The Ankeny school board gave the green light to an agreement with the city of Ankeny that exchanges land for infrastructure cost.
The board voted 7-0 at its Monday night meeting to enter into the agreement with the city, in which the district agrees to convey 70 acres of land located along 36th Street west of State Street to the city in exchange for approximately $2.2 million of road and utility improvements needed in the construction of the district's next elementary school.
"We've entered into this agreement to give the city a piece of land that we don’t need and in exchange we get infrastructure that we don’t have to pay for, the community doesn’t have to pay for and we can take off the cost (of Elementary 10)," said school board president Pat Cahill. "It's important for the community to know we’re saving them money."
The city previously voted in favor of the agreement at a special Oct. 8 meeting. The land conveyed to the city is currently appraised at approximately $1.54 million and is adjacent to where the new elementary school is proposed to be built.
The estimated cost of infrastructure the city will receive in return is $2.7 million with approximately $500,000 abated through special assessments and water and sewer connection fees, the release said. The city has already factored the project into its Capital Improvements Program for calendar year 2014.
Jeff Krausman, attorney for the district, said this will allow the district to make necessary infrastructure improvements for which it would not have been able to bond.
"This agreement is a result of the decision-makers in the comm making the decision to work together," Krausman said. "We’ve had a history of doing in the past but hasn’t been as productive in the last three years."
The agreement will go into affect only if voters pass a proposed $15.9 million referendum needed to construct Elementary 10. Right now, the referendum is scheduled to be placed on a special February 2013 ballot provided the district gets enough signatures to do so.
So basically it boils down to this: had the district hung on to the land, it would have sat empty and they still would have to pay for the infrastructure the city is now taking care of on behalf of the district. Yes, they are still seeking the $18.9 million bond to construct the school itself, but infrastructure costs will now be taken care of which will save the district money on the final bill. Does this make sense?
Have a good day.
As far as the location, they didn't ignore squat: From the info provided by the board: Why this location? • Using either the district-owned “36th and State” or “Woodland Reserve” property would lower project costs. • More growth is occurring to the West. The 36th and State location will better alleviate enrollment pressure from that area. • The selected location potentially results in moving fewer students when drawing new boundaries. Anything else I can help you with?
Have you approached either the city council or school board members? Emailed them? Called them? Attended any meetings with your concerns?
Many folks follow the workings of the school board via information provided by the board on the ASCD website, press releases from the school district, and information provided in the media. In reviewing past board meeting minutes published on the district website, I don't see your name appearing anywhere on the list of attendees. Perhaps you don't sign in?