Site data

[warriorpride]

doctorwho said:

warriorpride said:

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.

That just made me dizzy. I'm not an accountant, nor do I understand even basic accounting, but that sounds wrong me. There's no "loss" if you sell it for the price you paid for it. Plus this purchase was done outside of the $124M budget . If the can sell if for more than 250, then I think it's actually a "gain", but no "loss" unless they sell for less than 250. I might be totally wrong here, too. And, we all know that there's plenty of ways to "lie" with numbers.

Let's look at it this way, we spent ~$6M on the 25 BB acres, so the actual budget for MV is 130 - does that seem fair? If you look at it that way, the 6M has been spent towards BB & 124 is left. If BB is dropped, hopefully the 6M can be at least recouped by selling the 25 for the purchase price. This bumps the $ the SD has available to spend on MV up to 130, which is what it really was all long, though we never thought of it that way, since the 25 acres was a given for BB.

[momof3]

gatordog said:

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% of both St and Mcc. Quiet non controversial, eh?

Watts growth will be N of the mall W of 59 - that entire development is slated for Watts - all the way to the train station iirc.

[proschool]

wvhsparent said:

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.

The 25 was sold voluntarily with the stipulation that the BB estate can buy it back for the selling price minus $1,000,000. This still this begs the question if the land can be sold for that easily why wouldn't BB be intersted in buying it for $1,000,000 less than they sold it?

[proschool]

wvhsparent 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?

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.

I've been thinking about this.

The school board will pay 20 million dollare to purchase 40 acres south of the 25 they already own. BB says no. But how does Calavary think about getting 15-20 million for the 40 acres it owns to the south? It a better site, same boundaries, and BB gets to eat crow.

[rew]

wvhsparent said:

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.

You don't have to sell it at a profit just sell the 15 acres for what we paid...$564K/acre and that's $8.5M even at $518K/acre that's $7.8M

[wvhsparent]

rew said:

wvhsparent said:

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.

You don't have to sell it at a profit just sell the 15 acres for what we paid...$564K/acre and that's $8.5M even at $518K/acre that's $7.8M

Show me where it states that is legal to do. I don't think it is.

[doctorwho]

rew said:

wvhsparent said:

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.

You don't have to sell it at a profit just sell the 15 acres for what we paid...$564K/acre and that's $8.5M even at $518K/acre that's $7.8M

not a legal eagle here -- but IIRC because this was a condemnation for public project - that land stays with us...someone here I am sure has the details

[doctorwho]

proschool said:

wvhsparent said:

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.

I've been thinking about this.

The school board will pay 20 million dollare to purchase 40 acres south of the 25 they already own. BB says no. But how does Calavary think about getting 15-20 million for the 40 acres it owns to the south? It a better site, same boundaries, and BB gets to eat crow.

they'd have to be willing sellers -- a hard commodity to find it seems - I thought they had their own plans for that land

[doctorwho]

momof3 said:

gatordog said:

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% of both St and Mcc. Quiet non controversial, eh?

Watts growth will be N of the mall W of 59 - that entire development is slated for Watts - all the way to the train station iirc.

yeah, tell me that makes ANY sense -- hopefully when we get all the way down to ES boundaries those people can go to school somewhere near their house. As far as talk of an island - think about Lehigh station to Watts - just crazy


although the city planners will likely say there will be almost no kids there. When the development with 160 apatments was ticketed for Rickert - they estimated 9 kids. And then we wonder why things end up screwed up --

[rew]

wvhsparent said:

rew said:

You don't have to sell it at a profit just sell the 15 acres for what we paid...$564K/acre and that's $8.5M even at $518K/acre that's $7.8M

Show me where it states that is legal to do. I don't think it is.

Wait, so you have a stipulation that if the land doesn't get used the district can never sell it? What if you built a school on it and in 50 years the school wasn't needed . I know sxhool districts that have sold off schools. You're telling me you can NEVER sell it?

[gatordog]

I had to clarify I good bit in my previous post. I hope it helps.

A suggestion: if a suitable affordable central or southern site is found. We proceed if $ available with(growth risk free) 3000 seat HS.

However, if a north site is deemed as the affordable way, we consider taking a risk (small?) that we have a slight bit of (temporary?) overcrowding in the future, at WV and NV.

Because BB was not affordable, those at WV and those at NV agree to bear a slight (very marginal?) addition cost with these schools at capacity, or a shade above. In return, the benefit is not impose undo travel or disruption to unnaturally fill out the school away from population center.

I think a broad consensus may be built behind this. Thought?

edit: For northern site: change the question...
dont ask: how to fill it up to near 3000?
ask: why fill it up?

[wvhsparent]

rew said:

wvhsparent said:

Show me where it states that is legal to do. I don't think it is.

Wait, so you have a stipulation that if the land doesn't get used the district can never sell it? What if you built a school on it and in 50 years the school wasn't needed . I know sxhool districts that have sold off schools. You're telling me you can NEVER sell it?

How many of those schools were built on property taken thru condemnation?
I am sure they could sell it at some point, but that would be many many years later, not right after or soon thereafter they acquired it.

[warriorpride]

gatordog said:

I had to clarify I good bit in my previous post. I hope it helps.

A suggestion: if a suitable affordable central or southern site is found. We proceed if $ available with(growth risk free) 3000 seat HS.

However, if a north site is deemed as the affordable way, we consider taking a risk (small?) that we have a slight bit of (temporary?) overcrowding in the future, at WV and NV.

Because BB was not affordable, those at WV and those at NV agree to bear a slight (very marginal?) addition cost with these schools at capacity, or a shade above. In return, the benefit is not impose undo travel or disruption to unnaturally fill out the school away from population center.

I think a broad consensus may be built behind this. Thought?

edit: For northern site: change the question...
dont ask: how to fill it up to near 3000?
ask: why fill it up?

GD - you've probably put more effort into this than the SD/SB has. I think you have a very good compromise defined. Do you happen to know the achievment scores with your proposal?

[doctorwho]

warriorpride said:

gatordog said:

I had to clarify I good bit in my previous post. I hope it helps.

A suggestion: if a suitable affordable central or southern site is found. We proceed if $ available with(growth risk free) 3000 seat HS.

However, if a north site is deemed as the affordable way, we consider taking a risk (small?) that we have a slight bit of (temporary?) overcrowding in the future, at WV and NV.

Because BB was not affordable, those at WV and those at NV agree to bear a slight (very marginal?) addition cost with these schools at capacity, or a shade above. In return, the benefit is not impose undo travel or disruption to unnaturally fill out the school away from population center.

I think a broad consensus may be built behind this. Thought?

edit: For northern site: change the question...
dont ask: how to fill it up to near 3000?
ask: why fill it up?

GD - you've probably put more effort into this than the SD/SB has. I think you have a very good compromise defined. Do you happen to know the achievment scores with your proposal?

GD, tell me what schools you are putting into MV - and WV etc - I can run tese pretty quickly

am I assuming you are saying build a smaller chool - say 2200- 2500 ( like the size of Naper Central or North )

[EagleDad]

proschool said:

The 25 was sold voluntarily with the stipulation that the BB estate can buy it back for the selling price minus $1,000,000. This still this begs the question if the land can be sold for that easily why wouldn't BB be intersted in buying it for $1,000,000 less than they sold it?

Yes, that's right, there's another 1 Million in costs in walking away from BB

So we have in walkaway costs/losses
5MM legal
1MM planning/surveys/designs
7.5 MM in land differential for the extra 10 acres at BB that are not at a 70 acre site (estimated worth of the prime frontage land and BB along 75th)
4.5 million in land sellback losses (figured at having to sell back the current BB 25 acres at 225K and purchase a new 25 acres somewhere else at 400K/acre)

Total loss/reduction value involved at bailing on BB (so far, I'll bet there's more costs to be uncovered/disclosed) - 18 Million

That would mean another 70 acre site would need to be less than 31MM-18MM or under 13MM (or approx. $185K/acre) to make it worthwile on costs alone.

This does not account for the "suck" factor of another site.

They'll need to ghet a hell of a deal elsewhere for this to make sense.