Metea site getting costlier

[Arch]

Brother can you spare buildable land this year?

[rew]

If we say that the Macom site is worth $340/acre and SJ is worth $300/ acre, The BB site including the 25 acres we already own = $31M/ 80 acres = $387/acre. Is it really that much more expensive??

Some people would not support the site for any price. But the referendum committee preferred it, the elected SB prefered it and the voters approved it??

[movingforward]

rew said:

If we say that the Macom site is worth $340/acre and SJ is worth $300/ acre, The BB site including the 25 acres we already own = $31M/ 80 acres = $387/acre. Is it really that much more expensive??

Some people would not support the site for any price. But the referendum committee preferred it, the elected SB prefered it and the voters approved it??

Interesting view point; which I agree with.

[Arch]

Rew, that is a *VERY* interesting way to look at it.. the overall cost for the entire site.

Thanks for that perspective.

[macy]

rew said:

If we say that the Macom site is worth $340/acre and SJ is worth $300/ acre, The BB site including the 25 acres we already own = $31M/ 80 acres = $387/acre. Is it really that much more expensive??

Some people would not support the site for any price. But the referendum committee preferred it, the elected SB prefered it and the voters approved it??

I thought we needed less acreage on Macom. 62 vs the 80 at BB.

[rew]

You are right Macy, but poeple are so outraged by the per acreage price at BB..what I am saying is here is another way of looking at it.

[movingforward]

rew said:

You are right Macy, but poeple are so outraged by the per acreage price at BB..what I am saying is here is another way of looking at it.

Basically you are saying ... if we were to leave BB at this point, the district would be 'losing' out on the benefit of the lower price paid for the 25 acres by having to pay a higher price for Macom or St. John than we paid for that 25 acres years ago. AND we would get fewer acres for the HS at Macom with a couple of major negatives on it: the power sub-station and the RR tracks.

IMO, BB provides a better overall location (for many reasons previously stated on this board ) at an average total price only slightly higher than Macom or SJ. (if you include 'sunk' costs of leaving BB)

Rew, thanks for thinking outside the box

[dpc]

rew said:

If we say that the Macom site is worth $340/acre and SJ is worth $300/ acre, The BB site including the 25 acres we already own = $31M/ 80 acres = $387/acre. Is it really that much more expensive??

Some people would not support the site for any price. But the referendum committee preferred it, the elected SB prefered it and the voters approved it??

I completely disagree with your decision to omit the cost of the 25 acres we purchased for $6.5MM in your calculation of the cost per acre for BB.

The correct calculation should be $31MM for additional 55 acres plus $6.5 for the 25 acres we already purchased for a total of $37.5 MM or $469/acre not $387/acre as you purport.

It's this kind of fuzzy math and the spin that the SB puts out there that has led us into this nasty situation we are in.

[dpc]

movingforward said:

dpc said:

I completely disagree with your decision to omit the cost of the 25 acres we purchased for $6.5MM in your calculation of the cost per acre for BB.

The correct calculation should be $31MM for additional 55 acres plus $6.5 for the 25 acres we already purchased for a total of $37.5 MM or $469/acre not $387/acre as you purport.

It's this kind of fuzzy math and the spin that the SB puts out there that has led us into this nasty situation we are in.

I disagree. The TOTAL cost of the land at BB needs to be compared to the total cost of land if purchased elsewhere. That is not fuzzy math, it is real numbers. You take the total price paid for the 80 acres and divide by the number of acres. Plain and simple.

So you don't think that the $6.5MM we paid for the first 25 acres is part of the cost? The cost to purchase the remaining 55 acres is $31MM. So, the total cost for the full 80 acres is $37.5MM.

[gatormom]

dpc said:

rew said:

If we say that the Macom site is worth $340/acre and SJ is worth $300/ acre, The BB site including the 25 acres we already own = $31M/ 80 acres = $387/acre. Is it really that much more expensive??

Some people would not support the site for any price. But the referendum committee preferred it, the elected SB prefered it and the voters approved it??

I completely disagree with your decision to omit the cost of the 25 acres we purchased for $6.5MM in your calculation of the cost per acre for BB.

The correct calculation should be $31MM for additional 55 acres plus $6.5 for the 25 acres we already purchased for a total of $37.5 MM or $469/acre not $387/acre as you purport.

It's this kind of fuzzy math and the spin that the SB puts out there that has led us into this nasty situation we are in.

You need to add at least $5MM walkaway from BB to the price of any land. So that puts the Macom land at about $413K an acre. There may be other costs but right now, that is what we are aware of.

[movingforward]

dpc said:

movingforward said:

I disagree. The TOTAL cost of the land at BB needs to be compared to the total cost of land if purchased elsewhere. That is not fuzzy math, it is real numbers. You take the total price paid for the 80 acres and divide by the number of acres. Plain and simple.

So you don't think that the $6.5MM we paid for the first 25 acres is part of the cost? The cost to purchase the remaining 55 acres is $31MM. So, the total cost for the full 80 acres is $37.5MM.

dpc, You are right. I changed my previous posts accordingly. I thought that the original average included the price paid for the 25 acres.

Even so, I agree with Gatormom that there are other costs associated with leaving BB that need to be factored into the price/acre of any alternative site.

I think that leaving BB would cause the district to pay more than they have to for at least 25 acres should they leave BB not to mention the headaches of starting over, IMO.

I will say again, however, that I will support whatever location is selected in the end.

[doctorwho]

gatormom said:

dpc said:

I completely disagree with your decision to omit the cost of the 25 acres we purchased for $6.5MM in your calculation of the cost per acre for BB.

The correct calculation should be $31MM for additional 55 acres plus $6.5 for the 25 acres we already purchased for a total of $37.5 MM or $469/acre not $387/acre as you purport.

It's this kind of fuzzy math and the spin that the SB puts out there that has led us into this nasty situation we are in.

You need to add at least $5MM walkaway from BB to the price of any land. So that puts the Macom land at about $413K an acre. There may be other costs but right now, that is what we are aware of.

a fact that seems to keep being glossed over -- if the SB did this it would be 'fuzzy math' -
and as you say we know there are more costs - we just don't have an exact handle on how much each one amounts to - but the $5M+ is a done deal. If this is delayed another year - the construction cost is going to rise at least 5% - and that is a conservative figure...even those against BB have thrown out it gets more expensive every year so there should be no backpeddling now....

5% of a $90 - $100 M building is $4.5 - $5M ( and I think that is low) -

so $5M min walk away cost & $5M construction increase ( we'll leave out the acrh.fees etc because they are smaller amounts comparatively - but will have to be paif nonetheless and those 62 acres now come to $495 + per acre for 62 acres - with additonal charges unknown at this point.

I agree that the money already spent for BB has to be included - but so does the walk away and construction delay - can;t pick and choose

[movingforward]

doctorwho said:

gatormom said:

You need to add at least $5MM walkaway from BB to the price of any land. So that puts the Macom land at about $413K an acre. There may be other costs but right now, that is what we are aware of.

a fact that seems to keep being glossed over -- if the SB did this it would be 'fuzzy math' -
and as you say we know there are more costs - we just don't have an exact handle on how much each one amounts to - but the $5M+ is a done deal. If this is delayed another year - the construction cost is going to rise at least 5% - and that is a conservative figure...even those against BB have thrown out it gets more expensive every year so there should be no backpeddling now....

5% of a $90 - $100 M building is $4.5 - $5M ( and I think that is low) -

so $5M min walk away cost & $5M construction increase ( we'll leave out the acrh.fees etc because they are smaller amounts comparatively - but will have to be paif nonetheless and those 62 acres now come to $495 + per acre for 62 acres - with additonal charges unknown at this point.

I agree that the money already spent for BB has to be included - but so does the walk away and construction delay - can;t pick and choose

So realistically (and agreeing you are conservative on estimates) that puts BB's cost per 80 acres at $469/acre ($31M + $6.5M/80) vs. $495/acre (per your post)for Macom? Am I following your logic correctly?

My hunch (and hope) is that this is exactly the type of calculating the school board is involved in now to come to their decision on which way to proceed ; in a direction that is fiscally responsible while delivering the schools we need as quickly as possible.

[southsidemom]

How does land for water retention that Macom is providing figure into cost/acre calculations???

Given the slowing of growth, what could be saved by a 2010 opening? I am not in favor of paying for the golden land and then paying rush fees too.

Most seem to agree that all of these "costs" are going to be at the expense of the quality of the school.

Here's a slogan for future SB candidates: Vote for me, I'll spend every dime I can find!

[gatormom]

southsidemom said:

How does land for water retention that Macom is providing figure into cost/acre calculations???

Given the slowing of growth, what could be saved by a 2010 opening? I am not in favor of paying for the golden land and then paying rush fees too.

Most seem to agree that all of these "costs" are going to be at the expense of the quality of the school.

Here's a slogan for future SB candidates: Vote for me, I'll spend every dime I can find!

A slowdown in growth does not mean the children who will fill MV are not in the system already, they are. Take our time and it is those children who lose.

Not sure what you mean buy the golden land and pay rush fees. What additional fees do we have to pay that wouldn't have if we buy BB and then start to build now?

ETA: I get it. The cost to rush the buiding to completion. Don't know if we know how much that would cost us. Probably why the district had to meet with Turner.