|
Post by title1parent on Oct 24, 2009 9:15:41 GMT -5
www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=331372&src=76Unable to sell land, District 204 borrows to finish Metea Valley By Justin Kmitch | Daily Herald 10/24/09 Not even the mighty Mustangs are immune from the real-estate slump. Indian Prairie Unit District 204's inability to sell the 25-acre tract it owns at the site originally considered for Metea Valley High School has led officials to seek a $5 million bridge loan to pay for the remaining construction of the school, which opened in August. "This is in order to buy time and bridge the time it will require for us to sell the 25 acres," Assistant Superintendent for Business Dave Holm said, The district put the land, near Route 59 and 75th Street, on the market in January with a minimum price of $6.4 million, the amount the district paid for the land. But the lack of takers have put it in a bind as the bills are coming due for the $124.6 million Metea Valley, scheduled to be complete in late January. The district purchased the land, often called the Brach-Brodie site, in 2005 with the intention of later purchasing an additional 55 acres for $14 million for the future home of Metea Valley. 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. The new high school was built instead on Eola Road south of Diehl Road in Aurora. Board member Christine Vickers opposed taking on the debt, fearful of relying on selling the land before 2014 to repay the principal loan. "I understand that right now, that's where we are, that we would take those monies out right now here today as a bridge or a delay for that, but my sense tells me we are putting a risk on the table on whether or not we'll ever be able to put those monies back," she said. "We don't have any guarantees or assurances that we will sell the land for $5 million, let alone to cover the full purchase price that we paid in 2005." Holm said the only other option is take the money out of the district's operating funds now and risk not being able to pay other bills and payroll. "The question is 'now or later?'" Holm said. "And I would also say that there is real value to the land. It's certainly not worthless, and the question is: 'When can we sell it and for how much?' But I think there's reason to believe it's worth every bit the $5 million."
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Oct 27, 2009 8:22:33 GMT -5
Can someone refresh my memory as to why we purchased this land in the first place? In other words, why was the target 80 acres split up into two transactions -- one from which we were able to walk away, but not this one? On the surface, this would seem to indicate incredible incompetence. And from what little I know about this plot of land, it is significantly impaired as it doesn't have access to the roads (I was under the impression adding the other 55 acres were necessary to realize the full value of the 25). It's like we bought a house in the middle of a big lot, but someone else owns the land surrounding the house.
|
|
|
Post by insider on Oct 27, 2009 14:02:37 GMT -5
Subject: 204 E-News: Board Approves Land Purchase Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 15:03:11 -0700 (PDT)
Board Approves Land Purchase
The Indian Prairie Board of Education last night approved the purchase of a 25-acre school site on the southwest corner of the Brach Brodie property for future school uses. This action began in 2001 when the district's voters approved bonds to provide funds for the purchase of land. In 2003, the district decided on this site, located on the future extension of Commons Drive, northwest of Calvary Church. The property is shown on the City of Aurora's Comprehensive plans as being mixed use for multi-family development.
Originally the subject of a condemnation suit, the property was also part of a larger parcel that had been considered for a third high school. On Monday, District 204 scaled back its proposal to purchase 80 acres at this location to the current 25-acre site. With the acquisition of the property, Indian Prairie exercised one of the options available within a settlement agreement to end the condemnation suit. The district will pay $6,437,500 for the 25 acres, while avoiding as much as $1 million in attorneys' fees and litigation expenses for which it would be liable if it abandoned the purchase.
The purchase price will be funded with $2.5 million in proceeds earmarked for land purchase from the 2001 bond referendum, developers' contributions through land cash ordinances, and remaining funds from completed construction projects. The district will close on the land by May 31.
There are no immediate plans to construct a building on the land. Its ultimate use for a school will be determined in the future through a referendum submitted to the voters. The site is the size required for a middle school, but not large enough for a comprehensive high school. The district has no plans to acquire additional land at this time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email sent by:
Indian Prairie School District 204
|
|
|
Post by insider on Oct 27, 2009 14:36:43 GMT -5
Dist. 204 hits snag in plan to build By Sara Hooker Daily Herald Staff Writer Published 3/11/2006 Indian Prairie Unit District 204 officials, who once said the district — upon voter approval — could begin building a third high school on 25 acres it owns in Aurora, now say they’ll have to wait to acquire the entire 80-acre site. The district spent $6.4 million last spring to purchase 25 acres in the southernmost portion of the property, off Route 59 at 75th Street and Commons Drive in Aurora. That’s where it plans to construct a 3,000-student high school should voters give officials the power to borrow $124.7 million in the March 21 election. **After talking with architects and engineers in late January, officials learned the school building itself should be placed on the northern portion of the site and that the land it owns would be better used for water detention and parking. ** “If the building is in the wrong place, worst-case scenario, it’s separated from all of its facilities by a street,” Superintendent Howard Crouse said. “That’s probably what would end up happening if we tried to build it that way. It just doesn’t work.” The northern part of the land is part of an ongoing condemnation suit the district filed in December against the landowners, the Brach-Brodie estate. No construction can begin until a jury determines a fair price for the land and the suit is settled. That could take months or even years. But district officials are optimistic the land will be purchased in time to allow school construction to start in spring of 2007. That would mean the new school could open in 2009. “We’re already about four months into the process. We’re duplicating a lot of the process that was already done (for last year’s referendum). It’s just updating it,” Crouse said. “I think we can demonstrate an urgency to the court that says we need to move this along to a speedy trial, as we’re entitled to.” He refused to speculate what would happen if the land proceedings somehow delayed the school’s projected 2009 opening. “I just don’t anticipate that happening,” Crouse said. “In our mind, it’s not a real possibility.” Beyond that, a jury must decide the price of the land. If it’s more than officials budgeted for within the $124.7 million referendum request, they could have to scale back the project or even abandon the site. “Those are really the only two choices,” board member Mark Metzger said. “Either we’re going to have to find a way to make the number work by digging into operational funds or we look to a different site.” The district won’t show its hand by revealing the price it’s offering, but a recent motion filed by attorneys representing the landowner said the district offered $257,000 an acre — roughly half its value by their estimations. Officials also won’t reveal what amount would cause them to alter the current plan for the high school. A jury would consider similar parcel sales in its decision, Metzger said. In March 2005, land at Lehigh Station — which is a similar distance from Route 59 and was also platted to be townhouses — sold for $235,000 an acre, he said. “I’m telling you that the (referendum question) has what we believe will be enough money built in — not only to build the building the way we think we need to build it — but to acquire the land … for a very reasonable amount of money,” Metzger said.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Oct 28, 2009 8:23:52 GMT -5
Thanks for posting those, insider.
“I’m telling you that the (referendum question) has what we believe will be enough money built in — not only to build the building the way we think we need to build it — but to acquire the land … for a very reasonable amount of money,” Metzger said.
So as it stands today, with the cost of MV at well over $140M, can we unequivocally say that it was a mistake to abandon BB? $125M for the ref plus an "extra" $17M for the land, minus millions in legal fees?
Yes, it's water under the bridge...but the sooner everyone admits the entire process was riddled with incompetence, the more likely it is that similar mistakes won't be repeated.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Oct 28, 2009 10:22:25 GMT -5
I think everyone here is well aware that the process had a lot of incompetence in it.
I for one - blame Howie Crouse for the purchase. that should have never taken place when it did.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Oct 28, 2009 17:35:51 GMT -5
... So as it stands today, with the cost of MV at well over $140M, can we unequivocally say that it was a mistake to abandon BB? $125M for the ref plus an "extra" $17M for the land, minus millions in legal fees? ... 1) People seem forget the $6M+ paid for the BB 25; that would also have been part of the total cost to build at BB. 2) Who is the "we" in "can we unequivocally say that it was a mistake to abandon BB? " - if you're asking me, then I say that there's no unequivocal proof of anything. Not sure what the value is of the question, tho. ...but the sooner everyone admits the entire process was riddled with incompetence, the more likely it is that similar mistakes won't be repeated. What exactly are you asking for, and from whom? The 2 Superintendents involved with the decisions are gone, as are a number of the SB members that were involved. .. Yes, it's water under the bridge Correct, we have a winner!
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Oct 28, 2009 20:49:23 GMT -5
it's like the bridge at Remagen. But some try to rebuild the bridge over and over again.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Oct 29, 2009 6:56:23 GMT -5
All I'm saying is that in the end, there was no financial benefit whatsoever in moving the site. The overall cost is the same or higher. If anyone disagrees with this statement, I'd like to hear why.
|
|
|
Post by warriormom on Oct 29, 2009 8:28:28 GMT -5
All I'm saying is that in the end, there was no financial benefit whatsoever in moving the site. The overall cost is the same or higher. If anyone disagrees with this statement, I'd like to hear why. I completely agree. the sad part is that they have spent what they would have at BB (and more) AND lost the trust of many taxpayers in the process. This will hurt our district going forward for many years to come.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Oct 29, 2009 10:05:19 GMT -5
All I'm saying is that in the end, there was no financial benefit whatsoever in moving the site. The overall cost is the same or higher. If anyone disagrees with this statement, I'd like to hear why. Maybe first you could explain your statement that "there was no financial benefit to moving the site"? How do you reach your conclusion? Here is my reasoning: building costs for a HS are roughly equal, independent of site. (a pretty obvious statement) The major significant cost difference between sites is the land cost. BB land cost: $6 million for the original 25 acres, then $31 million at the jury-determined price for the other 55 acress. Total cost= $37 mil. Eola land cost: about $20 mil (I dont recall exact price) The cost comparsion to me looks quite straightforward. Now how is it that "there was no financial benefit" to the site change? edit: I understand SD now holds title to $6 mil worth of land that we otherwise would not have bought. I am no accountant, but owning land is an asset, not a cost, right?
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Oct 30, 2009 16:39:11 GMT -5
Because the $17M in land cost savings were completely eaten up by the increased construction costs due to the delays and the decision to expedite the construction (which, of course, still leaves us with an unfinished product at this point, whereas BB would be completely done by now).
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Oct 30, 2009 19:34:44 GMT -5
Because the $17M in land cost savings were completely eaten up by the increased construction costs due to the delays and the decision to expedite the construction (which, of course, still leaves us with an unfinished product at this point, whereas BB would be completely done by now). Nope they would have had the same expidite costs if at BB.
|
|
doc
Frosh
Posts: 0
|
Post by doc on Oct 31, 2009 20:59:27 GMT -5
Because the $17M in land cost savings were completely eaten up by the increased construction costs due to the delays and the decision to expedite the construction (which, of course, still leaves us with an unfinished product at this point, whereas BB would be completely done by now). Nope they would have had the same expidite costs if at BB. so starting Oct 1, 2007 wouldn't have taken care of that - please explain how it would not have ? Why is it we have NEVER seen any accounting of the millions spent on expediting but now the budget has a huge shortfall ? And the need to expedite was why? 10,400 had long since come and gone and no split shifts as promied for 2008 -?
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Oct 31, 2009 21:28:17 GMT -5
Nope they would have had the same expidite costs if at BB. so starting Oct 1, 2007 wouldn't have taken care of that - please explain how it would not have ? Why is it we have NEVER seen any accounting of the millions spent on expediting but now the budget has a huge shortfall ? And the need to expedite was why? 10,400 had long since come and gone and no split shifts as promied for 2008 -? It really does not matter what anyone says to you or certain other persons, so I'm not even going to try anymore. It does not matter anymore....the school is built and life goes on.
|
|