|
Post by title1parent on Jan 27, 2009 6:11:28 GMT -5
www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=267333&src=76Dist. 204 to sell 25-acre Aurora lot By Justin Kmitch | Daily Herald 1/27/2009 With Metea Valley High School coming along on schedule, Indian Prairie Unit District 204 no longer needs the 25-acre tract it owns at the Brach-Brodie site. Board members Monday declared the land at the intersection of Commons and Thatcher drives unsuitable, unnecessary and inconvenient for a school. Assistant Superintendent for Business Dave Holm said rendering the site unnecessary was the first step the district needed to take before soliciting bids for the lot. "There will be a minimum price of $6,437,500 for the lot, equal to the price paid by the district," Holm said. If no qualifying bids are received, the district can attempt to sell the land on the open market. The district purchased the land on the Brach-Brodie site with the intention of later purchasing the additional 55 acres for $14 million for the future home of Metea Valley High School. But during condemnation proceedings, a jury set the price at $31 million - $17 million more than the district thought the land was worth. Talks broke down and the district later abandoned its pursuit of the remaining 55 acres. School district attorneys have said neither the Brachs nor the Brodies have expressed any interest in reclaiming the land. Meanwhile, the 3,000 seat Metea Valley High School continues to be constructed and is on schedule to open in August. Much of the core of the building is under a roof now and has either permanent or temporary windows so workers are able to start putting in duct work, mechanical systems and piping. Concrete slabs are being poured, catwalks are being installed in the auditorium and exterior walls are going up around the physical education locker area as well.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Jan 27, 2009 8:47:10 GMT -5
Isn't this old news? I thought the land was deemed unsuitable by the SB for a previous lawsuit.
News flash for Holm -- the market doesn't care what you paid for something. I'm sure a lot of people who bought houses in the last couple of years would love to get what they paid.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jan 27, 2009 9:09:03 GMT -5
Isn't this old news? I thought the land was deemed unsuitable by the SB for a previous lawsuit. News flash for Holm -- the market doesn't care what you paid for something. I'm sure a lot of people who bought houses in the last couple of years would love to get what they paid. Well I guess then if they cannot get what they paid for it, they hold it for a while longer.....That corner is not going to stay a farm field forever....In the meantime they lease it to the farmer farming the remainder.....
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Jan 27, 2009 9:59:27 GMT -5
Isn't this old news? I thought the land was deemed unsuitable by the SB for a previous lawsuit. News flash for Holm -- the market doesn't care what you paid for something. I'm sure a lot of people who bought houses in the last couple of years would love to get what they paid. Well I guess then if they cannot get what they paid for it, they hold it for a while longer..... But how much longer? The proceeds from this land sale are needed to fund MV construction. Wouldnt hanging onto this property make the SD short of cash to finishing paying for construction?
|
|
|
Post by justvote on Jan 27, 2009 10:03:30 GMT -5
Isn't this old news? I thought the land was deemed unsuitable by the SB for a previous lawsuit. News flash for Holm -- the market doesn't care what you paid for something. I'm sure a lot of people who bought houses in the last couple of years would love to get what they paid. I thought the exact same thing. Who cares what the property cost years ago? How much can we get today is what matters. Maybe he threw out the figure so potential buyers have a ballpark idea of what the property is worth (or was worth at one time).
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jan 27, 2009 10:23:06 GMT -5
I thought the exact same thing. Who cares what the property cost years ago? How much can we get today is what matters. Maybe he threw out the figure so potential buyers have a ballpark idea of what the property is worth (or was worth at one time). Yes but the price we paid for that land was almost 260K an acre. According to a jury, the land a year later was worth almost 600K an acre. I wonder what it is worth today. I would be more concerned about finding a buyer. I don't see much going on in the way of building right now, commercial or residential. How long can we hold the land before we run short of cash in building Metea?
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jan 27, 2009 10:27:05 GMT -5
well seeing as PREIT was going to pay over 500K/acre for the corner and the jury came in at 600k/acre. 257k/acre would be a bargain......
I thought they were saving around 8mil by using Eola, so if they can keep the property revenue neutral. They will get their savings, just not right away. If I am wrong please correct me...my memory has been a bit spotty as of late.....
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Jan 27, 2009 10:36:00 GMT -5
I thought they were saving around 8mil by using Eola, so if they can keep the property revenue neutral. They will get their savings, just not right away. If I am wrong please correct me...my memory has been a bit spotty as of late..... I dug up the Jan 2008 SB Land Site Report. the big savings (given as $9.5 mil surplus) at Eola were with a Aug 2010 opening. For the decided-upon 2009 opening, this doc shows $4.8 mil surplus. So without land sale, there may be potential for $6.4-4.8 = $1.6 mil shortfall. I wonder how the rest of the project budget is holding up. Maybe this shortfall is managible, it depends.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jan 27, 2009 10:45:02 GMT -5
Thanks for that GD.....IIRC they are running under budget as of now....
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Jan 27, 2009 16:20:16 GMT -5
Apples and oranges. IIRC, the land we currently own is interior acreage designed for drainage -- not the premium land valued by the jury.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jan 27, 2009 16:30:54 GMT -5
Apples and oranges. IIRC, the land we currently own is interior acreage designed for drainage -- not the premium land valued by the jury. Really! IIRC they were planning to build a MS on it if necessary. In the grand scheme of the 80 acres they had wanted those 25 acres would have been designated drainage. Right now it is farmland....just like the rest.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Jan 27, 2009 16:32:37 GMT -5
Apples and oranges. IIRC, the land we currently own is interior acreage designed for drainage -- not the premium land valued by the jury. Really! IIRC they were planning to build a MS on it if necessary. In the grand scheme of the 80 acres they had wanted those 25 acres would have been designated drainage. Right now it is farmland....just like the rest. I'm not saying it was worthless land, just that it was always known to be less valuable than the other 55 acres.
|
|
|
Post by title1parent on Jan 28, 2009 6:57:45 GMT -5
www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/1400462,6_1_NA28_BRACHBRODIE_S1.article D204 putting 'unsuitable' land back on the market January 28, 2009 By TIM WALDORF twaldorf@scn1.com Lost in the land swaps and lawsuits is the 25-acre tract of land Indian Prairie School District 204 actually purchased from the Brach-Brodie trust. That land was originally to be paired with an adjacent 55 acres owned by the trust to become the site of Metea Valley High School. Of course, District 204's attempt to condemn that property at 75th Street and the future extension of Commons Drive didn't work out as planned; the jury-determined price for the property -- $31 million -- was twice what the district expected to pay. So it abandoned its condemnation effort last fall, bought a different piece of property -- 84 acres at Eola and Molitor roads -- from St. John AME Church for $19 million in the spring and is building the 460,000-square-foot school with the goal of opening it to freshmen and sophomores at the end of this summer. So what about that 25 acres of Brach-Brodie property the district already purchased? Well, it no longer needs it. So, during its Monday meeting, District 204's board voted to deem the property unsuitable, unnecessary and inconvenient for a school. Taking this action is the first step the district needed to take before soliciting bids for the lot, said Dave Holm, District 204's assistant superintendent for business. "There is a minimum price of $6,437,500 for the 25 acres, which is equal to the district's original purchase price," Holm said. "And after that, if we go through that process and we have not received a competitive bid, we will list the property with a real estate agent." Steve Helm, the Brodie trust's attorney, said Tuesday he had not heard of this development, and would have to consult his client to see if there was any interest in buying back the property. John Simon, the Brach trust's attorney, could not be reached for comment. The two trusts are still seeking reimbursement from District 204 of their expenses associated with the abandonment of the condemnation suit. The Brodie trust actually sought a ruling to require District 204 to purchase the 55-acre parcel at the jury-determined price; that motion was dismissed. Now, the two sides are battling in court to determine which of the trusts' more than $5 million of alleged expenses qualify for reimbursement. "If we can't work it all out, then I guess the judge is going to work it out for us," said Helm.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jan 28, 2009 7:43:48 GMT -5
What? And they didn't have a chance to buy it back before? Maybe Brach and Brodie will get into a bidding war, after all they seem to have worked so well together in the past.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jan 28, 2009 8:19:39 GMT -5
Buying back the 25 acres was part of the 05 Settlement agreement.....maybe they may wish to dust off their copy of it.
|
|