Site data

[rew]

rew said:

I tried to think of a way of loking at each site more objectively. I have calculated...distance traveled by students and total students moved using the boundaries we have discussed. What other objective means can people come up with?

I used current enrollment numbers and MapQuest miles form ESs.

Number of students moved:

Brach Brodie 5058

AME 6921

Macom 5285

Bolingbrook 5403

Net Miles traveled (difference from current travel)

Brach Brodie 2823 fewer miles

AME 1683 more miles**

Macom 550 more miles

Bolingbrook 673 more miles****

** for the AME boundary I left Watts at WV and moved all of Steck and Mcty to AME, if you preserve walkers and move Watts the number goes to 2253 more miles)

****
If you switch Gom for LW or BD the miles change for Bolingbrook becomes approx 700 fewer miles traveled

[EagleDad]

rew said:

In terms of the review of the current sites:

AME - positives/ flat square, 70 acres, adj utilities

Wait, AME is only 70 acres? No wonder there would be a cost savings. This in itself represents a 12.5% reduction in cost (and ammenitites.

Any cost savings comparison to Brack Brodie must be done at the 70 acre total level, that is buying only 45 additional acres, not 55.

Then you subtract the legal fees and the cost of loosing the value on the current 25 acres by having to sell it back.

Anything else would be telling less than the whole story and comparing apple to oranges.

Does anyone disagree with this?

[gatormom]

I believe LW is somewhat smaller, would have to be BD. What is the achievement gap on that then?

[gatormom]

eagledad said:

rew said:

In terms of the review of the current sites:

AME - positives/ flat square, 70 acres, adj utilities

Wait, AME is only 70 acres? No wonder there would be a cost savings. This in itself represents a 12.5% reduction in cost (and ammenitites.

Any cost savings comparison to Brack Brodie must be done at the 70 acre total level, that is buying only 45 additional acres, not 55.

Then you subtract the legal fees and the cost of loosing the value on the current 25 acres by having to sell it back.

Anything else would be telling less than the whole story and comparing apple to oranges.

Does anyone disagree with this?

I don't know if it matters, just my opinion. If we can't afford BB and build the entire HS, where is the additional money going to come from?

Can you guarantee passage of a referendum for the additional money to finish the HS and then the operating ref.?

[wvhsparent]

eagledad said:

rew said:

In terms of the review of the current sites:

AME - positives/ flat square, 70 acres, adj utilities

Wait, AME is only 70 acres? No wonder there would be a cost savings. This in itself represents a 12.5% reduction in cost (and ammenitites.

Any cost savings comparison to Brack Brodie must be done at the 70 acre total level, that is buying only 45 additional acres, not 55.

Then you subtract the legal fees and the cost of loosing the value on the current 25 acres by having to sell it back.

Anything else would be telling less than the whole story and comparing apple to oranges.

Does anyone disagree with this?

Sounds good but,
They also tried to do this with BB. They refused this too. The SD has to buy the entire 55 acres or none at all.
It is also in the court filings.

[EagleDad]

Would you agree that you can't compare the price of 70 acres on AME to 80 acres at BB?

If you can build the same school on 70 acres and never needed 80 in ths first place why did you go for 80?

You compare 70 to 70. You don't compare 70 to 80. I'm sure even that is covered in All-Day-K.

Buy 80 and sell of 10 off if you need to. You know already you'll get 500K+. That's a savings of 5-6 Million right there.

I don't think an additional referendum is needed. Remember, costs to build keep going up. Ther are probably already over budget on just the physical building. I just hope they're not trying to hide that by scrimping on less, sub-optimal land.

[doctorwho]

warriorpride said:

Nice stats, rew - this confirm the SB's intial analysis of BB being the best, from a location perspective. You think there's an easy way to turn this into bus transporation costs (i.e. how much do bus transportation costs go up/down with each location)? Hopefully the SB/SD would be doing just this, since this SHOULD be considered as part of the "cost" of whatever location is chosen.

and for those watching their tax money and don't want more of a referendum - see the workup I did on extra driving costs to the school - @ approx .40 - .45 cents per mile ( typical reimbursement cost covering wear and tear and gas ) -

save $100 a year in taxes and spend $1500 on driving costs --

[doctorwho]

eagledad said:

Would you agree that you can't compare the price of 70 acres on AME to 80 acres at BB?

If you can build the same school on 70 acres and never needed 80 in ths first place why did you go for 80?

You compare 70 to 70. You don't compare 70 to 80. I'm sure even that is covered in All-Day-K.

Buy 80 and sell of 10 off if you need to. You know already you'll get 500K+. That's a savings of 5-6 Million right there.

I don't think an additional referendum is needed. Remember, costs to build keep going up. Ther are probably already over budget on just the physical building. I just hope they're not trying to hide that by scrimping on less, sub-optimal land.

this is what I have been saying -- at 10% inflation per year of delay on a $90M building - the math is pretty easy to see what this is costing us--- I already said we cannot be under the assumption we can afford this school with a 2010 or 2011 delivery date no matter where it is built with the $124M ( less walk away costs if it is not BB)

[warriorpride]

eagledad said:

rew said:

In terms of the review of the current sites:

AME - positives/ flat square, 70 acres, adj utilities

Wait, AME is only 70 acres? No wonder there would be a cost savings. This in itself represents a 12.5% reduction in cost (and ammenitites.

Any cost savings comparison to Brack Brodie must be done at the 70 acre total level, that is buying only 45 additional acres, not 55.

Then you subtract the legal fees and the cost of loosing the value on the current 25 acres by having to sell it back.

Anything else would be telling less than the whole story and comparing apple to oranges.

Does anyone disagree with this?

SD tried to purchase 40 acres, and couldn't, so you'd be comparing to a scenario that's not possible. That doesn't seem reasonable.

Also, unless there is a real, documented loss on the books for selling the 25, I don't think you can factor that in, either - the SD is not losing $ if they sell it for 250, since they bought it for 250.

I do agree that the total BB walk-away costs do need to be disclosed - lawyers (both sides?), BB "damage" (if any is due), architects, construction (site surveys, soil samples, etc.), and whatever else there is.

[doctorwho]

gatormom said:

I believe LW is somewhat smaller, would have to be BD. What is the achievement gap on that then?

2007 attendance

LW 477
Gombert 528
Brookdale 481

I would have to see the whole config to calc this --
scores are BD 90.1 Gombert 82.1 Longwood 78.3 as a comparison - the bases are all fairly close attendance wise ....

[doctorwho]

warriorpride said:

eagledad said:

Wait, AME is only 70 acres? No wonder there would be a cost savings. This in itself represents a 12.5% reduction in cost (and ammenitites.

Any cost savings comparison to Brack Brodie must be done at the 70 acre total level, that is buying only 45 additional acres, not 55.

Then you subtract the legal fees and the cost of loosing the value on the current 25 acres by having to sell it back.

Anything else would be telling less than the whole story and comparing apple to oranges.

Does anyone disagree with this?

SD tried to purchase 40 acres, and couldn't, so you'd be comparing to a scenario that's not possible. That doesn't seem reasonable.

Also, unless there is a real, documented loss on the books for selling the 25, I don't think you can factor that in, either - the SD is not losing $ if they sell it for 250, since they bought it for 250.

I do agree that the total BB walk-away costs do need to be disclosed - lawyers (both sides?), BB "damage" (if any is due), architects, construction (site surveys, soil samples, etc.), and whatever else there is.

but if they do not build there, the difference between $250/acre and what they pay for the new one is a net debit to the bottom line of MV cost - so that portion is a loss.

If they pay $350/acre for wherever - they 'lose' $100K per acre x 25 -- or another $2.5M that would otherwise have gone into the building itself.

[warriorpride]

eagledad said:

Would you agree that you can't compare the price of 70 acres on AME to 80 acres at BB?

If you can build the same school on 70 acres and never needed 80 in ths first place why did you go for 80?

You compare 70 to 70. You don't compare 70 to 80. I'm sure even that is covered in All-Day-K.

Buy 80 and sell of 10 off if you need to. You know already you'll get 500K+. That's a savings of 5-6 Million right there.

I don't think an additional referendum is needed. Remember, costs to build keep going up. Ther are probably already over budget on just the physical building. I just hope they're not trying to hide that by scrimping on less, sub-optimal land.

I thought they considered doing the buy-80 and sell some back. I recall that in an article - I think MM said it. Maybe that's one of the options they're still considering. Maybe went for 80 was having to do with retention, and perhaps they're negociating with the adjacent land to "share" some of that? This is nothing but my guesses.

[EagleDad]

You can't compare the cost of 80 acres to that of 70.

It's like comparing the price of a Lexus to that of a Hyundai and thinking you got a great deal on the Hyundai.

You buy all 80 acres and sell 10 back if you need to. I would think the northern 10 fronting 75th carry by far a higher value (I would wager 750K). You have now saved 7.5 Million and have a nice buffer from 75th.

Of course you probably want to hire a different appraiser and lawyer to handle the transaction this time as out current ones apparently can't get it done.

[gatordog]

eagledad said:

Wait, AME is only 70 acres? No wonder there would be a cost savings. This in itself represents a 12.5% reduction in cost (and ammenitites.

hang on here....let me run with this.

What if they are in fact planning to scale back the whole thing to say 2500? More compatable for 70 acres?

For current enrollment, very natural St John's boundaries w/ 20% of Cowl (mccoy), 10% of Watts (Fort hill rd---is this a Watts growth area?) and 50% 60% edit of both St and Mcc. Quiet non controversial, eh?

You get MV 2360 2300 exact (spreadsheet corr)

So now:
WV (incl Fry and Pet/Ashwood) is at 2810
NV (I moved in White Eagle) at 4160....that was "the problem", or is it??

CLARIFICATION:
by Problem I mean, WV is too full, I had to remove ES. I picked WE. I sent them to NV. I Could not do Fry, its too big. (Maybe its some split in reality. I wont sweat the details here, plenty of time to do so.)

However, NV was now at 4160. I deemed that the problem because no room for growth. In past models I would STOP and say "wont work wont allow for growth". I put it in quotes as "problem" because maybe its NOT REALLY A PROBLEM. I meant its a b***s*** growth model problem.


Peterson growth fills WV. Watts growth goes to MV. Builta growth "nudges" NV a bit over capacity. But managable? acceptable?

Lots of moving people north assumes 10,000 student peak. What if its 9500? In near term (5 yrs?)....i would take a bet its 9500.

Think if its not 1000 more students coming say its ~500, with MV getting 50-100, WV 200-300 max and NV 200-300 max


Are we damaging our district, causing anguish among ourselves because we are worried about WV possibly operating with 3100 students? Or NV possibly operating with 4400?

Solution: if north site needs filling....make it 2500 school. We will accept WV and NV operating AT capacity or a little over if/when it comes to that. To me THAT is an acceptable cost for the good of the district.

Concl: Instead of swinging for homerun and slavishly accomodating the exteme growth model with virtual certainty. Lets hit us a solid double. Not bad with all the strikes and curveballs we have faced!

[wvhsparent]

eagledad said:

Would you agree that you can't compare the price of 70 acres on AME to 80 acres at BB?

If you can build the same school on 70 acres and never needed 80 in ths first place why did you go for 80?

You compare 70 to 70. You don't compare 70 to 80. I'm sure even that is covered in All-Day-K.

Buy 80 and sell of 10 off if you need to. You know already you'll get 500K+. That's a savings of 5-6 Million right there.

I don't think an additional referendum is needed. Remember, costs to build keep going up. Ther are probably already over budget on just the physical building. I just hope they're not trying to hide that by scrimping on less, sub-optimal land.

Again it sounds good in theory. But I think there are laws against condemning a property and selling off parts of it at a profit.
A lot of people had questioning the need for 80 acres from the very beginning.