Metea site getting costlier

[macy]

rew said:

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??

$9M is potentially double the amount necessary for the 2009 referendum.

Sounds worth it to me.

[wvhsparent]

rew said:

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.

I am sorry,

You are right.......I was using politician math. It made me feel better for a while.....

Now back to your general feeling of malaise.......

[gatormom]

macy said:

rew said:

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??

$9M is potentially double the amount necessary for the 2009 referendum.

Sounds worth it to me.

Haven't factored in the unknown costs for the delay. Is it worth it to you because you get a HS in your backyard or is it worth it because of the savings.

I have stated on several occasions that if the district selects Macom, I would support it. I would not be happy but I would support it.

So macy, how about you? Will you support MV if the district determines going forward with BB is the best option?

[wvhsparent]

gatormom said:

macy said:

$9M is potentially double the amount necessary for the 2009 referendum.

Sounds worth it to me.

Haven't factored in the unknown costs for the delay. Is it worth it to you because you get a HS in your backyard or is it worth it because of the savings.

I have stated on several occasions that if the district selects Macom, I would support it. I would not be happy but I would support it.

So macy, how about you? Will you support MV if the district determines going forward with BB is the best option?

I would support it if they determine it, however, that determination better include a full accounting of how they reached that conclusion.
I really don't think that is too much to ask for.
Now if they EVER expect me to even consider voting for them again........that remains to be seen, but don't count on it.

[macy]

gatormom said:

macy said:

$9M is potentially double the amount necessary for the 2009 referendum.

Sounds worth it to me.

Haven't factored in the unknown costs for the delay. Is it worth it to you because you get a HS in your backyard or is it worth it because of the savings.

I have stated on several occasions that if the district selects Macom, I would support it. I would not be happy but I would support it.

So macy, how about you? Will you support MV if the district determines going forward with BB is the best option?

Gatormom,

Please do not make assumptions that I'm being selfish by wanting the high school in my backyard. That is the furthest thing from the truth. I'm tiring of the unsolicited insults you keep tossing my way.

I've said all along that I'd be a proponent of the St. John's property if it could put our district in a more affordable space. That property is certainly not in my backyard.

If the district goes forward with BB and can present how it's fiscally responsible to do so in comparison with other alternatives, most definitely I'd support BB. Does that make me a selfish monster for wanting to see alternative plans, I guess so in your mind.

[gatormom]

macy said:

gatormom said:

Haven't factored in the unknown costs for the delay. Is it worth it to you because you get a HS in your backyard or is it worth it because of the savings.

I have stated on several occasions that if the district selects Macom, I would support it. I would not be happy but I would support it.

So macy, how about you? Will you support MV if the district determines going forward with BB is the best option?

Gatormom,

Please do not make assumptions that I'm being selfish by wanting the high school in my backyard. That is the furthest thing from the truth. I'm tiring of the unsolicited insults.

I've said all along that I'd be a proponent of the St. John's property if it could put our district in a more affordable space.

If the district goes forward with BB and can present how it's fiscally responsible to do so in comparison with other alternatives, most definitely I'd support BB. Does that make me a selfish monster for wanting to see alternative plans, I guess so in your mind.

I made no assumptions. I asked a question. Since when is asking a question accusing you of being a selfish monster. Please do not read more into my questions or posts than are there.

You answered my question. Thank you. I happen to agree with you.

[macy]

Haven't factored in the unknown costs for the delay. Is it worth it to you because you get a HS in your backyard or is it worth it because of the savings.

Here's where I took offense. Seemed a little off base and pointed to me.

[gatormom]

macy said:

Haven't factored in the unknown costs for the delay. Is it worth it to you because you get a HS in your backyard or is it worth it because of the savings.

Here's where I took offense. Seemed a little off base and pointed to me.

Seems like a valid question. Funny thing, if you said that you wanted the HS there because you were happy it would be in your back yard, I would have considered that honest. But that is not the case and I appreciate your honesty.

It was a question, you answered. No deep hidden meanings there. Not calling you a selfish monster. Believe what you want but I will continue to ask questions.

[macy]

To me it was more of an assumption than a question.

I'm tiring of the assumptions based on where people live. It's time for all of us to stop doing that.

No problems here with questions that aren't based on someone's assumption of where my motivations are at. Keep them coming!

[lacy]

gatormom said:

macy said:

$9M is potentially double the amount necessary for the 2009 referendum.

Sounds worth it to me.

Haven't factored in the unknown costs for the delay. Is it worth it to you because you get a HS in your backyard or is it worth it because of the savings.

I have stated on several occasions that if the district selects Macom, I would support it. I would not be happy but I would support it.

So macy, how about you? Will you support MV if the district determines going forward with BB is the best option?

Just thought I would point out that Macy made an interesting point that you didn't respond to, Gatormom.

$9 million would be potentially double what IMRC we were told the 2009 referendum would be.

But instead you responded with the comment about schools being in people's backyards.

would you like to respond to her comment itself?

[gatormom]

lacy said:

gatormom said:

Haven't factored in the unknown costs for the delay. Is it worth it to you because you get a HS in your backyard or is it worth it because of the savings.

I have stated on several occasions that if the district selects Macom, I would support it. I would not be happy but I would support it.

So macy, how about you? Will you support MV if the district determines going forward with BB is the best option?

Just thought I would point out that Macy made an interesting point that you didn't respond to, Gatormom.

$9 million would be potentially double what IMRC we were told the 2009 referendum would be.

But instead you responded with the comment about schools being in people's backyards.

would you like to respond to her comment itself?

Not sure I can. Don't know what the walk away cost for BB really will be, what the costs for placing Metea on another site would be, and the all important increase in construction costs a delay would incur. Until those amounts are known with some certainty, who knows whether there are any savings at all to changing sites.

[lacy]

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??

In addition to adding in the cost of the first 25 acres, we would surely need to factor in the legal costs associated with trying to aquire BB. And how about the time value of money?

Instead of pursuing land that was available, we have spent years chasing this piece. Time is money.

These 2 components make BB vastly more expensive than even $37.25 million.

What I think the public needs is full disclosure - what we don't need is for someone to package this up and phrase it so as to "sell it" to the public.

[Arch]

The cost of trying to secure BB will carry forward onto the cost of any other land since, since it took that much money to get to that point regardless.

That makes ANY land higher priced that the sticker everyone is focusing on.

Did I parse the earlier post correctly? The 2009 operating referendum is only 4.5 million? For how long does that pay operating costs in the district?

[southsidemom]

Is the 2009 ref to supplement operational funding or support it entirely? Arch, your question "for how long does that pay operating costs in the district?" is puzzling.

If Macom provides water retention, are those costs then subtracted from the cost to build on that land?

Are land/cash donations specifically for building/land or are they available as needed? Like for AC. Note the temps today - 85+, October 7, 2007

Separate questions, not linked.

[Arch]

southsidemom said:

Is the 2009 ref to supplement operational funding or support it entirely? Arch, your question "for how long does that pay operating costs in the district?" is puzzling.

If Macom provides water retention, are those costs then subtracted from the cost to build on that land?

Lacy said the 9 million difference in land cost is double the supposed cost of the 2009 operating referendum. I did some math based on what she stated and she basically stated the 2009 referendum is for 4.5 million dollars.

Having not seen *ANY* dollar figure attached to the 2009 referendum, but only hearing that there simply 'would be one', I was asking for a clarification of indeed the 2009 operating referendum is only for 4.5 million dollars. Usually these things cover a certain amount of time, so I also asked what time-frame that 4.5 million dollar operating referendum is supposed to last until they may need another 'operating referendum'.

Does that clear up my question? If she could get back on and clarify her statement, or if you could and know what she was referring to, that would be helpful.

As far as someone providing water retention and what it would do to cost, I would think that would be up to the seller to determine what (if anything) that does to the per acre cost of any land. I don't see how the school board has any say in that whatsoever other than "no thanks, that price is still too high, all things considered" or "Sure, sounds great.. let's put ink to paper."

From what I could tell from digging around others who bought land, there's apparently some (or was some) agreement by Macom to sell land at a cost of 180K / acre to the Wheatland Settlers cemetery (an additional 24-25 acres for around 4.5 million dollars) surrounding the site off normantown road by the tracks (just west of the land we are talking about for a potential school site). I can't quite tell if that happened yet or not, but it was in one of the Wheatland newsletters previously.

Now, at $180K / acre, that's something that makes the south land look even nicer.

That would mean a land cost for 65 acres of just over 11 million. That 20 million difference from BB is something to sit up and take notice of since there's some padding in there for delay costs and attorney fees. But at 300+ / acre especially in that location.. BZZT.. no go in my book.

Reason: People are chastising the SB for considering paying nearly double for the BB land over what they offered, but want the SB to pay nearly double what someone offered to sell the land that surrounds Wheatland Cemetery just west of the area in question to the south. If the whole argument was about 'paying double' then I see the south land as no better than BB in that regard.