million.
That would add a cost of about $77k/acre for the Macom site with 65 acres

or 62,500/acre for an 80 acre site.

No Bob. That's simply not right. We would get back the amount that we bought it for ($6+ million)- and then back out any legal fees. We would come out ahead. And I wouldn't want to take it as a given that the fees are $4 million. That's one of those numbers that gets thrown around that may or may not be how it shakes out. I get the feeling that throwing that out there was supposed to "scare" us into just buying BB. Well, I say pay the fees if we have to and get out. The land is too expensive.

Remember that the first 25 acres were purchased after the first referendum failed (with some of that money that the SB mysteriously pulls out of thin air when they want to), so it wasn't part of the $124.7 million approved referendum.

[lacy]

rew said:

DPC, how can you say "based on a change in their thinking, which could very well be different from those of YES voters." I would think that sticking to $124M and building at BB is what people voted YES for. A different site or different total cost would be a change in thinking.

But there is a different cost - to the tune of $17,250,000 more for the land.

Add to that declining enrollment and I think many YES voters would want to look at other options.

[lacy]

archwinsome said:

dpc said:

We've already been told by the SB Pres. (in his letter of a few days ago) that they are justifying the need for the 3HS based on current system enrollment so your point about future homes is irrelevant.

Sorry, I think for myself and don't accept/reject based on a letter. Future places that will be built, that will add kids to the enrollment *ARE* relevant. While it is still forecasting one can look at past new development and see how many kids came from those places. Even if you divide the number in half (for argument's sake that the number generated will not equal those in the past) you still get a number greater than 0.

Where are these "future places"? I don't see much more residential growth in this area.

[doctorwho]

dpc said:

archwinsome said:

There are still homes to be built in the district which will generate students in the future. Just looking at enrollment numbers today is again not looking at all of the facts to base such a critical decision on.

We've already been told by the SB Pres. (in his letter of a few days ago) that they are justifying the need for the 3HS based on current system enrollment so your point about future homes is irrelevant.

I have a major issue with MM's thinking. Obviously, he and most of the other SB members don't remember that all of the district's and 204Kids 3HS marketing materials claimed the need was there based on future enrollment trends as opposed to current system enrollment. So now they are justifying buying BB at all costs based on a change in their thinking which could very well be different than those of the Yes voters.

This is a gross abuse of power IMHO.

those materials are still around - the statement often made was" the kids are in the system today " -- future was looking at the remaining 8%-10% potential for enrollment that was to be built in the future - it was just another component - not the only one.

Do you know what the Sb discussed regarding attendance? You know they decided to go with only current attendance? SO the new Super did not ask about potential growth also ? I wish I had that kind of insight into the meeting discussions

on 10/2 -

The Board of Education met last night with our staff and some of our advisors. In the course of the discussions the board has reaffirmed the district's need for a third high school and is committed to building a third high school and delivering a seventh middle school at the same time.

We intend to deliver the project without seeking additional funds from our taxpayers and are further committed to stay within the available revenue for the project. Those funds include the bond proceeds, the interest generated over the life of the project, and land-cash donation contributions from land developers.

We have directed the administration to pursue the gathering of additional information to assist us with making the remaining decisions that contain the details of where the school will be located and how the project cost will be addressed.

We will bring you updated information as soon as it is available.

Mark Metzger, president
Board of Education

[Arch]

lacy said:

bob said:

Lacy , I believe

the $1 million is the BB lawyer fee if we sell back the 25 acres (which I forgot in my last posts)

pass on the 55 then another $4 million

I see it as leaving BB and selling back the the 25 acres is a loss of $5 million.
That would add a cost of about $77k/acre for the Macom site with 65 acres

or 62,500/acre for an 80 acre site.

No Bob. That's simply not right. We would get back the amount that we bought it for ($6+ million)- and then back out any legal fees. We would come out ahead.

Let's try this another way:


You pay $6 for a shirt at the store at some point. It sits around, not being used.

You take it back for a refund and they give you $5 for it. ($1 restocking fee).

How are you $5 ahead at this point? Overall, you are $1 down.

Or is this being looked at as "Gee honey, I spent $700, but I saved us $400, so really we are $1,100 up for the day!" type of thinking?

[Arch]

lacy said:

archwinsome said:

Sorry, I think for myself and don't accept/reject based on a letter. Future places that will be built, that will add kids to the enrollment *ARE* relevant. While it is still forecasting one can look at past new development and see how many kids came from those places. Even if you divide the number in half (for argument's sake that the number generated will not equal those in the past) you still get a number greater than 0.

There are homes going up near home depot and Leigh station is still not occupied or complete.

Driving around white ash and ashwood last night I saw many empty lots. Are those all going to remain open forever?

Where are these "future places"? I don't see much more residential growth in this area.

[lacy]

The money spent on the first 25 acres was not part of the current referendum. It is effectively gone - if we build on BB. If we don't build on BB, we sell the land, get our $6+ million back and then pay any necessary legal fees out of it.

Think of it this: if we build at BB, it's spent.

If we walk, we get it back minus some of it and still walk away with change in our pockets to go spend somewhere else. We leave with money.

Seems like a no-brainer to me in light of the $17,250,000 additional price tag required to purchase the remainder of BB.

[doctorwho]

lacy said:

archwinsome said:

Sorry, I think for myself and don't accept/reject based on a letter. Future places that will be built, that will add kids to the enrollment *ARE* relevant. While it is still forecasting one can look at past new development and see how many kids came from those places. Even if you divide the number in half (for argument's sake that the number generated will not equal those in the past) you still get a number greater than 0.

Where are these "future places"? I don't see much more residential growth in this area.

drive up New York Street - Aurora ave between 59 and Eola - hundreds and hundreds - likely thousands of townhomes still being built - and more land avaialable. And plenty of land in the northern end still unoccupied.

All growth does not have to be south, there's a whole other part of the district north of 75th street

there are more homes / townhomes going in just south of 75th street east of 59 - more behind home depot --

How many homes would fit on BB if no school there ?

[lacy]

Who says BB will not be rezoned if we don't build a school there?