|
Post by title1parent on Apr 18, 2008 5:56:43 GMT -5
Indian Prairie takes ownership of Eola property
April 18, 2008 BY TIM WALDORF twaldorf@scn1.com
AURORA -- The Indian Prairie School District already has closed the deal on the property the School Board voted to purchase on Monday.
Officials confirmed Thursday that the district took title Wednesday to the 84 acres along Eola Road that it purchased from St. John AME Church for $19 million. The district will build the 3,000-seat Metea Valley High School on the property.
The district still intends to open Metea for freshmen and sophomores in the fall of 2009. It had hoped to break ground by now, but it adjusted its plans by two weeks to allow the deal to close and designs to be reworked, and annexation agreements with the city of Aurora to be adjusted and approved.
Having already approved numerous contracts for construction services and materials for Metea contingent on the property's purchase, the district now plans to break ground May 7.
It will begin by building the classroom space needed to open the school on time, then turn its attention to the completion of portions of the building that don't have to be done when the doors open -- such as the auditorium and swimming pool.
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Apr 18, 2008 6:24:39 GMT -5
Indian Prairie takes ownership of Eola property April 18, 2008 BY TIM WALDORF twaldorf@scn1.com AURORA -- The Indian Prairie School District already has closed the deal on the property the School Board voted to purchase on Monday. Officials confirmed Thursday that the district took title Wednesday to the 84 acres along Eola Road that it purchased from St. John AME Church for $19 million. The district will build the 3,000-seat Metea Valley High School on the property. The district still intends to open Metea for freshmen and sophomores in the fall of 2009. It had hoped to break ground by now, but it adjusted its plans by two weeks to allow the deal to close and designs to be reworked, and annexation agreements with the city of Aurora to be adjusted and approved. Having already approved numerous contracts for construction services and materials for Metea contingent on the property's purchase, the district now plans to break ground May 7. It will begin by building the classroom space needed to open the school on time, then turn its attention to the completion of portions of the building that don't have to be done when the doors open -- such as the auditorium and swimming pool. Wow, short article. And no comments from anyone. This whole process has been sooooo exhausting. Looks like Tim doesn't even have the energy anymore.
|
|
|
Post by JWH on Apr 18, 2008 7:20:47 GMT -5
Indian Prairie takes ownership of Eola property April 18, 2008 BY TIM WALDORF twaldorf@scn1.com AURORA -- The Indian Prairie School District already has closed the deal on the property the School Board voted to purchase on Monday. Officials confirmed Thursday that the district took title Wednesday to the 84 acres along Eola Road that it purchased from St. John AME Church for $19 million. The district will build the 3,000-seat Metea Valley High School on the property. The district still intends to open Metea for freshmen and sophomores in the fall of 2009. It had hoped to break ground by now, but it adjusted its plans by two weeks to allow the deal to close and designs to be reworked, and annexation agreements with the city of Aurora to be adjusted and approved. Having already approved numerous contracts for construction services and materials for Metea contingent on the property's purchase, the district now plans to break ground May 7. It will begin by building the classroom space needed to open the school on time, then turn its attention to the completion of portions of the building that don't have to be done when the doors open -- such as the auditorium and swimming pool. Wow, short article. And no comments from anyone. This whole process has been sooooo exhausting. Looks like Tim doesn't even have the energy anymore. The school actually closes on the land, and it is a short brief. Now, if NSFOC posted something new on their website, we'd have a long article combined with a new poll, right?
|
|
sushi
Master Member
Posts: 767
|
Post by sushi on Apr 18, 2008 7:42:31 GMT -5
Two days in row Tim has managed to report the news. How refreshing!
|
|
|
Post by JWH on Apr 18, 2008 12:48:16 GMT -5
Just went by the site at lunchtime, and they are out there surveying/measuring.
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Apr 18, 2008 13:51:35 GMT -5
Just went by the site at lunchtime, and they are out there surveying/measuring. Appreciate the updates from you guys that live near by. I must admit, it is exciting to hear they are doing something I have waited for since 2005.
|
|
|
Post by rural on Apr 18, 2008 13:51:51 GMT -5
Just went by the site at lunchtime, and they are out there surveying/measuring. What is that big machine in the middle of the property? I've never seen anything like it before?
|
|
|
Post by JWH on Apr 18, 2008 15:24:24 GMT -5
Just went by the site at lunchtime, and they are out there surveying/measuring. What is that big machine in the middle of the property? I've never seen anything like it before? I wasn't quite sure what that thing is. Whatever it is, I'm sure it's a conspiracy by Dr D ;D
|
|
|
Post by 3woodgal on Apr 18, 2008 16:25:09 GMT -5
Two days in row Tim has managed to report the news. How refreshing! I hear the next article is going to be a "warning" to any prospect not to purchase the 25 acres if planning to use for a freestanding structure.....hope AME does their homework better than we did on MWGEN. I would hate to see a place of worship be sold land not ideal for building given how long they have waiting to finally have a church home.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Apr 18, 2008 16:33:24 GMT -5
Two days in row Tim has managed to report the news. How refreshing! I hear the next article is going to be a "warning" to any prospect not to purchase the 25 acres if planning to use for a freestanding structure.....hope AME does their homework better than we did on MWGEN. I would hate to see a place of worship be sold land not ideal for building given how long they have waiting to finally have a church home. Seeing how the plan was to build a MS on that property if the referendum failed in 2006, I don't see what the issue with the land would be.
|
|
|
Post by 3woodgal on Apr 18, 2008 16:42:57 GMT -5
I hear the next article is going to be a "warning" to any prospect not to purchase the 25 acres if planning to use for a freestanding structure.....hope AME does their homework better than we did on MWGEN. I would hate to see a place of worship be sold land not ideal for building given how long they have waiting to finally have a church home. Seeing how the plan was to build a MS on that property if the referendum failed in 2006, I don't see what the issue with the land would be. Not sure but this is what I am hearing in public and also read on other board and to be honest that is alarming. I need to research this one in greater depth. If the district is selling unsuitable land to a church that is appalling. I heard we were using it for parking or fields. Not true?
|
|
|
Post by momto4 on Apr 18, 2008 16:50:11 GMT -5
Seeing how the plan was to build a MS on that property if the referendum failed in 2006, I don't see what the issue with the land would be. Not sure but this is what I am hearing in public and also read on other board and to be honest that is alarming. I need to research this one in greater depth. If the district is selling unsuitable land to a church that is appalling. I heard we were using it for parking or fields. Not true? Why would this land be unsuitable?
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Apr 23, 2008 16:43:36 GMT -5
I have to bring this thread back into play for a minute and ask this:
Critics of the AME purchase are now saying that the district is recklessly spending our money by buying the land at AME. They are claiming that the church is making three times what they paid for the land in 2004 and it is not worth a three-fold increase in 4 years. (Bought $72K/acre in 2004 and sold for $225K/acre in 2008.)
Yet they sit there and say it is OK to pay $516K/acre for the BB land. I was just reading the B lawsuit and the timeline didn't really kick in until now. Sorry, I'm a bit slow. The SB bought the 25 acres of land for $257,000 an acre in May, 2005. The jury was supposed to determine the market value at the time of condemnation, right? So they came in at $516,000 per acre for a December 2005 price. So that is a two fold increase in 7 months??
Here's another question maybe someone can answer. The letter that the SB pushed for the quick take states that BB never produced an appraisal for the land (See exhibit C under B lawsuit). Did they EVER produce an appraisal later? And if they did, would you have to wonder who the appraiser was?
|
|
sushi
Master Member
Posts: 767
|
Post by sushi on Apr 23, 2008 17:01:42 GMT -5
But BB's different, dontcha know! To me, it's simply supply and demand.
|
|
|
Post by mclovin on Apr 23, 2008 17:16:18 GMT -5
I have to bring this thread back into play for a minute and ask this: Critics of the AME purchase are now saying that the district is recklessly spending our money by buying the land at AME. They are claiming that the church is making three times what they paid for the land in 2004 and it is not worth a three-fold increase in 4 years. (Bought $72K/acre in 2004 and sold for $225K/acre in 2008.) Yet they sit there and say it is OK to pay $516K/acre for the BB land. I was just reading the B lawsuit and the timeline didn't really kick in until now. Sorry, I'm a bit slow. The SB bought the 25 acres of land for $257,000 an acre in May, 2005. The jury was supposed to determine the market value at the time of condemnation, right? So they came in at $516,000 per acre for a December 2005 price. So that is a two fold increase in 7 months?? Here's another question maybe someone can answer. The letter that the SB pushed for the quick take states that BB never produced an appraisal for the land (See exhibit C under B lawsuit). Did they EVER produce an appraisal later? And if they did, would you have to wonder who the appraiser was? Why would BB produce an appraisal letter in the middle of a condemnation trial? Isn't that like showing someone your hand during a game of poker? They had appraisals lined up from experts at the time. Why would they produce them prior to the trial?
|
|