Metea Valley Budget

[sd204taxpayer]

Does anyone know when a copy of the DETAILED budget will be available? I, and i'm sure others, would love to review the budget in detail.

Is there a place where detailed disbursements can be reviewed that relate to the "capital" account? By the looks of things legal costs, lobbyist costs, and i'm sure other items have already been paid out of the "capital" account but not shown in the numbers that IPSD 204 issued on the internet.

I'd love to know what some of the costs are that they are trying to "bury" from us the taxpayers.

[wvhsparent]

send in a FOI request to the School Admin.

[d204mom]

Several speakers at the meeting questioned the budget but there was no commitment to post the details for the public to see.

There was a commitment to post the final environmental reports but no commitment to post the testing that's been done so far.

I think they could go a long way with trying to re-build some trust and creditability in the community by freely posting all the environmental reports and budget information without folks having to file legal forms to force them to share information.

[wvhsparent]

I agree... we must keep on them to provide the info in a timely and transparent manner. I think we all should not accept anything less.

[d204mom]

I find it a bit ridiculous that everyone is now calling the board "fiscally responsible" for spending $142 M on a 124.6 M project. As sd204taxpayer pointed out as well, no where in the $142M are our legal costs/lobbying/architectural costs that are wrapped up in the bb property. So the $142M budget is already blown and they just aren't telling us.

The hubbub surrounding the site change / boundary concerns provides nice subterfuge for their fiscal irresponsibility.

[sleeplessinnpvl]

d204mom said:

I find it a bit ridiculous that everyone is now calling the board "fiscally responsible" for spending $142 M on a 124.6 M project. As sd204taxpayer pointed out as well, no where in the $142M are our legal costs/lobbying/architectural costs that are wrapped up in the bb property. So the $142M budget is already blown and they just aren't telling us.

The site change / boundary concerns provide nice subterfuge for their fiscal irresponsibility.

Just trying to clarify things. Are you calling the board irresponsible because they aren't keeping us informed or are they fiscally irresponsible because they have had to deal with the mess that is BB? Did the board purposefully persue BB because they thought they would end up with the jury results they did? I don't think anyone wanted to "blow the budget". I'll admit they are not keeping us as informed as they should be and the communication between us and them is sorely lacking. But I don't think this budget is increasing because they are purposefully throwing our money out the window. They have been dealt with some bad blows (the failed 2005 referendum and the BB mess). Every day this gets put off raises the budget. I do wish they would be straightforward like you said and reveal what sort of financial mess we are in but don't blame the board for all of this.

[d204mom]

I believe the intention was always to issue at least 8M more in bonds than the voters agreed to. So they were planning on spending at least 8M (or as much as they could get) more from the get-go. The bb mess has added to the cost.

Being truly fiscally responsible would be to re-evaluate the plans and deliver a utilitarian building that still served the student's needs. A square "box" design is much cheaper than the X design and would save us millions. Being truly fiscally responsible would be to actually pursue the cheapest site and not just scratch it off the list because they "think" the Owego SD wouldn't coorperate.

[sleeplessinnpvl]

That is true. A lot of schools get built at a much less cost. But then do you have people whining because a 'square box" isn't up to the Neuqua standards?

[d204mom]

Howie said way back at the beginning that MV would be more modest than NV. As I recall a lot of folks were mad at the Boilingbrook mayor way back then when he made some comment about not wanting to have an ugly school in his city.

[warriorpride]

d204mom said:

I believe the intention was always to issue at least 8M more in bonds than the voters agreed to. So they were planning on spending at least 8M (or as much as they could get) more from the get-go. The bb mess has added to the cost.

Being truly fiscally responsible would be to re-evaluate the plans and deliver a utilitarian building that still served the student's needs. A square "box" design is much cheaper than the X design and would save us millions. Being truly fiscally responsible would be to actually pursue the cheapest site and not just scratch it off the list because they "think" the Owego SD wouldn't coorperate.

Would would be happy if 203 built the New Naperville Central in Naperville/204, on land that would have generated tax $ for Naperville and 204, without adding any new students to 204? I don't think many in 204 would. That's just one of the many reasons Haman wasn't selected. I thought most people were ready to move on about the site selection.

[warriorpride]

sleeplessinnpvl said:

That is true. A lot of schools get built at a much less cost. But then do you have people whining because a 'square box" isn't up to the Neuqua standards?

Did anyone see the estimate for rebuilding Naperville Central? I believe that it was in the same range as MV.

[d204mom]

warriorpride said:

d204mom said:

I believe the intention was always to issue at least 8M more in bonds than the voters agreed to. So they were planning on spending at least 8M (or as much as they could get) more from the get-go. The bb mess has added to the cost.

Being truly fiscally responsible would be to re-evaluate the plans and deliver a utilitarian building that still served the student's needs. A square "box" design is much cheaper than the X design and would save us millions. Being truly fiscally responsible would be to actually pursue the cheapest site and not just scratch it off the list because they "think" the Owego SD wouldn't coorperate.

Would would be happy if 203 built the New Naperville Central in Naperville/204, on land that would have generated tax $ for Naperville and 204, without adding any new students to 204? I don't think many in 204 would. That's just one of the many reasons Haman wasn't selected. I thought most people were ready to move on about the site selection.

I wouldn't care. If it would save 203 millions it wouldn't hurt them to ask instead of guessing at the outcome and then using that guess to justify something different.

That's no better than guessing at the outcome of environmental testing two years ago and using that guess to rule out a site.

[d204mom]

warriorpride said:

sleeplessinnpvl said:

That is true. A lot of schools get built at a much less cost. But then do you have people whining because a 'square box" isn't up to the Neuqua standards?

Did anyone see the estimate for rebuilding Naperville Central? I believe that it was in the same range as MV.

79 M was the last figure I saw. We're at 142 M with only 16.5 of that being land.

Correction - 87.7M and they say the school will basically be brand new.
www.naperville203.org/about/decisionforfuture.asp

[warriorpride]

d204mom said:

I find it a bit ridiculous that everyone is now calling the board "fiscally responsible" for spending $142 M on a 124.6 M project. As sd204taxpayer pointed out as well, no where in the $142M are our legal costs/lobbying/architectural costs that are wrapped up in the bb property. So the $142M budget is already blown and they just aren't telling us.

The hubbub surrounding the site change / boundary concerns provides nice subterfuge for their fiscal irresponsibility.

As well know, it's very easy to stretch the truth with numbers. For example the 25 acres at BB cost $6M+, so WV @ BB, "on budget" at $124.6M was going to cost, at a minimum, $131M. In addition, interest on bonds is a source of income. I don't want to get into an argument of how much income - we've been thru all that before. Let's just say that MV @ BB was going to cost well above $124M - sorry if that wasn't clear to anyone.

[Arch]

warriorpride said:

d204mom said:

I find it a bit ridiculous that everyone is now calling the board "fiscally responsible" for spending $142 M on a 124.6 M project. As sd204taxpayer pointed out as well, no where in the $142M are our legal costs/lobbying/architectural costs that are wrapped up in the bb property. So the $142M budget is already blown and they just aren't telling us.

The hubbub surrounding the site change / boundary concerns provides nice subterfuge for their fiscal irresponsibility.

As well know, it's very easy to stretch the truth with numbers. For example the 25 acres at BB cost $6M+, so WV @ BB, "on budget" at $124.6M was going to cost, at a minimum, $131M. In addition, interest on bonds is a source of income. I don't want to get into an argument of how much income - we've been thru all that before. Let's just say that MV @ BB was going to cost well above $124M - sorry if that wasn't clear to anyone.

What was the budget number if they would have just bitten the bullet, bought it after the verdict and started? Did they ever publish or work that number out?