|
|
Post by southsidemom on Oct 6, 2007 20:12:30 GMT -6
A slowing in the growth rate means we have a situation that can be gauged and managed for a year.
The golden land is how I choose to describe land that is double the price that was anticipated. Rush fees are the costs associated with rushing to open a school in 2009 that is already behind schedule. Not real high level stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Oct 6, 2007 20:29:50 GMT -6
A slowing in the growth rate means we have a situation that can be gauged and managed for a year. The golden land is how I choose to describe land that is double the price that was anticipated. Rush fees are the costs associated with rushing to open a school in 2009 that is already behind schedule. Not real high level stuff. Is managing it for a year going to stop the increase in contruction prices on a $90M - $100M building? Will managing the situation for another year save the $5M walkaway charges ? Will it stop us having to seel back 25 acres of land that we have to purchase at a higher price ? Waiting another years costs $5M at a meager 5% YTY increase in materials and labor - likely more. Is that effective managing ? What about the fiduciary concerns I keep hearing about - $5M-$10M delays seem wasteful to me ? Not real high level stuff either - |
|
|
|
Post by southsidemom on Oct 6, 2007 20:34:57 GMT -6
I said nothing about waiting a year. I said I would rather not pay the fees to rush to meet a deadline we are already behind on. Do you think we can make up the lost time for free?  |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Oct 6, 2007 20:37:37 GMT -6
DPC, I stand corrrected on the per acre price, but I will remind everyone that the $6M for the first 25 acres does not come from the $124M of the referendum. It was purchased outside of the $124M. Just so no one thinks that $37M will come out of the $124M.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Oct 6, 2007 20:38:27 GMT -6
I said nothing about waiting a year. I said I would rather not pay the fees to rush to meet a deadline we are already behind on. Do you think we can make up the lost time for free? No, but I also know that the later we start - the more money it will cost. Time is money also, just depends on how you choose to spend it. I opt for action vs. inaction so that at least we can see an advantage school wise for our money sooner. if we avoid the 'golden land' we will delay construction significantly unless someone can show me a plan that says differently. |
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Oct 6, 2007 20:39:58 GMT -6
I said nothing about waiting a year. I said I would rather not pay the fees to rush to meet a deadline we are already behind on. Do you think we can make up the lost time for free? There is no other land that is ready to build on. Each of the other pieces of property have other work that needs to be completed and we lose the winter. I am sure that Naperville is in a huge hurry to help PL after he sued them over the height of a bridge. So we lose immediately $5m, I think the district was using the figure of $8m. |
|
|
|
Post by southsidemom on Oct 6, 2007 20:54:47 GMT -6
Dr. Who are you saying there is a cost associated with constructing the school at a "normal" pace that is greater than the cost at a "expedited" pace??? I've always heard that haste makes waste.
Perhaps you can address the cost/acre with the water retention areas removed from the equation.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Oct 6, 2007 20:58:46 GMT -6
Dr. Who are you saying there is a cost associated with constructing the school at a "normal" pace that is greater than the cost at a "expedited" pace??? I've always heard that haste makes waste. Perhaps you can address the cost/acre with the water retention areas removed from the equation. also a stitch in time saves nine....if we're going by old sayings as far as cost per acre without water retention - if it is required why would one do that ? it is part and parcel of the ability to build there or anywhere. It is still property owned - I have a manhole/sewer cover in the far corner of my yard - when purchasing my lot no one gave me an alternative price per sq ft. Should I figure the same for MACOM for all land within xxx feet of the electrical wires ? seems silly to me |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Oct 6, 2007 21:02:16 GMT -6
Speaking of old sayings:
One in the hand is worth 2 in the bush...
|
|
|
|
Post by southsidemom on Oct 6, 2007 21:05:42 GMT -6
So again my question relates to how many acres are figured into the equation if apples to apples comparisons are being made for land value. If water retention is provided at Macom and needed at BB, what are we talking about as far as buildable land costs? |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Oct 6, 2007 21:10:31 GMT -6
So again my question relates to how many acres are figured into the equation if apples to apples comparisons are being made for land value. If water retention is provided at Macom and needed at BB, what are we talking about as far as buildable land costs? I remember the comments re: Water retention - what part of the 62 acres is then free ? How many acres do we pay $334K for and how many are zero - if you know that answer - than you can do the calc's pretty easily. Also do we own the land where there is water retention ? Who will be responsible for upkeep of that property ? |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Oct 6, 2007 21:11:17 GMT -6
Is water retention provided down south via the moat running north/south through the middle of the property?
|
|
|
|
Post by rew on Oct 6, 2007 21:12:38 GMT -6
The better question is what is left to construct the school building. That is what we are ultimately concerned with. BB 124M - 31M = 93M MAcom 124-22M =102M - unknown costs of delay The maximum savings is 9M. Is that worth the delay? ? |
|
|
|
Post by justme on Oct 6, 2007 21:54:29 GMT -6
The better question is what is left to construct the school building. That is what we are ultimately concerned with. BB 124M - 31M = 93M MAcom 124-22M =102M - unknown costs of delay The maximum savings is 9M. Is that worth the delay? ? Yes. 9M goes a long way toward other needed things in the district. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Oct 6, 2007 21:57:07 GMT -6
The better question is what is left to construct the school building. That is what we are ultimately concerned with. BB 124M - 31M = 93M MAcom 124-22M =102M - unknown costs of delay The maximum savings is 9M. Is that worth the delay? ? Yes. 9M goes a long way toward other needed things in the district. Can that legally be done or is it bound per the referendum to be spend on land and building a 3rd HS only? I'm not entirely sure where the legality steps in on using referendum money for construction towards 'other' things. Can someone explain w/ a degree of certainty? (Assuming there are no cost overruns that make that 9 million vanish from existence, of course) |
|
