204 E-News: First Bonds Sold for New School

[dpc]

gumby said:

All I can say about this discussion is that the SD cannot win for losing.

With the projected build start date relatively close at hand, and knowing that money is necessary very early on, I think paying for all the myriad costs associated with construction is a reasonable assumption.

I would be willing to bet that information will continue to trickle out. Yes, the SD could be me forthcoming, but I do not think there is any evil intent there.

Hopefully some day people will come to accept that the referendum passed and that we need to stop attributing evil intent to all things SD (not you WVHSP--but there are others on here).

Who's attributing evil intent gumby? I asked a simple question that any astute taxpayer would ask. Borrowing $71M at 4.5%/year is no chump change and the taxpayers are funding it.

Do you suggest that every taxpayer stop asking any fiscally-minded questions? In my line of work, we automatically get suspicious when management starts getting defensive when asked very simple questions about finances. It raises a big red flag. Thankfully, I haven't had anyone on the SB or admin get defensive about these types of questions (unless you are part of this group).

It's the questions that keeps everyone on their toes and the SD should fully expect and encourage them. So, rather than send an email to DH, HC or the SB, I simply posted the question here to oldprof since he/she is on the CFC. Unless you are on the CFC as well, I suggest you let him/her reply.

[bob]

See the problem with that thinking is that you think the SD can just go to a window and ask for XXX dollars and they get it There are fees and bids to be gathered. It is not just a knock on a door to issue bonds. There is a whole process that needs to be done.

So the SD issues half the bonds pays for the plans and some fees and sticks the money in an account that makes the same interest as the bonds. Why is that so wrong?

What if there is a break through in the land negotiations and they need the money to pay up? But wait, we waited to issue the bonds and now we don't have it.

Boy, wouldn't the crap start if we didn't have the money on hand to buy the land.

In my line of work, we have a name for people who constantly question management on EVERY single decision that they make. Unemployed or Consultants.

[momof3]

I liked the wording BC used in the Sun article ... the high school WILL be built at 75th street and Commons drive...


Bonds issued for 204 high school

By Britt Carson
staff writer

With architects already drawing plans for a third high school, the Indian Prairie School District 204 has begun taking steps to secure the money to construct the building.

The school board this week approved the sale of $62 million in general obligation building bonds. Dave Holm, assistant superintendent of business and finance, said he was pleased with the interest rate the district was able to get on the bonds.

"We had used 5 percent for our projections, and we were able to get a 4.5 percent interest rate," Holm said.

This is the first part of several sales in connection with the $124.6 million referendum that voters approved in March. The district also plans to restructure $139 million of existing debt and sell those bonds in the upcoming months, Holm said.

The $62 million in bonds approved Monday is for the actual construction of the high school, which will be built on an 80-acre site along 75th Street and the future extension of Commons Drive in Aurora. The district already owns 25 of those acres, commonly known as the Brach Brodie property and has filed a condemnation lawsuit to obtain the remaining 55 acres.

[gumby]

dpc said:

gumby said:

All I can say about this discussion is that the SD cannot win for losing.

With the projected build start date relatively close at hand, and knowing that money is necessary very early on, I think paying for all the myriad costs associated with construction is a reasonable assumption.

I would be willing to bet that information will continue to trickle out. Yes, the SD could be me forthcoming, but I do not think there is any evil intent there.

Hopefully some day people will come to accept that the referendum passed and that we need to stop attributing evil intent to all things SD (not you WVHSP--but there are others on here).

Who's attributing evil intent gumby? I asked a simple question that any astute taxpayer would ask. Borrowing $71M at 4.5%/year is no chump change and the taxpayers are funding it.

Do you suggest that every taxpayer stop asking any fiscally-minded questions? In my line of work, we automatically get suspicious when management starts getting defensive when asked very simple questions about finances. It raises a big red flag. Thankfully, I haven't had anyone on the SB or admin get defensive about these types of questions (unless you are part of this group).

It's the questions that keeps everyone on their toes and the SD should fully expect and encourage them. So, rather than send an email to DH, HC or the SB, I simply posted the question here to oldprof since he/she is on the CFC. Unless you are on the CFC as well, I suggest you let him/her reply.

________________________________________________
Sorry, mods, I am apologizing in advance. I could not resist. I am willing to take my punishment whenever you decide is appropriate.
________________________________________________

Now, now, dpc, I do not mean to offend. I was under the impression that this is a relatively open forum and that I have the option to respond to any question/comment thrown out there. Mea culpa.

People in my line of work use other latin terms as well.

But enough about me. That is great about your line of work! Not that I care, but I am truly happy for you.

Also, I do not recall directly answering any message you may have posted. I threw some comments out there. So, I have some suggestions for you as well. Let me know if you would like to hear them.

Anyway, sometimes we should just let the process move ahead without second guessing every step.

[dpc]

Thanks gumby. I really do like my work, especially when I get to bust management for thinking they can freely use the shareholder's money for their own personal gain and satisfaction! The looks on their faces when they've been had is absolutely priceless!

But enough about me. It seems that neither you nor Bob have heard of "auditors" and the increased pressure on corporate management and the board of directors to make sure everything is on the "up and up" due to Sarbanes Oxley. Not to worry, I certainly wouldn't expect you to know these things if you are not in the business world.

I think it's just a matter of time before these principles will be applied to governmental entities that are accountable to the taxpayers. No difference here with the corporate world.

Maybe we can get together sometime for a beer and I can tell you all about Sarbox and independent audits, etc. ;D

[wvhsparent]

gumby,

I have no problem so far....

It is an open forum...if one wished a response from a specific individual, one should have used the PM....

now I actually thought dpc brought up a good question/concern; one I was also considering asking. Some of the responses were a bit testy. Granted that may be due to past postings by dpc.

I agree we sould let the process move forward.
Normally I would agree on the second guessing, but, the current track record of the SD/SB, while improving, is IMHO less than stellar. So in that climate the SB/SD does and will have a few extra hoops to go thru.

[bob]

It seems that neither you nor Bob have heard of "auditors" and the increased pressure on corporate management and the board of directors to make sure everything is on the "up and up" due to Sarbanes Oxley. Not to worry, I certainly wouldn't expect you to know these things if you are not in the business world.

Wow, DPC , nice back handed slap at me. I am just a manager of a hedge fund who has to explain everything to the auditor that checks my books.

How would I ever hear of or know about Sarbanes Oxley?[/sarcasm]

I think it's just a matter of time before these principles will be applied to governmental entities that are accountable to the taxpayers. No difference here with the corporate world.

I believe SO does not apply to corparte businesses that are not publically held. Also, SO is a huge tax on corporation money and resources. There is trend of smaller public corporations and foreign corps of delisting their stock because SO is quite expensive. I have had many meetings where the CEO complain about SO's cost to them.

[wvhsparent]

OK
I am in Government.....I have never heard of Sarbanes Oxley before...after a quick search it seems that SO is a result of the Enron fiasco. As is usually the case, a rule is made because someone tried to something they should have not done and got caught.....

In Law Enforcement they are called Supreme Court rulings.....that's why we have the Miranda rules.

It's human nature...try to get away with as much as you can until you get caught...then we create a rule/law to prevent it happening again.

[bob]

.that's why we have the Miranda rules.

for now. Just like the knock rule, Miranda will be gone. ;D

[EagleDad]

dpc said:

But enough about me. It seems that neither you nor Bob have heard of "auditors" and the increased pressure on corporate management and the board of directors to make sure everything is on the "up and up" due to Sarbanes Oxley.

Ah yes, SOX, the great consulting employment act of 2002. You don't know how many pencil pushing geeks I want to strangle every week over this one. SOX has become the great excuse to never do anything, and the mantra of a whole new generation of useless corporate bureaucrats.

[gumby]

Ahh, you is a coprit person. My-oh-my-lawdy-lawdy. I guess we po' ol' coprit type law'rs lookin' out fo' multi-billion dolla' publikly held biznesses have no clue as to SOX reg's. Thanks yous for lettin' me know how yous is lookin' out fo' po' ol' shareholders like me. You's is soo smart.

Seriously, dpc, I enjoy your pompous comments quite a bit. Midday chuckles help the day go much faster.

[gumby]

wvhsparent said:

gumby,

I have no problem so far....

It is an open forum...if one wished a response from a specific individual, one should have used the PM....

now I actually thought dpc brought up a good question/concern; one I was also considering asking. Some of the responses were a bit testy. Granted that may be due to past postings by dpc.

I agree we sould let the process move forward.
Normally I would agree on the second guessing, but, the current track record of the SD/SB, while improving, is IMHO less than stellar. So in that climate the SB/SD does and will have a few extra hoops to go thru.

Accountability is good. I agree that they should be on a short leash. I just think that at some level we need to let them do their job and not automatically assume/imply some type of underhanded behavior.

[bob]

gumby said:

Ahh, you is a coprit person. My-oh-my-lawdy-lawdy. I guess we po' ol' coprit type law'rs lookin' out fo' multi-billion dolla' publikly held biznesses have no clue as to SOX reg's. Thanks yous for lettin' me know how yous is lookin' out fo' po' ol' shareholders like me. You's is soo smart.

Seriously, dpc, I enjoy your pompous comments quite a bit. Midday chuckles help the day go much faster.

Gumby, I didn't know you speak croc? (hopefully, someone gets the Pearls Before Swine reference)

[204parent]

We used to let our auditors use a conference room once or twice a year.

We just built a permanent office for them!

[bob]

We stick them in the windowless office with bad AC.