|
|
Post by slp on Apr 25, 2009 16:25:23 GMT -6
A very important note (not small, at all not, IMHO) the costs to operate MVHS will roughly double in 2011. I wonder where those funds will come from, given flat revenues or declining revenue - and I wish them luck with that referendum next spring (because they will need it). Up and until about 20 days ago, I too thought good luck on getting another referendum passed. However, from what we saw in April 7th election, I have no doubt that a referendum will pass. Lot's of folks will complain about it from their living rooms, but not go to the polls! The District will use its community financial committee to give the concept credibility, the north and its PTA leaders will campaign hard, and the yes voters will be much more likely to go vote... I have lost all faith in common sense/fiscal responsibility in this district and unfortunately 75% of the district is just completely indifferent to anything. I fear the same. Although there are many who are south who don't want higher taxes for nothin' and could be motivated to get to the polls to vote NO! May take alot of volunteers to spread that word and get people angry enough to vote NO! Don't underestimate the power of people's wallets and volunteers!! |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 25, 2009 17:52:54 GMT -6
One can always employ the same scare tactics to freak people out enough to vote NO...
History shows that's all that apparently matters.
|
|
|
|
Post by treehugger on Apr 25, 2009 19:06:22 GMT -6
SLP, that is exactly why the North Shore went charges high registration fees. There are alot of older people who routinely vote down anything that has to do with their taxes being increased. I wonder what the fees are at New Trier and Highland Park High. Both communities that feed into those schools have many seniors.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 26, 2009 17:11:17 GMT -6
Up and until about 20 days ago, I too thought good luck on getting another referendum passed. However, from what we saw in April 7th election, I have no doubt that a referendum will pass. Lot's of folks will complain about it from their living rooms, but not go to the polls! The District will use its community financial committee to give the concept credibility, the north and its PTA leaders will campaign hard, and the yes voters will be much more likely to go vote... I have lost all faith in common sense/fiscal responsibility in this district and unfortunately 75% of the district is just completely indifferent to anything. I fear the same. Although there are many who are south who don't want higher taxes for nothin' and could be motivated to get to the polls to vote NO! May take alot of volunteers to spread that word and get people angry enough to vote NO! Don't underestimate the power of people's wallets and volunteers!! The difference was the vote no more taxes people had nothing on the ballot for them this last time. Just as many people living in the south east part of Naperville had little to come out for ( hence some of those polling places with <10% turnout - ridiculous) - maybe even fearing a change to their own school assignment ? But unless the economy does a 180 soon ( and I don't see it )- a ref will still be very very hard to pass.... |
|
|
|
Post by sam2 on Apr 26, 2009 17:38:20 GMT -6
CAn some one fill in a few details related to the claimed budget savings? How did we manage to lock in electricity at 50% less than current and gas at 33% less? kudos on the savings, but, really, how was that accomplished?
To put my question more bluntly, is there any real savings or did we just adjust a WAG utility number to something more in line with reality?
How does the project utility cost compare with current?
It has the appearance of financial responsibility, but I'm not buying it...it doesn't seem credible to me. If it's real, then perhaps they could share it with the City so we could all save 50% on our electricity bills....
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 26, 2009 20:22:01 GMT -6
CAn some one fill in a few details related to the claimed budget savings? How did we manage to lock in electricity at 50% less than current and gas at 33% less? kudos on the savings, but, really, how was that accomplished? To put my question more bluntly, is there any real savings or did we just adjust a WAG utility number to something more in line with reality? How does the project utility cost compare with current? It has the appearance of financial responsibility, but I'm not buying it...it doesn't seem credible to me. If it's real, then perhaps they could share it with the City so we could all save 50% on our electricity bills.... Or better yet - did we just get a new rate because maybe we locked in the gas rate a few years ago like some people did and missed the downturn in prices - therefore spending more than those consumers who did not do that ? That's more likely it - I want to see the rates we have now with what others are paying - is it 50% less - I doubt it. I believe zero this group says any more - it's all spun to the nth degree. |
|
|
|
Post by blankcheck on Apr 27, 2009 10:54:55 GMT -6
Why have they not been looking into these "savings" plans before? As a taxpayer, I'm a little ticked that they seem to say that NOW because of the economy we are looking at locking in these price savings. What about in previous years? If they haven't, then resign now. Your school board is suppose to be fiscally responsible to the taxpayers and obviously, they have not.
|
|
|
|
Post by sashimi on Apr 27, 2009 11:16:49 GMT -6
It is pretty amazing...The District projects a 6 million dollar deficit and poof...5 million plus in savings discovered in less time than it took to close on the Ames property (and we all know that is pretty darn quick). Makes you wonder about how well they are managing costs across the board.
But regardless, glad that they are looking at these cost reductions in that we are going to need every penny over the next 3-5 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by refbasics on Apr 27, 2009 11:26:31 GMT -6
CAn some one fill in a few details related to the claimed budget savings? How did we manage to lock in electricity at 50% less than current and gas at 33% less? kudos on the savings, but, really, how was that accomplished? To put my question more bluntly, is there any real savings or did we just adjust a WAG utility number to something more in line with reality? How does the project utility cost compare with current? It has the appearance of financial responsibility, but I'm not buying it...it doesn't seem credible to me. If it's real, then perhaps they could share it with the City so we could all save 50% on our electricity bills.... ------------------------------- if this a newly discovered way to save.. i fear that when large users negotiate a contract with a utility... that the rest of the users(us) have to make up the difference somewhere(?)... from what i have read about utility contracts.   there is no FREE LUNCH! |
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Apr 27, 2009 20:30:23 GMT -6
One strategy is, rather than paying our electricity bills as is when they are due, the district payed the electric/gas company a substantial premium to give them more off the bills on a short term basis but rolled it in and the financed into the bills over 20 years.
This would be similar to the "Bond Premiums" - after all, it's not "illegal".
I am, of course exaggerating, but this is pretty much what was done to spend an extra $18 Million above what the voters approved on Metea (so far).
|
|
|
|
Post by sam2 on Apr 28, 2009 7:47:36 GMT -6
Since posting my question, I've given it some more thought and have a new theory: Much like the City reduced the budget and "saved" money by not filling vacant positions, perhaps this budget included worst case numbers in hopes of getting more money to spend and now that reality has set in they have simply put more realistic numbers in the budget and have decided to call them savings. I'm unaware of any real world based manner in which utility bills could be shaved by 1/3 to 1/2.
Also, is buying the diesel fuel simply a gambit to allow for a favorable year to year comparison of busing costs -- especially if someone just looks at expenditures made to First Student -- instead of adding the fuel purchases to the total busing cost? It might be savings or it might be obfuscation. Given the size of First Student nationwide, it is hard for me to believe that our district has the clout to negotiate better prices for fuel. Maybe I've got this part of the report wrong -- anyone with any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 28, 2009 7:58:10 GMT -6
Since posting my question, I've given it some more thought and have a new theory: Much like the City reduced the budget and "saved" money by not filling vacant positions, perhaps this budget included worst case numbers in hopes of getting more money to spend and now that reality has set in they have simply put more realistic numbers in the budget and have decided to call them savings. I'm unaware of any real world based manner in which utility bills could be shaved by 1/3 to 1/2. Also, is buying the diesel fuel simply a gambit to allow for a favorable year to year comparison of busing costs -- especially if someone just looks at expenditures made to First Student -- instead of adding the fuel purchases to the total busing cost? It might be savings or it might be obfuscation. Given the size of First Student nationwide, it is hard for me to believe that our district has the clout to negotiate better prices for fuel. Maybe I've got this part of the report wrong -- anyone with any thoughts? I think you are dead on with the fuel'scheme' since we had $4 gal fuel in one year - we can lock that price in and then try and show maybe a flat year to year expenditure-- you will never see a correct statistical analysis done on the miles and routes if the price was the same ( which it will be one day again) - You should have seen what was sent in response to FOIA request - a loose leaf sheet of paper with some chicken scratching on it in pencil -- that was the transportation analysis it appears or they did not fullfill the requirement It will be an attempt to hide the increase in transportation costs of putting a school on the NW borderline of the district when the kids live south and SE. |
|
|
|
Post by treehugger on May 1, 2009 13:34:42 GMT -6
Smugness, arrogance and conceit are the winning qualities of this man. But this school board is dumb enough to re-up him, that's for sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by treehugger on May 1, 2009 13:37:07 GMT -6
Oops, this belongs in the Daeschner thread, sorry.
|
|
