Where did this report come from?

Any idea how much this report cost?

Good comment Phil!

Prudent planning and site evaluation is critical to the success of every engineering project. As an engineer, I have seen the results of under planning, as well as over planning, both result in significant loss of core project dollars. As a benchmark, around 20% (not more...not less) of a standard project's total allocated funds and time should be spent on the planning and scheduling phase of efficient use of funds during the project implementation phase. I would be interested to hear from a civil engineer on this, as my background is limited to computer, electrical and mechanical engineering.

Michael, thank you for the ease of availability of this document. The Hudson Patch site has a really nice, easy to use interface that facilitates scanning through the document for information. Very, very nice Patch!

This report is a bit bias.

I have read the report. It is so bias towards the school districts agenda. If I may, I suggest you read the report and you will understand what I mean.

Jack, Please point out the information you think is biased or disagree with. I've read the report and most of the information seems like common sense.

Is anyone surprised that the report is considered biased by the anti-school crowd?

2Jack Frost, wrote, "I have read the report. It is so bias towards the school districts agenda. If I may, I suggest you read the report and you will understand what I mean."

@Micheal Foley wrote, "Costs up to $25,000 will be split evenly between the district and the property seller, Croixland Properties."

So the party wanting to sell the property and the party wanting to buy the property are asked to produce a report that "compares the St. Croix Meadows dog track property with three other potential secondary school site properties" and you expect that not be to biased in favor of buying the SCM property? Really? Apply some common sense here.

Are you saying there are fabrications of the truth in this document? If so, please point them out?

If I ask my child to write a report on How much he loves the Green Bay Packers, after reading such a report wouldn't you think it was biased towards the Green Bay Packers? Of course you would because the person writing loves the GB Packers.

55% of Hudson residents that voted, voted in favor of the referendum and in favor of purchasing the SCM property....why aren't people respecting that. What happened to doing the will of the people?

Where is Paine Reliever when you need him?

Yes I could respect that if I felt all the information was presented before the referendum. If we are talking respect, what about the school district. They went to referendum on land that is improperly zoned. Whatever happened to going through the process the correct way and maybe giving some respect to the Plan Commission and City Council. A referendum may or may not have been necessary depending on the rezoning.

The council told the district to go to referendum and get it passed before discussing the rezone.

The City Council rejected the idea of conditional zoning. Dennis Darnold advised against it, saying he could recall only one time when the city had made a rezoning contingent upon a property sale.

I feel that the Plan Commission should not be put in a position to publicly endorse or deny approval of something like this until the voters have spoken," said commission member Fred Yoerg. "To make us come to a decision to say we are either for or against prior to any public vote puts us in the awkward position of saying that we're endorsing something publicly."

http://hudson-wi.patch.com/articles/dog-track-appraised-at-16-8-million-rezoning-remains-uncertain

If I paid for the report it better support my position. Why does the School Board think a bias opinion by a paid contractor is going to mean anything to anybody. Why? Why Chief Foley, why?

The decision by the city council should be based on the financial repercussions of the rezoning to their budget. It is already in distress; the rezoning would only exacerbate this. I would vote NO to rezoning and tell the school district to find a more creative solution.

More creative solutions involve spending more money to come up with that solution and more money to then make the solution reality....vote YES to rezone because it make the most sense....

Build on to the existing school. That makes sense too. Are we building a school for learning or an athletic complex here?

"One of life's most painful moments comes when we must admit that we didn't do our homework, that we are not prepared." The school district did not do their homework.

Remember folks, keep your comments clean.

Here come the attacks. Where did this study come from? Who approved it? Who is paying for it? It is biased! It is an outrage, why can't we just build on to the old high school? and finally "they didn't do their homework." Does anybody see the circle of denial? Notice that jack frost when pressed to back up his claim of bias instead shifts his argument to how unfair this is to the council? Here we have a well presented report that confirms the school boards original position. so DianeT, it seems the district did do their homework after all. Your beef is that you do not agree with it. That does not mean it is fraudulent. I think this document does a good job of doing the planning commissions homework for them. Comparing the plight of the other dog tracks was very interesting and shows the fragility of the commissions argument that they are losing so much commercial realestate. Should the city buy the dog track and dump 4 million into it like that other community did? And they only have sold 12 of 80 lots. And their site is on an interstate! Yet our council still claims the dog track has commercial value. Never gonna happen.

Let's remember back when the dog track was built. We didn't want to be known as a "dog racing and gambling town.". That is why the track was built where it is. All the other tracks are in view of a highway and only one of them has been successfully redeveloped. I think if the this deal doesn't get done we will be whining about that dog track decades to come.

Well said PR! Let's not forget that the City is the one who required all this information from the school district. So if taxpayers are crying about how much it cost, just remember that.

Can you name who those agents were because it doesn't state who they were. It also states that commercial would not be sustainable over there yet they are willing to sell back 10 acres to the City. Also if you read closely the farm land has 70 usable acres. The negatives were no different than the dog track and according to the last plan commission meeting getting water and sewer there would be easy. The pricetag for the government center land was not given by the county. It was a guess by their realtor "experts" . I could go on and on and on. Oh and what is the projected growth again. This school if a high school would be able to house an additional 2000 students. On top of what we have now. We don't have that much growth. An 8/9 grade school on UU would solve the over crowding in the school.

Ok Jack, here we go. The agencies are Hoffman LLC, Stevens Engineers Inc. and Stantec Inc. and if you looked at the report you would see their logos plain as day and they are mentioned numerous times. The 10 acres the district is willing to sell back could be whatever the city decides, I believe a building for city vehicles was mentioned. The farm land site would have to be annexed and water lines run and many road improvements needed to support traffic on top of the price the owner has asked. Do you think almost 6 million is a good price for 70 acres of farm field that needs to be annexed, rezoned and has no utilities already on site?
The price tag for the govt center land is an estimate. The county would not give the district a price. That is not the districts fault. Are you claiming the expert appraisers are committing fraud with their estimate? As far as projected growth, sorry Jack but you have nothing to base your argument. The last school board meeting showed how much each room is used. We already have to much growth now. The projections of the past have proven accurate. In my opinion, building an 8/9 would be irresponsible and short sighted. We need to build gor the guture growth. Not another band aid. Jack, did you even bother to read the report?

The same people will be complaing about the study. They will bring up the same tired arguments., They will trash the consultants' report. They will bring up the same contrived arguments.

Perhaps it time to ignore these John Birchers and move on into the 21st Century.

Ok guys you got me. I am ignorant. You are the experts. Thanks for clarification. And by he way Mrs peel. Yacoub was right. Roundabouts are annoying. But at least someone is thinking about a solution. Widen Carmichael and add a roundabout is not the worst idea. Why is it that you take a simple discussion and start to go off topic and have to beat. people down that are not even involved in that very discussion. My father taught me that this is a cowardly act. If you have a problem try and contact the person instead of acting like someone who can not be reasoned with

I have read it. I interpret it differently. I know who wrote the report. I disagree that it was them who were the agencies that gave their opinion. I don't agree that is how it reads. Second I don't go after elected officials for no good reason. I am sure if I went after a specific school board member my comment would be removed. It is amazing how we are reminded to not make personal attacks against each other but to go after our local public officials is free game. And before I am yelled at yet again....find me a post where I went after an elected official. Not someone hired but an elected official. Third I agree we will not all agree. So lets agree to disagree. Fourth I am curious an this is a serious question has anyone commenting here seen the inside of the dog track lately? I have not.

Yes, the report is skewed. 1) The dogtrack was NOT marketed extensively for years as it claims. The elderly owner was not willing to sell it for the last decade; it wasn't until he passed away that his family trust decided to put it up for sale. The school had already approached them by the time it went up for sale and were listed as an exclusion. This confirms why the broker is getting a reduced compensation (still 6 figures, but not the normal $300K). It was only marketed for a few months before the school district put together their offer, so the whole paragraph about not being sellable property is off base. So, 2) their claim that future tax revenues would not be lost is incorrect. There is currently $100,000 tax revenue per year, plus when it redevelops commercially that number would skyrocket. The city, county, WITC, and the school district would benefit from it being sold to a commercial user. 3) County land could be purchased for closer to $1.5 million, 4) their argument is two faced when they say the dogtrack cannot be used commercially but they suggest selling back 10 acres for a use like that.

I stand by my conclusion of voting NO to rezoning, and find a more creative 21st century learning environment solution. Another poster elsewhere made a great suggestion including re-purpose and adding on to existing facilities, start a comprehensive plan of leasing Mac Book computers for the children and terminating the antiquated hard cover textbooks. The school district always talks about being GREEN, and these ideas would be.

I agree about MacBooks or iPads that download lesson plans and get rid of obsolete textbooks. That will be happen soon enough and will save $ but it will not mean that we no longer need to plan for our consistently growing enrollment.

Yes, Phil, I was the one who brought up going digital. When we look at how we're going to prepare our kids to be successful in the workplace in the 21st century, preparing them so they are comfortable with technology and how to use it is absolutely essential for them being successful. In my industry, for example, books and catalogs are not being printed anymore. All of the resources are web based; our schools should get with the program.

SCM was hemorrhaging as much as $7 million a year (losses estimated at more than $32 million when it closed). It closed in August 2001 and has been dormant for 10 years with no perspective buyers.

Phil is correct that it wasn't marketed for sale from 2001 (when it closed) to 2011 when Fred Havenick (the owner) passed away. In early 2001 his family took ownership of it and put it up for sale officially. Isn't it reasonable to think that if a serious offer from a commercial developer that wanted to dump millions into developing that area came along during that dormant 10 years that Havenick would have considered a sale? He would have considered the sale of a property that was just sitting there for years doing nothing. He didn't sell because there was no reasonable offers for a property that does not lend itself to commercial development. If the property lent itself to intelligent and money-making development it would have been developed years ago.

I ask those that are against the rezoning to prepare a 63 page report on a 10 to 15 year plan on redeveloping that property into usable tax revenue generating property. What would you do? Break it up into numerous lots and sell them one by one? What's your solution to an aging property that no one seems to want?

MacBooks and iPads are a great idea....one that would be fully supported by the people of Hudson...maybe, depending on the cost.

Concerned Citizen - your argument doesn't work in the real estate world. Properties that are not on the market will not receive angel investors making phone calls with offers. The investors with that type of money to purchase SCM, look at what is available and offered for sale by their broker network. The fact remains it was not put up for sale until 2011 at which time the school district immediately pounced on it.

also no one has answered my question regarding having entered the facility?

Concerned Citizen - look at the appraisal page 10, it states an estimated marketing time of 18-36 months would be necessary to obtain an interested party. The school district went to the buyers immediately upon listing to negotiate their deal. There was no time for an outside buyer to get involved.

Still waiting for an answer to my 2 questions. I assume no answer is a no response.

I'll bite....part of me expects that answering is a setup, but so be it. I have not seen the inside of the track, but I am not sure that would matter. What's your point with the question other than seeing if someone has seen the inside?

Second Question: I would tend to say No don't purchase without rezone....but I can tell I would do what I could to make sure those council members that voted against it would not be reelected again as this would be an act against the wishes of the majority of Hudson citizens wanted.

Well I must say if it is a choice between cops and a school I am choosing cops. So if my council person votes against the rezoning I will go out and campaign for their re-election myself. If it is between the Library and roads I choose roads. This is a school they are requesting. If it were the land they need would not have to be 65+ acres. A great school to hold 2000 students can be done on any other Publicly available parcel. They want to whole deal. We have great facilities. I thought i was paying for education for my kids not the best extracurricular facilities to compliment the ego of others. The City Council is responsible for protecting the City tax payers. The school district has their own objective. The way I see it is if my council person votes NO then they have done their job.

You experts on real estate really need to wake up. A lot of large parcels like the dog track are marketed without being listed for many different reasons. Many times on big developments a non listed property already has an agreement in place before anyone knew anything. Harvick was entertaining many different uses for years but focused on the holy grail (casino). Some developer (Bluewater?) looked at the site like 5 years ago as a possible waterpark hotel site. No dice because you can't see it from the interstate. There was other interest over the years. To keep arguing about its commercial value is just stupid.

I am done here, you all are too stubborn to be reasoned with

Don't you find it rather odd that none of the dog track supporters even want to visit the facility? They want to spend $8.25 Million without ever stepping foot on the property. Why is that? When the City of Hudson was in the process of purchasing the current library, the same supporters were more than anxious to open the doors for all to see before buying the property. Can any of you supporters answer that question?

They must be hiding something.....DUN DUN DUN.

Well said CC #1. Obviously you don't have a legitimate answer to a very simple question.

Threatening the city council members for their vote is like stonewalling or a form of bribery. How immature are you? The plan commission and city council members have an obligation to deem what is in the best interest of the entire community with respect to their limited budget. Something has to give, whether it be the police protection, library, road improvements, etc. Rezoning this parcel financially impacts the budget in a negative way - that cannot be proven otherwise. I think the roads and police protection should come before a library and putting a school on B-2 property. The school issue can be dealt with by other options I have mentioned. Council members - do NOT let them strong arm you!!

I could answer your question very legitimately if I wanted to, but there is no point. I stated what you were thinking correct, the point you were trying to make is you think the school board is hiding something? I am agreeing with you with my comment.

I have another question for the dog track supporters. Can you provide just one instance in the entire United States where commercial property has been downgraded to public use to build a school?

The library was different. We were making very little structural changes. We could invision the finished product. The dog track building will be gutted, all drywall, carpet, ceiling tile etc will be removed. It is a blank pad that designers sketch many different ways depending on what type of building we decide is best. I am more interested in the final product. I have been in that building dozens of times including its last day of operation. So what?

If the athletic facilities are so important, why do they not work on grant writing and get funds like the various clubs did for the hockey arena last year, the soccer fields, etc.? The facilities do not necessarily need to be on school grounds; they are not directly linked to higher education. They are a want, not a need.

So why can't the rest of us see it? What is the big deal? Mr. PR you come up with one excuse after another for the school board. Many of us have not seen the property yet we are asked to fork over $8.25 Million. That is a huge sum of money and the taxpayers have the right to see what they are being asked to purchase.

OK PR!! I will bite...earlier when discussing the water park you mentioned that the offer to purchase the dog track for water park was separate than Doug Rhode. You also said this activity was not covered by the paper. How would you know of such an offer if not covered in the paper?

Paine - I looked at your argument about the other dog tracks in the evaluation. Diane T. has not responded yet, but I will.

The Minneapolis-St. Paul metro population is 3,279,833 as of the last census and the St. Croix Meadow land is in our bedroom community of Hudson. The other dog tracks in the evaluation were not within that proximity to such a large population. Kenosha's population is 99,000 and is 100 miles north of Milwaukee; Kaukana in the Fox Valley has a population of 12,983; Lake Delton is 3,000 and Geneva is 4,000. Unless I missed something, I do not see how those dog track property locations can compare for commercial or industrial value to the one in Hudson that has such close proximity to the Twin Cities.

The taxpayers can't see the property that they are being asked to purchase and this type of rezoning has never been done anywhere in the country. Boy, sounds like a good deal to me.....

Paine - Another point to augment my previous information: Minneapolis metro is #5 on the list of cities with the highest number of Fortune 500 companies -

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2011/cities/

Why would the Board pay the same old people to give the same old report? Why didn’t these so called experts ever mention the possible rezoning issues in their earlier critiques of the SCM property? Why didn’t they mention the structural damage or the mold infestation? Why would you hire an appraiser convicted of theft by swindle? Why wouldn’t you tour real estate you intend to purchase? Why would you offer 8.25 million for a property who'fair market value is 5.1 million? Why would there be only 5,000 dollars put down on an 8.25 million dollar purchase? Why would you insist on a location that economically affects the city when other properties will service? Why would anyone give credibility to a one day investigation by an attorney who turns out did not have the grasp of Wisconsin Educational Law he claimed to have? Why would you pay the idiot? Why would you feel the need to stifle the voice of the people? Why would anyone feel this School Administration has our children’s best interest at heart? Why doesn’t Superintendent Eggebraaten look you in the eye when she speaks to you? Why Chief Foley , Why?

Maybe he thinks a competent reporter would have asked some of those same questions instead of continuing to sing the song that we need a new school. Sounds reasonable to me.....

Evjen - those are all credible and fantastic questions that an investigator would ask too. I think we both know when she turns away from you and avoids eye contact, segueys to different subject, and tries to intimidate via her (excuse me, "their") attorney, it is all part of the deception and lies. Kudos to you for calling it like you see it.

Evjen - you will love this too. It will be 4 weeks Thursday since a request went to them for a simple 30-second accounting report on the YMCA gateway funding receipts. If there was nothing to hide, a reply should have been prompt. Tom Brinsko at the YMCA even denied the request. When it takes this long, it is suspicious.

Brilliant Evjen

Paine - you did catch a typo of mine. Kaukana is north of Milwaukee, not Kenosha. Commercial property does not always need high traffic volumes. Retail space would like a high traffic volume, but not all commercial or office is retail.

Great point by Reasonable Voice on rezoning from B-2 to public use.

Here is another angle I have not heard. Most of the growth in Hudson has come from across the river where property taxes are substantially lower. Just taking an address from south of Stillwater on assessed value of $350,000 the taxes are about $2,800. Here in Hudson, depending whether you are in the city, town, village, etc. the taxes are double that around $5,600. Ask the local realtors, but I doubt we are competing our real estate with that of New Richmond or River Falls. Those who are coming east from the metro might compare those costs of Afton, Woodbury, and Lake Elmo, instead.

I will say this again. The taxpayers are being asked to fork over $8.25 Million for a dog track that they cannot look at AND the seller is asking to rezone a commercial property to public use (something that has likely never been done in our country). Would any of the dog track proponents please tell us why we should overlook both of these facts? They can't, so they switch topics.

Mrs. Peel - your wife is posting elsewhere on the web that the worst thing someone can do for our planet/environment is to have children. But you want us to believe that you have our children's best interest at heart??

P.R. (Scot), why is it that your opinion is so righteous while any opinion that isn't shared by you is just dead wrong?

Concerned Citizen - perhaps they (plan commission/council) should have turned down the re-zoning at that time, period. Whether it was then or now, the vote needs to be NO.

DianeT, your exactly right....perhaps they (plan commission/council) should have turned down the re-zoning at that time if they believed it was the right decision, but the reality is they DID NOT (sorry if that comes as being a "bully")....they (plan commission/council) postponed it until after the referendum and the meeting notes clearly show that. So all this argument about cart before the horse and buying before rezoning is squarely on the planning commissions shoulders. That argument holds no water, but I'm sure someone will argue against that....the planning commission didn't have enough information, they were sick that day, whatever....

The Plan Commission had no incentive to vote prior to the referendum. The school district made the decision to put the question to the voters without the Plan Commission or City Council's consent. Given the situation at the time, the city's best option was to take a wait and see position to see if the problem would go away on its own. The school district made a very bad decision by going forward without working with the city first and will now have to face the fact that they are no different than any other group wishing to make use of commercial and industrial zoned land in the city limits.
What the supporters of rezoning the dog track refuse to realize is the city cannot afford to lose the tax revenue of that dog track. It may not be generating all the revenue it could be, but it's still more than zero. If you want a small comparable, look what the city lost when they took the NMC building off the tax rolls. Right now, I'm willing to bet they wish they could have that decision back. The school district has many more options whereas the city does not. If the school district had any scruples they'd bail out of this dog track deal and work with the city to find a better option for both sides. (But then, that would require the school district to have scruples - which they don't.) Here's where the bull is going to learn not to mess with the butcher.

Vested,
So you are saying the Planning Commission and the Council should reject the rezoning so it can save the city 90K per year in tax revenue generated by the current dog track even though (based on the numbers in this document) the other options you are pimping will cost the tax payers millions more than the dog track? That seems rather short sited to me.

I also question why the UU property has a land dollar value of zero dollars. Even though we own that property already, why wouldn't they include a cost for that option that would be equal to the value the land could be sold for right now (I'm sure this would be a fraction of what they paid for it)? Or they should include the original cost of purchasing that property. I'm guessing that would skew the numbers even farther apart.

The reason the UU land is listed having zero value is because it is publicly owned - aka taxpayer owned. It has no market value and thus no tax revenue.
The other options stated in the document MAY cost the taxpayers more, but the rezoning WILL have a much harsher impact on the city operations and budget. The school district's desire for the dog track is just a "want", where the tax revenue coming from the dog track to the city is a "need". The school district can't figure out how to use 63 acres to address space needs, but they expect the city to figure out how to run its operation without 1/3 of the commercial land they have to work with. Now tell me who's jerking who around.

Paine - I am re-posting my question from yesterday for you...answer honestly...
If you had children in the district, and you had to choose financially between them getting these MacBooks/Ipads for a 21st century education or getting glorious athletic facilities, which would you choose? This is likely the type of choice we will have to make. If you look at schools that have made the switch, they either added a hefty tax, or reworked the budget and eliminated some teaching positions. In some cases where the teaching positions were downsized, the student numbers rose per classroom. Miraculously, so did their performance. It seems to me we are looking at this backwards by wanting to build a fancy expensive new school and then considering the digital options. Funds will run out or we will no longer need all of the new classrooms built. Wouldn't a few additions to existing facilities suffice?

First, we are going digital, and yes that will happen. I take student needs over athletic fields any day. BUT, even with digital learning aids, we are overcrowded now. Your math is all based on some hope that our population growth will stop and even reduce. We are not even close to population saturation. So I would rather get a bigger chunk of land now, build for the future and YES, have the flexibility to have fields added now or in the future. We cant add onto the middle school anymore. End of story. You want us to be proud to have the largest middle school in the state and make it bigger? What a joke. One last time, no additions will not suffice. Way past that. The best part about this whole thing is that once this school is built, I wont even pay attention to this nonsense.

And what's even better than your best is that a new school won't be built until a new school board is in place with a different Superintendent and .District Deputy Director.

We are already going digital? Did I miss that presentation? I am not aware of IPads being purchased or leased for all of the students and books being replaced with digital content. Enlighten me Paine....

You didn't miss anything. Online learning is already present and expanding. We will gradually move into move into iPads or whatever forms of digital devices become available and supported as book publishers shift value from textbooks to digital content. What we won't do is jump into it irresponsibly. This will be a major shift in education and I am excited for it. But it is no reason to fail to address our space needs no matter how convenient it is for you to think so. I love the argument you guys push that the dog track is so valuable because of how close we are to the twin cities but our enrollment in schools will go down. It makes no sense. And vested interest just showed his cards. He wants to delay all building under the thought that the whole board administration must go before reasonable people do it right. Stillwater bridge anyone?

Ok I guess its time for me to deliver a study pertaining to the SCM property. I scanned their study and it is full of holes. So guess what I get to do this long weekend... The district has funds to provide very nice looking studies. Obviously John Q public do not have funds to compete with this type of onslaught. The city needs all points of view in order to make the right decision. We need to look to the future of Hudson. Lets look, not 5 years or 10 years, but 20 years and beyond. We need to look at the drastic impact that this would have for future generations. Not just because the site is available now. It will stifle the future tax generating potential that everyone should realize, but for some odd reason don't accept it. I think this has to do with the impression that says we are taking something away from "our kids". That is not the point. I really want to stress this position is not that we need a school or not. It is the location. Currently they have some great property, which I will show the value in my study. This decision should be made not for the needs at this time but for the future generations of Hudson.

Chief Foley, acording to the new report the SCM property is the only site that a school can be built on, what would Hudson have done if the Track would have been a sucess?We never would be able to have a new school. What would we do Chief Foley, What?

Wow! I feel better , I thought we may have never been able to build again. Gobby don't believe him he's evil....

Or maybe initials?

Thats all I can say, John....

No problem LH... :)

No, he would be way to impaired at this time on a Fri. Your warming up....

Throw me a bone... KK or Kunta?

Or how about 112 lbs

Ya, Bear DOA and KK who cares. I think we dated roommates once. Now keep it to yourself....

Fair enough. Nice talking with you again... :)

For a reality check about this all came down, read the following article instead:

http://www.ontheborderline.net/mary-boweneggebraaten-learns-nancy-pelosi/