|
|
Post by macrockett on Jun 4, 2009 18:31:42 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Feb 26, 2010 23:18:09 GMT -6
Finally, after 8 months, District 204 has updated the status of MVHS, albeit with a striped down amount of information (compare to the 2/1/09 update)...so much with full disclosure: www.cbpp.org/files/9-8-08sfp.pdfwww.ipsd.org/Uploads/news_28143_1.pdfDon't forget to add the $19 million land cost to the construction budget to arrive at the true cost. Imo MVHS represents another blaring example of how government spends your tax dollars as if the source of revenue in a community is endless. At some point, in virtually every case where those making the decisions don't act with a strict frugality, hard decisions will have to be made to ration the remaining resources (tax dollars). Unfortunately, D204 has arrived at that point. When pulling this up I see I copied the wrong pdf. I should check my work! Sorry |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Mar 1, 2010 12:37:49 GMT -6
Corrected MVHS Budget information
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 1, 2010 12:41:37 GMT -6
With the talk of delayed expenditures... and this shows expended to date.. does anyone know if there are any delayed expenditures not accounted for yet in here?
|
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Mar 1, 2010 13:46:44 GMT -6
With the talk of delayed expenditures... and this shows expended to date.. does anyone know if there are any delayed expenditures not accounted for yet in here? Based on this information, there is still $15 million left to be spent. My interpretation is that "delayed expenditures" relates to operation costs and are budget items they are initiating at a later time. |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Mar 2, 2010 8:17:35 GMT -6
When they say direct construction costs, could that mean that expedite fees, site improvements etc are not included?
|
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Mar 2, 2010 10:29:34 GMT -6
When they say direct construction costs, could that mean that expedite fees, site improvements etc are not included? rew, in one of the FOIAs i requested that information and was told that there is no line item for expedite fees, that that cost was built into the entire budget. So from what I am told there is no way to get specifically at that number. An estimate I got in one of the FOIAs was $5 million total, as I recall. When I get a chance I will look for it. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Mar 2, 2010 13:04:03 GMT -6
When they say direct construction costs, could that mean that expedite fees, site improvements etc are not included? rew, in one of the FOIAs i requested that information and was told that there is no line item for expedite fees, that that cost was built into the entire budget. So from what I am told there is no way to get specifically at that number. An estimate I got in one of the FOIAs was $5 million total, as I recall. When I get a chance I will look for it. Don't you just love the accounting practices of this district ? How do you not separate labo from materials ? Services from commodities ? There should be a nice place next to Ken Ley for some of these people. I had heard rumblings of as much as $12M being the final expedite costs when there was still things left to be done. You can bet if they are willing to admit to $5M then $10M minimum was spent. Imagine even $5M to rush an unneeded school ! And then the SUper has the nerve to say it's not like we're spending here...just unfreakin' believable. |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Mar 2, 2010 13:07:59 GMT -6
rew, in one of the FOIAs i requested that information and was told that there is no line item for expedite fees, that that cost was built into the entire budget. So from what I am told there is no way to get specifically at that number. An estimate I got in one of the FOIAs was $5 million total, as I recall. When I get a chance I will look for it. Don't you just love the accounting practices of this district ? How do you not separate labo from materials ? Services from commodities ? There should be a nice place next to Ken Ley for some of these people. I had heard rumblings of as much as $12M being the final expedite costs when there was still things left to be done. You can bet if they are willing to admit to $5M then $10M minimum was spent. Imagine even $5M to rush an unneeded school ! And then the SUper has the nerve to say it's not like we're spending here...just unfreakin' believable. Maybe the answer lies in the fact that it's not their money, it belongs to the taxpayer and they think there is an unlimited supply. Why else would they build it in the first place? |
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Mar 2, 2010 14:21:57 GMT -6
One needs to keep in mind that the lack of accurate accounting and transparency can cuts both ways.
I will now state as undeniable truth the following:
District 204 paid $20 MILLION dollars to expedite the construction of Metea Valley High School.
OK, cheerleaders, proove me wrong. Afterall in absence of fact, my guess is as accurate as anyone else's.
|
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Mar 2, 2010 14:32:05 GMT -6
Works for me Eagledad. Maybe that is why they set out early on to "raise more cash" by issuing those bonds way before necessary. To my knowledge there is no legal requirement to immediately follow through or you lose authority to issue. That Ehler correspondence which states:
"We have chosen the June 28th and backup July 9th because of our need
to have additional bond proceeds for land acquisition and to earn additional
investment earnings for the project[/u]"
[/b]
tells me that in 07 they were well aware of the need for additional funds.
|
|
