Metea site getting costlier

[lacy]

bob said:

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)

Bob, if we stay at BB we pay $17,250,000 more than expected.

[Arch]

lacy said:

bob said:

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)

Bob, if we stay at BB we pay $17,250,000 more than expected.

What's the 'cost' due to further delays? If the cost is only $2 million for however long those delays are, I completely agree.. say goodbye to the place and move on.

So, what are the costs for delaying and how long will the delay be until we can move onto another site with a plan of how to construct a high school?

[lacy]

bob said:

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)

We shouldn't be afraid to pay $4 million (or whatever) to get out of a very bad deal at this point.

And we use the asset to do so. It does not come out of the $124.7 million referendum.

Think of it this way, we leave BB with $125.7 million (or more depending on how that really shakes out). And we purchase land that cost $16.5 million less than BB.

Why get bogged down about the charges that occur in between if it's a net win to us? There's a saying "cut your losses...." At some point, pull the plug and stop the bleeding. We've spent enough money and time on this property to no avail.


Try to look at the bottom line - the end result. It might help.

[lacy]

And I keep using the Macom figures because those are available. Plug in St. John's or otherwise as you like.

[Arch]

Exactly when will that end result be, Lacy, and how much will that delay cost us? Can we move onto the land on 11/1 and start working it or is there even a plan and soil surveys done? Is there a road or power lines along that road where a building is going to maybe eventually go?

Naperville says that moves at the earliest in spring 2008. ComEd takes about 6 months to schedule a utility move.

[lacy]

This is the type of information we need from the SB - and verified by objective sources. We can debate this all day long, but I can't rely on something just because you say so.

I find the $8 million number from the article interesting (construction cost delay). Do they have a crystal ball? If so, maybe we could make some money on the futures markets. One could say they expect them to go up, but in a free market, anything is possible.

And whether there would be a delay has not been verified. So we have that and any "delay costs" that need verification.

A meeting with the public would be good. Do you think we will get one?

[Arch]

They have the same crystal ball that other people are using to determine that it's all inclusively cheaper to walk away from BB and go elsewhere.

Last night there was this shiny ditch containing water reflecting the lights running south on the property down there. Is there a plan for a moat? Is there a plan to divert the drainage? Do we have to do anything about the utilities running along existing WC road first or even settle up w/ the Park District who has a sign on existing WC road claiming it as a future park site? Will those be settled in just a couple of days after we abandon BB?

I'm sorry, but delays are not imaginary.

[wvhsparent]

lacy said:

bob said:

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)

Bob, if we stay at BB we pay $17,250,000 more than expected.

lacy that is kinda what he just said.
Macom with the walk away costs may be less than the xtra 17.25mil assuming no other costs.

[wvhsparent]

which was my point in my fantasy world too. Let's change the timeframe a bit to "the same time we could break ground at BB"

example St. Johns at 80+acres would add 62k/acre to final cost factoring in the net walk-away figure which includes selling back the 25 at the origial purchase price minus the fees.
so in my world STJAME gets 300k/acre +62K/acre for SD legal fees for a total cost of 362k/acre. Which BTW is really way over what I was comfortable paying in the 1st place, but still about 200k/acre less than the BB verdict for a total of 16mil. So we would have a 16mil delay buffer.

[rew]

WVHS P ..help me out...$362/acre for 80 acres is $29M that is only $2M less than BB 55 acres?? Remember we already own 25 acres.

[rew]

Lets take it a step further and say that SJ is $29M - 5M for the sale of the 25 acres = $24M and then we incurr the $8M delay cost increase they mention in the article...isn't the cost of SJ $32M???

Let's do the same for Macom...$22M + 5M for BB lawyers - 5M for land sale = $22M + 8M for delay = $30M???

[southsidemom]

Are construction costs all inclusive? Doesn't Commons Road have to be extended? Are all the land improvement costs rolled into the construction number which includes furnishing the classrooms???

[Arch]

southsidemom said:

Are construction costs all inclusive? Doesn't Commons Road have to be extended? Are all the land improvement costs rolled into the construction number which includes furnishing the classrooms???

They have to be all inclusive within the budget using money allowed for it regardless of the site. Land improvement, I believe, should be in that cost or at least within that budget. One would hope the site plan would say what improvements need to be made and that should be part of the price tag to 'build the school'. How many sites have plans in the works right now? I heard about having to build out commons drive and that price should be factored in as well if the district has to pay for it. One would also hope they exhaust all grant money avenues to extend it too before passing the remaining costs onto the tax payers.

As for other properties,

I'm curious, has the idea of a high school been passed along to the Metra lines so that it can co-exist with the metra station planned there at the elgin/joiliet tracks in the next 10-15 years and the Naperville park and ride facility to the north near 91st? Has the city of Naperville worked with anyone to find out if a high school can coexist with their plans to abandon 248th avenue in favor of 250th avenue which potentially will be built a bit more to the west onto the property area in question especially if they plan on carrying that new road further south completely? There's the whole issue about 95th still being designated a major artery on the master thoroughfare plan for the city which is destined for more truck traffic to/from wheatland industrial park when the road improvements are complete on 95th, 250th, and wolf's crossings.

Oh wait, nevermind, that will not result in a single delay or even a potential thumbs-down to any feasibility study about plopping a high school in that location.

[momof3]

wvhsparent said:

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.

That would definately change my thinking. While I think there is value in BB's central location (transportation cost savings long-term and more long term flexibility if populations shift) there is also value in being able to break ground yet this year. If they could guarantee that with another site, I say go for it, only thing left to consider is increased future transportation costs.

[southsidemom]

Brother, can you spare 80 acres?

Anybody know where Indian Prairie Unit District 204 officials can find 80 contiguous undeveloped acres to build a third high school that won't cost them twice as much as the district would have to pay for the Brach-Brodie land, as determined by a jury in the condemnation trial over this land?

From the Daily Herald's Soapbox.