Landowners move to force D204s hand

[gatormom]

Landowners move to force Dist. 204's hand

By Melissa Jenco
Daily Herald
11/20/2007

Owners of land where Indian Prairie Unit District 204 planned to build Metea Valley High School are asking the courts to force the district to either buy their property or pay additional fees.

The Brodie trust filed a motion Monday asking that the district pay the $31 million price tag set by a jury for the 55 acres off Route 59 near 75th Street and Commons Drive in Aurora.

It also asked the court to dismiss the district's request for a new trial.

If the court allows the district to abandon the property, the trust is asking it be obligated to pay the $2.5 million in damages to the remaining property that a jury set and additional money for "delay damages" the trust is incurring by not being able to sell or develop the property while it is tied up in court.

Those fees would be in addition to at least $4 million in Brach-Brodie legal fees the district would have to pay if it does not buy the land.

The district already owns 25 acres at the site and had hoped to purchase an additional 55 to create an 80-acre campus for Metea Valley High School. However, in late September, a jury ruled the property is worth $31 million, which is $17 million more than the district anticipated.

The district has said it cannot afford that price and has requested a new trial. It also is negotiating with other land owners in the area for an alternate site.

Steve Helm, attorney for the Brodie trust, said the district previously committed to paying up to $33 million for the land and since the total came in under that amount, it should purchase the property.

In addition, he said the district's motion for a new trial may be followed by an appeal, a process that could take a year or more. During that time the owners cannot develop the land or negotiate with other interested buyers.

"Given the market condition … the concern is the property may decrease in value during an appeal process and we feel the appeal is really not being taken in good faith but rather to delay things so they can find another piece of property," Helm said.

He said the amount of "delay damages" the trust seeks would depend on how long it takes the district to make a decision.

Attorneys for the school district could not be reached for comment late Monday.

School Board President Mark Metzger has previously denied that asking for a new trial is a delay tactic, though he has acknowledged the chances of it being granted are slim.

Helm said if the district abandons the condemnation suit, the Brach-Brodie trust would be willing to negotiate a price just like it would with any other interested buyer. The district already has offered to buy only 40 of the acres for $20 million, but the trust rejected that offer.

The trust's motions will go before a judge Monday.

[harry]

It keeps going and going

1/The district has previously committed to paying 33 mill??? More than what the jury decided???

2/ The district offered to purchase 40 acres instead of 55?? For what?? An inferior, smaller school??

3/ The district will pay close to 7 mill in damages alone??? That money could have purchased a few classrooms for the bubble of overcrowding

It's such interesting reading

[EagleDad]

Hmm.. Helm and Brodie don't seem to like delay tactics.

My eyes are getting all weepy thinking about poor widdle Steve Helm. *sniff*

Poor baby.

[doctorwho]

eagledad said:

Hmm.. Helm and Brodie don't seem to like delay tactics.

My eyes are getting all weepy thinking about poor widdle Steve Helm. *sniff*

Poor baby.

yeah maybe he had a nice vacation planned and now it is being interrupted -- what a shame..........since he worked so hard to disrupt 23,000 kids futures

[doctorwho]

harry said:

It keeps going and going

1/The district has previously committed to paying 33 mill??? More than what the jury decided???

2/ The district offered to purchase 40 acres instead of 55?? For what?? An inferior, smaller school??

3/ The district will pay close to 7 mill in damages alone??? That money could have purchased a few classrooms for the bubble of overcrowding

It's such interesting reading

pay closer attention -- the 40 acre purchase would have combined with the 25 - and depending on where the exact 40 would be at - the remainder is mainly retention - maybe working a deal with the Preitt group to share such facilities -

There have been clear about not building a smaller inferior school - that is why they did not pay the $31M

the damages if we walk away have been talked about for the last year

and as far as committing to paying $33M - legalize for the condemnaton suit - no one sat down and said - OK we will pay that --

but don't let any of that stop a good board rip

[bob]

harry said:

It keeps going and going

1/The district has previously committed to paying 33 mill??? More than what the jury decided???

2/ The district offered to purchase 40 acres instead of 55?? For what?? An inferior, smaller school??

3/ The district will pay close to 7 mill in damages alone??? That money could have purchased a few classrooms for the bubble of overcrowding

It's such interesting reading

1) If the SB committed then they would have bought it then? So I am really doubting the BB lawyer quote here.

2) Not necessarlily, the SD could have bought 15 acres from Calvary or shared water rentention with them. 65 acres is what Macom proposes with shared retention ponds.

3) Where are you getting the $7 million figure from? I don't see it in the article.

Given the market condition … the concern is the property may decrease in value during an appeal process and we feel the appeal is really not being taken in good faith but rather to delay things so they can find another piece of property," Helm said.

Ohhhhh poor baby. Play the real estate market expect to get burned once in awhile.

[blankcheck]

I am getting so tired of these articles.
1) The answer to the question regarding how much it has cost our district in legal fees - M2 has no clue? He was totally avoiding the question.
2) The district did offer to buy 40 acres at 20 million (that's 500,000/acre)? Almost double of what we paid for the original 25 acres.
3) Do people realize what our current bond debit is? According to the Daily Herald, in 05/06, our current bond debt was 253,405,000. That does not include the 124.5 million. Add that up and our debt is over 375,000,000. That is the highest of all the school districts. That is a lot of money. Based on the 05/06 figures, we pay $9765/student just toward the bond debt.(Not including the 124.5 milllion)

I feel like our SB is out of control in their spending. Hiring more IT guys, administrators, and wanting to implement an all day kindergarten program?? Where does this all end? Is it in the courts adding to our lovely legal bill? No, it will end with yet another referendum for more money.

I am VERY concerned about where our district is heading. If I am incorrect in this information, please feel free to correct me.

[bob]

BC what is the SD debt in 10 years, how about 20 years?

What is you current debt to person ratio in your house?

[doctorwho]

blankcheck said:

I am getting so tired of these articles.
1) The answer to the question regarding how much it has cost our district in legal fees - M2 has no clue? He was totally avoiding the question.
2) The district did offer to buy 40 acres at 20 million (that's 500,000/acre)? Almost double of what we paid for the original 25 acres.
3) Do people realize what our current bond debit is? According to the Daily Herald, in 05/06, our current bond debt was 253,405,000. That does not include the 124.5 million. Add that up and our debt is over 375,000,000. That is the highest of all the school districts. That is a lot of money. Based on the 05/06 figures, we pay $9765/student just toward the bond debt.(Not including the 124.5 milllion)

I feel like our SB is out of control in their spending. Hiring more IT guys, administrators, and wanting to implement an all day kindergarten program?? Where does this all end? Is it in the courts adding to our lovely legal bill? No, it will end with yet another referendum for more money.

I am VERY concerned about where our district is heading. If I am incorrect in this information, please feel free to correct me.

I am not questioning the bond money because my guess is those figures are close to correct --
but as far as being the highest - name we one school district that has built anywhere near the number of schools we have in the last 15 years. What are they supposed to do, not build schools to house the kids ? The debt is a direct function of district growth.

The CIO just hired replaced someone who left correct? I can't imagine a school district in todays time without a head IT person - that would be irresponsible in my opinion

And all day kindergarten actually brings a $1.5 - $2M credit into the system -- one of the few aspects of the program that no one would complain about

[blankcheck]

What my debt is has nothing to do with this because it is MY debt. The SD debt is not their debt it is the taxpayers debt - of which they will be paying for a very long time.

[bob]

blankcheck said:

What my debt is has nothing to do with this because it is MY debt. The SD debt is not their debt it is the taxpayers debt - of which they will be paying for a very long time.

Of which , the voting taxpayers freely chose to take on that debt. Kinda like you choosing to take a mortage to buy a house. You shouldn't be mad at the SD but with the voters who freely chose to take on the debt.

$9765/student

That is per student but taxes are paid by land owners. What is the ratio per landowner?

Didn't Plainfield or Oswego just pass a referendum that is higher that our total debt total?

[doctorwho]

bob said:

blankcheck said:

What my debt is has nothing to do with this because it is MY debt. The SD debt is not their debt it is the taxpayers debt - of which they will be paying for a very long time.

Of which , the voting taxpayers freely chose to take on that debt. Kinda like you choosing to take a mortage to buy a house. You shouldn't be mad at the SD but with the voters who freely chose to take on the debt.

when a school district triples in size -what other options are there ? We had 80,000 people move in where there were no schools, just fields before...

[wvhsparent]

bob said:

Given the market condition … the concern is the property may decrease in value during an appeal process and we feel the appeal is really not being taken in good faith but rather to delay things so they can find another piece of property," Helm said.

Ohhhhh poor baby. Play the real estate market expect to get burned once in awhile.

Maybe they should let it go, and then negotiate just like all the others.
Now their line should be...."You know, real estate has been real slow lately, and values have been dropping.
We will offer you 225k/acre now..........next week it will be 220k, etc...etc.

[wvhsparent]

bob said:

blankcheck said:

What my debt is has nothing to do with this because it is MY debt. The SD debt is not their debt it is the taxpayers debt - of which they will be paying for a very long time.

Of which , the voting taxpayers freely chose to take on that debt. Kinda like you choosing to take a mortage to buy a house. You shouldn't be mad at the SD but with the voters who freely chose to take on the debt.

$9765/student

That is per student but taxes are paid by land owners. What is the ratio per landowner?

Didn't Plainfield or Oswego just pass a referendum that is higher that our total debt total?

IIRC they had to go the the Ill Legislature to approve that too.

[bob]

Becasue the state has a debt limit ratio for SDs, I believe.