|
|
Post by bob on Jan 2, 2008 9:46:57 GMT -6
We all know how we feel about sites with respect to boundaries but what if we look at cost along with it.
I give you a few scenarios and would like to see what everyone says. I am going to make up some costs for the land. Assume 70 acres for each site
3 sites
1) Macom
2) AME
3) Ferry Rd
1st Scenario
Macom AME & Ferry Rd all cost the same
2nd
Macom $23.1 Mil
AME $17.5
Ferry $ 14.0
3rd
Macom $19.25
AME $21.
Ferry $16.0
4th
Macom $21
AME $17
Ferry $19
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jan 2, 2008 9:59:05 GMT -6
We all know how we feel about sites with respect to boundaries but what if we look at cost along with it. I give you a few scenarios and would like to see what everyone says. I am going to make up some costs for the land. Assume 70 acres for each site 3 sites 1) Macom 2) AME 3) Ferry Rd 1st Scenario Macom AME & Ferry Rd all cost the same 2nd Macom $23.1 Mil AME $17.5 Ferry $ 14.0 3rd Macom $19.25 AME $21. Ferry $16.0 4th Macom $21 AME $17 Ferry $19 you may want to create a radio button survey for this also - one choice in each of the scenarios |
|
|
|
Post by yeson321 on Jan 2, 2008 10:02:23 GMT -6
We all know how we feel about sites with respect to boundaries but what if we look at cost along with it. I give you a few scenarios and would like to see what everyone says. I am going to make up some costs for the land. Assume 70 acres for each site 3 sites 1) Macom 2) AME 3) Ferry Rd 1st Scenario Macom AME & Ferry Rd all cost the same 2nd Macom $23.1 Mil AME $17.5 Ferry $ 14.0 3rd Macom $19.25 AME $21. Ferry $16.0 4th Macom $21 AME $17 Ferry $19 Land costs do not nearly begin to tell the whole story of the site impact. To my family, the headaches that a Northern site will cause are not worth any of the negligible savings in scenarios 2 and 4. We support Macom. |
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jan 2, 2008 10:06:19 GMT -6
I support whatever site the district can afford to purchase in order to build Metea in a timely fashion to alleviate overcrowding in this district.
One thing I try to keep in mind is that even after Metea opens, Waubonsie will remain overcrowded as it loses its freshman center. Timeliness is as important as cost to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jan 2, 2008 10:22:30 GMT -6
I support whatever site the district can afford to purchase in order to build Metea in a timely fashion to alleviate overcrowding in this district. One thing I try to keep in mind is that even after Metea opens, Waubonsie will remain overcrowded as it loses its freshman center. Timeliness is as important as cost to me. There are 2 ways most of us will look at this: 1/ As a resident of 204 only 2/ from a personal sense with children we have involved ( and some of the issues will be the same regardless of which view is used) For purposes of expressing support here, I will go with how it affects me: I can tell you that my daughter would rather attend a somewhat more crowded WV for a period of time ( after a 3rd HS opens and freshman center closes ) than have to travel to a northern site away from many friends she would otherwise attend WV with, as well as likely lose extracurric's such as varsity sports for a year also. ( I add my own concern over the distance and travel safety- although the long bus rides they would be painfully aware of) Cost can be measured many different ways, not just the first check that's cut to build the building - IMHO. In the course of the next few weeks, 8th graders will attend their HS's for orientation meetings/ class options - meet with their 8th grade teachers on honors/AP options etc -- they will become even more a part of those communities at those meetings. The longer they do not know if those are going to be more than 1 year atachments, the harder it will be. From a district sense I have already said I will support ( via the Ops referendum) whatever decision is arrived at, whether I like it or not. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jan 2, 2008 10:22:37 GMT -6
you may want to create a radio button survey for this also - one choice in each of the scenarios Dang it. I knew there was an easier way. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Jan 2, 2008 10:34:02 GMT -6
Land costs do not nearly begin to tell the whole story of the site impact. To my family, the headaches that a Northern site will cause are not worth any of the negligible savings in scenarios 2 and 4. We support Macom. ditto I'll take a more expensive Macom with a 2010 opening over a cheaper northern site with a 2009 opening. |
|
|
|
Post by title1parent on Jan 2, 2008 10:38:57 GMT -6
I support whatever site the district can afford to purchase in order to build Metea in a timely fashion to alleviate overcrowding in this district. One thing I try to keep in mind is that even after Metea opens, Waubonsie will remain overcrowded as it loses its freshman center. Timeliness is as important as cost to me. Same sentiments, GM. |
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Jan 2, 2008 11:55:07 GMT -6
We all know how we feel about sites with respect to boundaries but what if we look at cost along with it. For me the land price tag is not so relavent....all I ultimately care about is that the whole project stays on budget and is delivered in reasonable time frame (2009 best, but 2010 acceptable as well as I see it right now) On thing in the past that I deemed a strike against Macom site was its lack of readiness to build upon. Not only does this delay address the overcrowding, but also it exposes us to significant risks of construction cost escalation. To me, this is becoming less and less a cost-negative for Macom. I have a hunch that any site chosen we are more gearing towards a 2010 opening. |
|
|
|
Post by casey on Jan 2, 2008 14:30:11 GMT -6
Land costs do not nearly begin to tell the whole story of the site impact. To my family, the headaches that a Northern site will cause are not worth any of the negligible savings in scenarios 2 and 4. We support Macom. ditto I'll take a more expensive Macom with a 2010 opening over a cheaper northern site with a 2009 opening. I couldn't agree more! IMO, the northern site is unworkable at any cost. I don't understand in any way, shape or form, how our SB could be considering northern sites! Based on the original Site Selection Report: the northern site at Ferry Road " is the farthest from the student population center of the SD, meaning that its selection would require a permanent increase in transportation expenditures. Worse, this location requires 3,000 students, the teaching staff, support staff and any visitors and parents to cross the expressway twice each day in order to go to and from the high school, and do so on two of the three most congested roads in the District. In short, access is also a problem." Posted about the AME site "Location wise, this parcel is distant from the student population center of the SD. The northesast parts of the site are immediately adjacent to two highly electrical switching substations.....the Board sees no advantage in constructing a third high school in such a location if there is any possibility of abandonment for health issues." Also, "location of this site, the proximity of potential electromagnetic radiation and the cost of land elsewhere make such a possibility unattractive." That's what our SB originally posted. Now, I ask what has changed? I would think that the Frieders Farm site or AME site would have to fall at the complete bottom of the list. How in the world could the SB spin that information around and try to convince us that a far northern site is in everyone's best interests  ? Also, don't forget the original post that Daisy put out there: "I'm not sure of the exact figure, but I have confidence that my numbers are pretty accurate. Macom offered to do a land swap for the 25 BB acres plus just over $13,000,000 for their site." If this is correct information, I'd say that Macom comes in at a pretty fair price. Now, I know that there are personal issues at stake with regards to the Macom land but it does offer a site that is much more centrally located. Boundary changes would be more minimal as the existing third HS boundaries could be used for a Macom site. My site preferences would be: Macom, mystery 4th site?, then the northern sites. I absolutely cannot understand how northern sites can make sense! |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jan 2, 2008 14:56:17 GMT -6
You just glossed over $6 million dollar transaction. The cost to the SD would be $13 million plus the cvalue of the 25 acres. That 25 acres is worth about $6 million at the price we paid for it or $12.7 million if you use the jury price.
The cost of Macom according to that "deal" cost $19 million to $25.7 million
If you value the 25 acres at the jury price, Macom price is equal to BB at $467K.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jan 2, 2008 15:05:02 GMT -6
I'll still state as I have all along, it will work out to be cheaper to have just bought BB back in September and started building the first week in October.
|
|
|
|
Post by casey on Jan 2, 2008 15:09:21 GMT -6
You just glossed over $6 million dollar transaction. The cost to the SD would be $13 million plus the cvalue of the 25 acres. That 25 acres is worth about $6 million at the price we paid for it or $12.7 million if you use the jury price. The cost of Macom according to that "deal" cost $19 million to $25.7 million My bad. I didn't mean to gloss over it. You are exactly right, there is the $6M land cost of the orginal 25 acres. That would bring the cost to $19M ($13M for land and $6M for BB acreage). Right now though, I consider that a bonus that our SB would be able to sell it (or have a land-swap, however you want to word it) to Macom. We can think what we want about that original 25 acres as the cost was determined to be so high by the BB jury but let's face it, our SB probably doesn't have any ready buyers for those 25 acres. I'm not saying that the land is invaluable and not wanted by someone but I don't think we have the time or $$ to keep waiting on that land. Our SB doesn't have the extra $6M+ just sitting around to leave invested in that land. I think they need to sell the land and use the money! Are our SB attorneys headed back in court this month to ask for a new trial? Does anyone know? |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jan 2, 2008 15:10:39 GMT -6
SB Meeting on Friday.
|
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jan 2, 2008 16:00:10 GMT -6
Land costs do not nearly begin to tell the whole story of the site impact. To my family, the headaches that a Northern site will cause are not worth any of the negligible savings in scenarios 2 and 4. We support Macom. ditto I'll take a more expensive Macom with a 2010 opening over a cheaper northern site with a 2009 opening. What grade level are your kid(s)? What ES area? |
|
?