Call to action 8/6 for quick take

[gatormom]

blankcheck said:

From what I am reading of HB1926, no where does it state that the SD shall not go back to the taxpayers for more money.

Dist. 204 won’t see tax hike for new Metea Valley High
By Melissa Jenco
Daily Herald

Indian Prairie Unit District 204 will not ask taxpayers for more money to build its third high school.

Despite the rising cost of construction delays for Metea Valley High School, the school board adopted a resolution Monday stating it would not ask voters for more than the $124.7 million tax increase they already approved.

[justme]

wvhsparent said:

gatordog said:

wvhsparent said:

WVHSparent,

What I posted concerning construction cost is NOT arbitrary. There is Construction Index Data out there showing these very large cost increases in this segment of the economy. (My understanding is to a large degree its driven by global demand for building materials...even if they arent building like crazy in Ashwood Park , they are in China and India )

For those interested in data, this was discussed in the "No Tax Hike for MVHS" thread.
www.ipsd204.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=newhighschool&action=display&thread=1181654245&page=3

I recall you didnt agree with this data then, wvhparent. But this is a matter of the construction economy. Its neither arbitrary nor BS . In fact I would say "your not being in agreement" is what is arbitrary here

OK - I accept your challenge.

From Turner Const's Own site.

www.turnerconstruction.com/corporate/content.asp?d=20


This data shows me that while 2005 and 2006 had large increases 9.5% and 10.6% respectively, and 2004 was a tad over 5%.
I would account late 05 and 06 to Katrina and co. Prior to that the index rose less than 5% and so far for 07 we are at 3.5%. Which is more realistic.
So I stand by my arbitrary statement for the 10% increase. Unless you can show me compelling data that differs.

I agree again wvhsparent! This is what a simple google search yielded on national home sales:

"On the whole, sales of previously owned homes probably will drop 8.9 percent this year while new-home sales probably will plunge 17.3 percent to 1.06 million."

Like it was stated, this isn't just about construction in Ashwood Park.

[justme]

gatormom said:

blankcheck said:

From what I am reading of HB1926, no where does it state that the SD shall not go back to the taxpayers for more money.

Dist. 204 won’t see tax hike for new Metea Valley High
By Melissa Jenco
Daily Herald

Indian Prairie Unit District 204 will not ask taxpayers for more money to build its third high school.

Despite the rising cost of construction delays for Metea Valley High School, the school board adopted a resolution Monday stating it would not ask voters for more than the $124.7 million tax increase they already approved.

Hasn't the SB already published items that they reneged on? cough cough

What about creative financing...don't we have a referendum on the horizon in 2009? Take from one area now and replace it from another area later.

[gatormom]

justme said:

gatormom said:

Hasn't the SB already published items that they reneged on? cough cough

What about creative financing...don't we have a referendum on the horizon in 2009? Take from one area now and replace it from another area later.

Creative financing is illegal. Can't use operating funds (2009 ref) to pay for buildings. Surely you have been around enough to know that.

[blankcheck]

That may be true however, they did do that with NV because they were over budget for that building and had to ax one of the gyms.

[bob]

justme said:

gatormom said:

Hasn't the SB already published items that they reneged on? cough cough

What about creative financing...don't we have a referendum on the horizon in 2009? Take from one area now and replace it from another area later.

I may be wrong but I don't think they can co-mingle the operating fund with the building fund.

[Arch]

blankcheck said:

That may be true however, they did do that with NV because they were over budget for that building and had to ax one of the gyms.

I'm puzzled here.
Did you just imply they used specific operating funds to finish NV construction?

[gatordog]

wvhsparent said:

This data shows me that while 2005 and 2006 had large increases 9.5% and 10.6% respectively, and 2004 was a tad over 5%.
I would account late 05 and 06 to Katrina and co. Prior to that the index rose less than 5% and so far for 07 we are at 3.5%. Which is more realistic.

Thanks for adding that link.

The 3.5% so far for 2007 is for the first six months only of course. That would project to about 7% annual increase.

Bottom line from the Construction Cost Index data: The last year saw construction costs increase about 2% per quarter. That is another significant cost to the taxpayers that must not be overlooked.

[bob]

gatordog said:

wvhsparent said:

This data shows me that while 2005 and 2006 had large increases 9.5% and 10.6% respectively, and 2004 was a tad over 5%.
I would account late 05 and 06 to Katrina and co. Prior to that the index rose less than 5% and so far for 07 we are at 3.5%. Which is more realistic.

Thanks for adding that link.

The 3.5% so far for 2007 is for the first six months only of course. That would project to about 7% annual increase.

Bottom line from the Construction Cost Index data: The last year saw construction costs increase about 2% per quarter. That is another significant cost to the taxpayers that must not be overlooked.

Wait til the housing collapse really kicks in.

[wvhsparent]

bob said:

gatordog said:

Thanks for adding that link.

The 3.5% so far for 2007 is for the first six months only of course. That would project to about 7% annual increase.

Bottom line from the Construction Cost Index data: The last year saw construction costs increase about 2% per quarter. That is another significant cost to the taxpayers that must not be overlooked.

Wait til the housing collapse really kicks in.

The non-residential side of things are not much brighter either.

[justme]

gatormom said:

justme said:

Hasn't the SB already published items that they reneged on? cough cough

What about creative financing...don't we have a referendum on the horizon in 2009? Take from one area now and replace it from another area later.

Creative financing is illegal. Can't use operating funds (2009 ref) to pay for buildings. Surely you have been around enough to know that.

Obviously, I know that.

What is to say that they use the bonds (that are slated elsewhere) for the building costs now and then tack on the bill for what the bonds were originally earmarked for to the 2009 referendum? That is not illegal and that is what I am implying by saying "creative financing". Surely you have been around long enough to know that.

[bob]

justme said:

gatormom said:

Creative financing is illegal. Can't use operating funds (2009 ref) to pay for buildings. Surely you have been around enough to know that.

Obviously, I know that.

What is to say that they use the bonds (that are slated elsewhere) for the building costs now and then tack on the bill for what the bonds were originally earmarked for to the 2009 referendum? That is not illegal and that is what I am implying by saying "creative financing". Surely you have been around long enough to know that.

Wouldn't that be illegal? Aren't the use of bonds defined by the referendum that created them?

[wvhsparent]

Actually, Now that I have been thinking about it.
I think I recall a while back, within the last 12-18 months, that there was other legislation that supposedly loosened the restrictions on how schools used/earmarked funds. So some of these senarios might be possible. I will try to find it. Unless anyone else knows if I am right or wrong.

[bob]

wvhsparent said:

Actually, Now that I have been thinking about it.
I think I recall a while back, within the last 12-18 months, that there was other legislation that supposedly loosened the restrictions on how schools used/earmarked funds. So some of these senarios might be possible. I will try to find it. Unless anyone else knows if I am right or wrong.

Earmarked funds usually are from the state budget.

[wvhsparent]

bob said:

wvhsparent said:

Actually, Now that I have been thinking about it.
I think I recall a while back, within the last 12-18 months, that there was other legislation that supposedly loosened the restrictions on how schools used/earmarked funds. So some of these senarios might be possible. I will try to find it. Unless anyone else knows if I am right or wrong.

Earmarked funds usually are from the state budget.

No, I am pretty sure it had to do with operational and capital accounts. They no longer needed to be exclusive. I am not sure if the fund source was defined.

ETA: I could not find anything on this, so I consider this a non-issue.
I am pretty sure though that referendum monies MUST be used for what they are intended and cannot be diverted.