District 204 considers land options

[Arch]

momof3 said:

The paper says they were in ES for 2 hours

I do applaud the one person who stuck around to say whatever they had to say.

[macy]

archwinsome said:

momof3 said:

The paper says they were in ES for 2 hours

I do applaud the one person who stuck around to say whatever they had to say.

Me too!

[lacy]

bob said:

casey said:

Keep in mind that the SB made it more than clear that last night's meeting would not be an opportunity for public comment rather it would be Executive Session - closed doors only. After that they would allow only non-agenda items to be discussed. Do you think it's possible that many felt it wasn't worth it to go to the meeting?

.

I am sorry but that is wrong.
It seems you have the same problem as Lacy,. Item 4 gave the right to speak on Non-agenda items. Since nothing was on the agenda except the executive meeting, everything was fair game for public comment.

If the issue means that much to you, what is a hour or two wait to say your piece of mind?

Bob,

This was posted by soontobwvhs on page 2 of the URGENT email thread - and was the source of the confusion.

" Re: Email Circulating:URGENT Meta Valley Location
« Reply #19 on Oct 14, 2007, 5:31pm »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SB should listen to ALL options. I am for the 3rd HS no matter where it ends ups and even if we have to redo boundaries.

However, I think the content of this thread was regarding the misleading and incorrect information in this mass email that was sent out.

It is also my understanding that only non-agenda items can now be addressed during public comment (correct me if I am wrong; Another point that the sender of the email got wrong). According to the agenda "Pending Litigation and Acquisition of Real Property" a topic of discussion and therefore public comment would not be allowed. The SB must give 48 hour notice of meetings and agenda's.


P R E P A R I N G A L L S T U D E N T S T O S U C C E E D
Crouse Education Center
P.O. Box 3990, Naperville, IL 60567
phone: [phone] • fax: [phone] • web: www.ipsd.org
________________________________________________________________________
Board of Education Offices
October 15, 2007
Crouse Education Center
Special Meeting, Board of Education
Agenda – start: 7:15 p.m.
AGENDA
I. Call to Order - Roll Call
II. Pledge of Allegiance
III. Executive Session to Discuss Pending Litigation and Acquisition of Real
Property
IV. Persons Requesting to Address the Board on Non-Agenda Items
V. Adjournment
10/11/07jb "



Did the SB change the agenda?

It looks to have been originally slated to be only non-agenda items.

So those of us who were "confused" were rightly so.

Did the "outcry" make them change this yesterday?

And did this misinformation cause some to stay home or even leave the meeting because they thought they wouldn't really get to talk? Quite possibly IMO.

Kudos to the speaker last night.

[lacy]

archwinsome said:

Yup, I posted that.. simple questions and 'wondering'....

I have a box of 100 straws for $0.50 if you really want something better.

I have no warm feelings for the BB people (the lawyers). I have even less for a very profitable land developer who may stand to gain as much or more profit from a land sale than the 'extra' amount over what we offered to a trust.

Personal opinion and preference. Welcome to America. Do you have some problem with people having personal choices all of a sudden?

I have a problem with people speaking out of both sides of their mouth.

[lacy]

Bob, I don't think the language was changed - so let me correct that.

I think the confusion was soontobwvhs's assumption that anything related to the aquisition of real property would be an agenda item (based on item 111 of the agenda) - therefore prohibiting people from speaking about such issue.

Which would seem to be a reasonable assumption.

Late in the day yesterday you began to claim we were all idiots and we could in fact speak at the meeting - but the agenda would tend to lead one to believe they could not.

So I think it could have affected the attendance and the people who signed up to speak.

[warriorpride]

gatordog said:

doctorwho said:

or roughly :

65 acres @ 333,000 -21,450,000
BB fees - 5,000,000
sell back 25 acres 6,000,000
Misc. -2,000,000

-22,450,000

55 acers @ 563 -30,800,000

Differ 8,350,000


Of course PL can forecast that cost - he hasn't been selling homes this long because he can't forecast future cost - but there is no outcry for full disclosure on that cost from him because he claims there will be no delay.
That should then be part of the contract - if there are delay costs - MACOM eats those costs.

Of course it claims there is no need for boundary changes also- I'd like to see that plan. Is Longwood going to travel from the far north end of the district to almost Plainfield - I doubt it.

Drwho, very good post. Thanks for running the numbers. As you show, PL's offer at very best case (assuming you can start immediately with no extra costs) saves us $8million. Those savings likely would vanish due to the delays, according to officials the reporter talked with. (all this disussed in earlier threads)

One tweak to your comment is dont negotiate some "if clause"...but be hard-nosed up front and tell him our price is reduced in recognition of start delay and being non-optimal geographic location.

For me his current known offer is break even in terms of cost, and way down in terms of benefit.

I dont have a firm number in mind, but I am of the opinion that his land price has to be cut in half or more to make up for the bad less-than-optimal (better word choice!...its a fine location for homes!) location.

I'm with ya, GD, except Macom has to be free, and NO changes to the boundaries. If the SD ends up not using the 25 acres on BB, I was thinking that they might want to hold onto that land for future possible use.

Is there a timeframe that the SD is obligated to build a school on the 25?

Who knows, if nothing else, they could see what the benefits of doing something like this would be:

1) sell Wheatland - might be able to get a nice price for that land

2) Build a facility that could house day-care, among other things, on the 25 BB acres - that would qualify as a "school", right?

If they can get a nice price for the Wheatland property, then they might be able to make use of the BB acres, and end up with a bigger, nicer facility. I guess it would depend on the $ they could get for Wheatland.

Just an idea.

[Arch]

lacy said:

archwinsome said:

Yup, I posted that.. simple questions and 'wondering'....

I have a box of 100 straws for $0.50 if you really want something better.

I have no warm feelings for the BB people (the lawyers). I have even less for a very profitable land developer who may stand to gain as much or more profit from a land sale than the 'extra' amount over what we offered to a trust.

Personal opinion and preference. Welcome to America. Do you have some problem with people having personal choices all of a sudden?

I have a problem with people speaking out of both sides of their mouth.

I have a problem with people who can not distinguish between the actions of human beings (lawyers) and a slip of paper (trust).

[Arch]

Lacy,

If you are both in fact correct... one can only speak on non-agenda items *AND* the agenda was simple "Executive Session" then one could speak about ANYTHING except EXECUTIVE SESSION, or 'meetings behind closed doors'.

That would be my interpretation if everyone was correct in what they said.

Almost a day later, and no one knows what the 1 comment was about?

[bob]

lacy said:

Bob, I don't think the language was changed - so let me correct that.

I think the confusion was soontobwvhs's assumption that anything related to the aquisition of real property would be an agenda item (based on item 111 of the agenda) - therefore prohibiting people from speaking about such issue.

Which would seem to be a reasonable assumption.

Late in the day yesterday you began to claim we were all idiots and we could in fact speak at the meeting - but the agenda would tend to lead one to believe they could not.

So I think it could have affected the attendance and the people who signed up to speak.

Where did I say you were an idiot? Please show it or retract that statement.

[bob]

For the record, I just did a search and I never called Lacy or anyone else an idiot during that discussion.

[wvhsparent]

Let's all take a moment before posting folks......

Noone has called anyone an idiot...here for a long time...let's keep it that way please.

seems like emotions are starting to run hot, and people say things they don't mean and/or interpret things the wrong way. Argue your point, but do as calmly as possible.
It's always a good idea to re-read it before posting.

Just a reminder from one of your friendly mods.

[lacy]

bob said:

For the record, I just did a search and I never called Lacy or anyone else an idiot during that discussion.

Bob,

I meant figuratively - not literally. I thought you could take a joke.



The bottom line is that it was unclear from the language used on the agenda as to whether people would be allowed to speak. There was clearly disagreement here regarding what the language meant.

Since you chose to bring it back up today, I wanted to share the original post that suggested there could be no public comment on the matter.

Nighty night.

[lacy]

archwinsome said:

Lacy,

If you are both in fact correct... one can only speak on non-agenda items *AND* the agenda was simple "Executive Session" then one could speak about ANYTHING except EXECUTIVE SESSION, or 'meetings behind closed doors'.

That would be my interpretation if everyone was correct in what they said.

Almost a day later, and no one knows what the 1 comment was about?

Except for the simple fact that it said:

"Executive Session to Discuss Pending Litigation and Acquisition of Real Property"
which apparently led some people to believe that could not speak regarding the acquisition of real propery. (which would include other sites)

It did not just say "Executive Session"

[warriorpride]

lacy said:

bob said:

For the record, I just did a search and I never called Lacy or anyone else an idiot during that discussion.

Bob,

I meant figuratively - not literally. I thought you could take a joke.



The bottom line is that it was unclear from the language used on the agenda as to whether people would be allowed to speak. There was clearly disagreement here regarding what the language meant.

Since you chose to bring it back up today, I wanted to share the original post that suggested there could be no public comment on the matter.

Nighty night.

It sounds like you're suggesting everyone in the SD reads this forum. Wow - others have suggested that we're just handful of losers that have nothing better to do on a Friday night.

[wvhsparent]

lacy said:

archwinsome said:

Lacy,

If you are both in fact correct... one can only speak on non-agenda items *AND* the agenda was simple "Executive Session" then one could speak about ANYTHING except EXECUTIVE SESSION, or 'meetings behind closed doors'.

That would be my interpretation if everyone was correct in what they said.

Almost a day later, and no one knows what the 1 comment was about?

Except for the simple fact that it said:

"Executive Session to Discuss Pending Litigation and Acquisition of Real Property"
which apparently led some people to believe that could not speak regarding the acquisition of real propery. (which would include other sites)

It did not just say "Executive Session"

It confused me a bit too......Dang Roberts Rules anyway!!!