Sergio is patently wrong. It might not be the “cause” of the structural deficit today but it is certainly going to add to it. This statement gives me zero hope this board will be able to figure out how to reduce the budget by $15 million a year when they don’t even see how a new school contributes to expenses. Further what about the huge…
Sergio is patently wrong. It might not be the “cause” of the structural deficit today but it is certainly going to add to it. This statement gives me zero hope this board will be able to figure out how to reduce the budget by $15 million a year when they don’t even see how a new school contributes to expenses. Further what about the huge financial risk of finishing on time and on budget?
The fact that are board isn’t able to acknowledge that the school adds a $3 million annual cost to debt plus adds around 10 million of projected costs needed to be paid in 2025 that are not covered by lease certs and could be used for something else - this is basic finance. If you can’t understand it, step aside. You are spending taxpayer money that was never approved by taxpayers. This is NOT a sunk cost!
Sergio is patently wrong. It might not be the “cause” of the structural deficit today but it is certainly going to add to it. This statement gives me zero hope this board will be able to figure out how to reduce the budget by $15 million a year when they don’t even see how a new school contributes to expenses. Further what about the huge financial risk of finishing on time and on budget?
The fact that are board isn’t able to acknowledge that the school adds a $3 million annual cost to debt plus adds around 10 million of projected costs needed to be paid in 2025 that are not covered by lease certs and could be used for something else - this is basic finance. If you can’t understand it, step aside. You are spending taxpayer money that was never approved by taxpayers. This is NOT a sunk cost!