|
|
Post by doctorwho on Oct 5, 2007 13:09:23 GMT -6
Who says BB will not be rezoned if we don't build a school there? Who says they won't build homes ? You asked where the potential is - that has to be included. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Oct 5, 2007 13:11:04 GMT -6
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. Oh, so now we're only looking at narrow bands of the balance sheet, only specific time frames and trumpeting savings inside that small limited scope and not the whole picture. At the end of the day we are DOWN on assets, not UP on assets. People are out that money on their taxes regardless of what referendum it was attached to and where we had $6 from that, we'll now have $5. That's a loss not a gain regardless of what Aurthur Anderson says. The $6million was always accounted for on the balance sheet. The value shifts from LAND to CASH and the VALUE of that cell on the spreadsheet drops by $1million dollars. Our assets go down $1million dollars. You've also not factored in what all the additional cost for delays are to switch sites so I can't understand why you are trumpeting 'savings' on one piece of the puzzle when the other cost differences could EASILY exceed that 'savings'. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 5, 2007 13:15:40 GMT -6
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. It is never buying the 25 acres and paying the BB $5 mil in lawyer fees. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 5, 2007 13:21:34 GMT -6
Another example
SD cash $6 million
Buy land for $ 6 million
SD cash = 0 land worth $6 mil
sell land back to BB
SD cash = $6 mill land worth =0
Pay BB legal fees $5 mil
SD Cash $1 mil
net cash change $-5 mil
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Oct 5, 2007 13:24:21 GMT -6
Bob,
Isn't the benevolent trust going to waive the fees? I mean, they are there to look out for our best interest, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 5, 2007 13:30:58 GMT -6
There is also $1 million in cash that is still in the account. It was always there but just switched assets classes from cash to land to cash.
|
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Oct 5, 2007 13:43:35 GMT -6
From a current cash flow standpoint, the way I laid it out is exactly how it works. You pay any legal fees from the sale of the existing 25 acres and move on down the road (or up the road).
Should the SB have chased BB? No, IMO. Buying the first 25 acres (without voter approval), was a mistake. And how much are our attorney's fees at this point? How does that look on the financial statements? Probably not pretty.
Consider this: The total cost of the BB property is $37.5 million. (we won't even add in attorney's fees because they are already incurred)
The total cost of the Macom property is $20.7 million.
The difference is $16.8 million
So if we have to spend a little to get out - so be it. Especially since we have the asset to sell which could cover the legal expenses.
|
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Oct 5, 2007 13:44:18 GMT -6
Bob, Isn't the benevolent trust going to waive the fees? I mean, they are there to look out for our best interest, right? They were never a willing seller. They may be very glad to be done with us. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Oct 5, 2007 13:47:44 GMT -6
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 'costs' to get out of BB follow us to the next place and add to the 'cost' to build a high school.
We're still leaving out higher construction costs, site and architectural plans and the time they take for which there is no known dollar amount but we can see historically that with the percentage increases that have happened in the past and can make a pretty good percentile guess. If one wants to be extra cautious then we should factor them to be HIGHER than people think because we should have done that for BB.
...and those COSTS add to the cost of the 3rd HS too.
This is better why?
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Oct 5, 2007 13:49:45 GMT -6
Another example SD cash $6 million Buy land for $ 6 million SD cash = 0 land worth $6 mil sell land back to BB SD cash = $6 mill land worth =0 Pay BB legal fees $5 mil SD Cash $1 mil net cash change $-5 mil You folks are right. Personally, to stick it to BB...it's a small price to pay.......but that's letting my emotions do the thinking. But the other number I look at also is 17.5 million. That has to factor in just a little too. I really want to wait til I see the numbers from the SD/SB on their research before coming to any conclusion. Just for fun. Let's suppose either top alt site comes in at a price well below the BB site. (I don't care for reasons that it wont) Pulling a number from my rear.....of 300/k acre for either site, and with a crack team of civil engineers/architects they would be able to break ground on 11/1. Would that change your thinking on BB. I am not interested in ANY reason that is not possible...for in my fantasy world it is. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Oct 5, 2007 13:50:28 GMT -6
Bob, Isn't the benevolent trust going to waive the fees? I mean, they are there to look out for our best interest, right? They were never a willing seller. They may be very glad to be done with us. They have no obligation except to increase the value of the trust they manage. They will be done with us either way. We buy, we are done. We walk and pay a lot of fees, we are still done. There is no incentive for them to waive anything and there is no bargaining chip we have to convince them otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Oct 5, 2007 13:54:08 GMT -6
Another example SD cash $6 million Buy land for $ 6 million SD cash = 0 land worth $6 mil sell land back to BB SD cash = $6 mill land worth =0 Pay BB legal fees $5 mil SD Cash $1 mil net cash change $-5 mil You folks are right. Personally, to stick it to BB...it's a small price to pay.......but that's letting my emotions do the thinking. But the other number I look at also is 17.5 million. That has to factor in just a little too. I really want to wait til I see the numbers from the SD/SB on their research before coming to any conclusion. Just for fun. Let's suppose either top alt site comes in at a price well below the BB site. (I don't care for reasons that it wont) Pulling a number from my rear.....of 300/k acre for either site, and with a crack team of civil engineers/architects they would be able to break ground on 11/1. Would that change your thinking on BB. I am not interested in ANY reason that is not possible...for in my fantasy world it is. If ground could be broken on 11/1, you bet it would change my mind. I can't speak for the condition or situation of the land to the north as to whether it's possible so I'll assume it is. I do know that it's not possible for the land to the south because the land ownership and sites are still yet to be shuffled around, there's comEd and a road to deal with and the land has to be seriously replanned from the condition it is currently in to figure out what to do with that nice large amount of water that is currently flowing through the middle of it. So, I don't see that happening before 11/1.. even the partial owner gave an inside number of 60 days previously (still unrealistic I believe, but we'll take it at face value for right now) ...not 30. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 5, 2007 13:54:34 GMT -6
Lacy, it is not a cash flow inflow but an asset swap. Cash-land -cash.
We don't pay lawyer fees if we stay at BB, we do if we leave and sell back the 25.
My point is that it costs the SD $5mill or whatever in lawyer fees. Those fees should be considered when determining a new site.
When you sell your car to the dealer, you are not increasing assets, you are realizing a loss (difference between bought and sold) and swapping value of car for cash. Yes your cash increases but the car value asset decreases by the same amount hence an asset swap.
I stated before Macom with the SD paying the BB fees is still less the BB (assuming no other costs)
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Oct 5, 2007 13:56:10 GMT -6
Bob,
I'll pay you $1,000 cash for your house with a clear title.
You'll have $1,000 in your pocket .. what do ya say?
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 5, 2007 13:58:35 GMT -6
Bob, I'll pay you $1,000 cash for your house with a clear title. You'll have $1,000 in your pocket .. what do ya say? I think my mortgage company would have something to say about that. |
|
