Spending OP Funds on BB

[d204mom]

Has anyone gotten a straight answer on why we can't spend operating funds on Brach - Brodie? I am confused about this. D203 is speding excess op funds on their building projects and widely publicized that fact.

We are projected to have $91M excess at the end of this budget year that will fall to $60 mil by 2012. Then we may need an op ref.

If MV doesn't open until 2010 we save a year of operating costs for Metea and there should easily be enough money to make up the $3 M shortfall for purchasing BB and opening the school in 2010.

[d204mom]

www.naperville203.org/about/DecisionforFuture.asp


District funding available $71.9 million

Sale of Walnut Woods - $5.8 million
Cash in lieu of land donation - $1.2 million
Budget allocation from operating funds - $25.4 million (2006-2011)
Interest income - $1.5 million
Interest income from bond proceeds - $2 million
Bonds to be repaid from Cantera TIF revenue - $36 million

[d204mom]

www.naperville203.org/assets/PlanforUpgradingFacilities2007%2D2012%2Epdf
From the FAQs:

"A portion of the 71.9 million, 25.4 million, is listed as a budget allocation from operating funds.." with a long explaination of the overcollection - page 42; point 6

and point 7 page 43:
"Since the district has committed to funding $72 million from other sources (budget surplus money over several years..."

Don't we have a budget surplus over several years?

[d204mom]

Ok, I feel the need to clarify - Metzger's "Never, ever, ever and 'cause I said so" reason is not a real reason.

Is there some real reason?

We won't be falling below the standards for having the proper ratio of surplus to expense for several years - now projected to be 2012.

Saving $4+ mil on op funds in 2009-10 as a result of opening MV in 2010 instead of 2009 easily covers the BB projected shortfall with a 2010 opening of 3.1 Million.

2009 is so not happening, and never was happening. Can we get real about opening a complete high school in 2010?

[eb204]

Admittedly, I don't know the legal reason behind it but I know that operating funds cannot be used to build a school, just as they wouldn't be able to use excess transportation costs to build a school, or pay teacher salaries, etc.. These are all separate line items and they cannot be used for different purposes. Operating funds goes towards things such as administration salaries, and I believe, building maintenance such as upkeep,etc. (but not completely sure of the last one). I have several family members that are in education (outside of D204) and they are saying the same thing.

Again, though, I have no legal or "real" explanation. Sorry.

[rew]

It is my understanding that the district CAN use operating funds for construction, but they cannot use building funds for operations.

They cannot have people vote for a ref to build a new school and then give it to the teacher's in salary.

But if they have excess operating funds they can use it for capital projects, renovations, etc.

Metzger was just staing his opinion that they shouldn't use operating funds...can you say nincompoop?

[d204mom]

Apr 11, 2008 9:05:00 GMT -6 @eb204 said:

Admittedly, I don't know the legal reason behind it but I know that operating funds cannot be used to build a school, just as they wouldn't be able to use excess transportation costs to build a school, or pay teacher salaries, etc.. These are all separate line items and they cannot be used for different purposes. Operating funds goes towards things such as administration salaries, and I believe, building maintenance such as upkeep,etc. (but not completely sure of the last one). I have several family members that are in education (outside of D204) and they are saying the same thing.

Again, though, I have no legal or "real" explanation. Sorry.

The opposite is true - you CANNOT use building funds for ops. But they CAN and HAVE used op funds for building. They used OP funds for the WVHS building improvements. Same as D203 as evidenced by their most recent referendum.

I also believe that you can't have funds tagged as teacher salaries and spend it on building. But you can spend SURPLUS operating income on whatever you want. Like bathroom tile at WVHS.

Metzger's never ever ever statement was regarding the question - well why not do it again? The sb decided not to last fall for some unknown reason. But there is no LEGAL reason.

[d204mom]

So why is it ok to use a budget surplus on bathrooms at WV BUT NOT bathrooms at MV built at Brach Brodie?

No one's gonna know if the operating funds are used on the land, the bathrooms or the football stadium. It doesn't matter. So don't use any op fund on the land purchase price. So use the surplus op funds at the end of the project, on the bathroom tile.

State money helps fund Waubonsie renovations
Naperville Sun, The (IL) - June 26, 2005
Author: Britt Carson

Although it may be another year before work begins, the 27 bathrooms and locker rooms at Waubonsie Valley High School will be getting a makeover after all.

Indian Prairie School District 204 officials had planned on renovating all bathrooms and locker rooms in the school as part of a $130.5 million referendum measure. However, when voters defeated the measure in April and state funding was up in the air, the district put the project on hold, said Mike Pedersen, director of building operations.

"All the legwork for the project was already done," Pedersen said. "We shelved it, but now that the financial picture has improved, we are proposing a new timeline on this."

Pedersen said the project is expected to cost about $1.3 million and includes revamping the locker rooms and a long list of minor repairs such as securing loose sinks and replacing floor tiles.

To assist with the large scale project, the school board approved a contract for $88,000 with the architectural firm Wight and Co. The firm will spend this summer with Pedersen making site visits to each bathroom and locker room at Waubonsie . They will also handle bidding out the project which is expected to cost about $97,800.

"While we will not be able to begin any work this summer, we will bid the project in October or November and we will get good prices that time of year," Pedersen said. "It might be possible to do some of the work during the winter or spring breaks, but most of the work will be done next summer."

Instead of a $3 million shortfall, the district is now facing a $2.5 million surplus due to a combination of district cuts and an increased amount of money from the state than was previously projected.

School Board President Jeannette Clark said she is happy the work is moving forward.

"We were just waiting on the state budget to see if we could do this," Clark said. "Finally we felt we could move forward with this work."

All the renovations are expected to be completed by the end the summer 2006, Pedersen said.

[d204mom]

There also seems to be loads of misinformation regarding the budget for the new high school being what we voted on - $124,660,000.

From the financial analysis the NEW budget AS APPROVED by the school board is $146,240,000.
www.ipsd.org/Uploads/news_17229_3.pdf

I get a kick out of people pretending that AME was going to keep us on the original budget that was approved by voters. I got an email yesterday claiming that very thing.

[d204mom]

One more finance question - maybe Vickers can answer..

WHAT happens if we don't build a third high school at all? How do we return the monies on the bonds and bond premiums? Can we just pay off the bonds and retire them early? And if they've already spent some of the bond money on fees and expenses for testing, plans, etc., how will we make up the shortfall?

[casey]

Apr 11, 2008 9:52:53 GMT -6 d204mom said:

One more finance question - maybe Vickers can answer..

WHAT happens if we don't build a third high school at all? How do we return the monies on the bonds and bond premiums? Can we just pay off the bonds and retire them early? And if they've already spent some of the bond money on fees and expenses for testing, plans, etc., how will we make up the shortfall?

I think that we just found our newest SB candidate, d204Mom! You ask hard questions, are fair and impartial with your postings, seem to know the ins and outs of the district, great sense of humor, positive person.....and plenty more. Seriously, you should consider running - yeah! d204Mom for SB. Only thing is we'd have to know your "real"name to support you ;D.

[Arch]

...but not her license plate#..

[sushi]

I am not a financial person, (obviously) but isn't the 91M to be spent on the following year's operation?
Why is this an excess? If it's an excess why would we need an operating ref in 2012? What are the operating costs budgeted for Metea in 2009?
Sorry, I just don't understand it.

[JB]

Apr 11, 2008 11:05:47 GMT -6 sushi said:

I am not a financial person, but isn't the 91M to be spent on the following year's operation?
Why is this an excess? If it's an excess why would we need an operating ref in 2012?
Sorry, I just don't understand it.

It's a surplus - above and beyond what they collect on an annual basis from our taxes. Taxes In - Budget Out = change in surplus.

$91M in 2008 - Expenses + Yearly Tax Revenues = $60M in 2012

Let's face it - the ONLY reason they don't want to dip into this is because they know the next referendum will be hammered. IMHO, this money would be well spent on BB. Get rid of the lawsuits, get rid of the bickering, and get on with the business of educating our children.

Earlier in the evening, the district reviewed its long-term financial outlook, which shows the district maintaining a cumulative surplus of $91 million at the end of the year. That amount is equal to roughly 35 percent of its operating budget, and it is projected to fall to roughly 20 percent – or $61 million, by 2012, which is now the earliest date District 204 administrators can foresee seeking an operating fund tax increase.

[sushi]

And when 2012 comes then what? It can't be so simple; there has to be more to it.