Also development projects should refer to all project costs not just construction. Those costs are incurred in a similar time frame as the construction cost and often include big line items like interest, architect and construction management fees as well as all the equipment and furniture in the building. The fact that they haven’t evid…
Also development projects should refer to all project costs not just construction. Those costs are incurred in a similar time frame as the construction cost and often include big line items like interest, architect and construction management fees as well as all the equipment and furniture in the building. The fact that they haven’t evidenced funds to pay for this is a huge red flag. I think the project is under budgeted by over $10 million including this. Inflation alone easily adding 5% to their already stale estimates.
Well, they did include those costs, but I didn't copy paste the full thing because I was only talking about construction costs, since the lease certificate can *only* be used on construction and general funds can *only* be used on not-construction.
With that said, I think its bullshit that the interpretation of the statute is that the voters have to approve construction, which only means physical building structures and not all the stuff that goes along with that. It seems like a pedantic loophole.
I think the fact they haven’t presented you a full budget speaks volumes about their incompetency. Zero clue. The fact there is literally no one at the district with a smidge of experience in this is like handing over the keys to vault of cash and saying have fun. Your expectation of oversight can’t be third parties. But then again that’s what the district has always done - hire consultants. This time the stakes are really high.
Also development projects should refer to all project costs not just construction. Those costs are incurred in a similar time frame as the construction cost and often include big line items like interest, architect and construction management fees as well as all the equipment and furniture in the building. The fact that they haven’t evidenced funds to pay for this is a huge red flag. I think the project is under budgeted by over $10 million including this. Inflation alone easily adding 5% to their already stale estimates.
Well, they did include those costs, but I didn't copy paste the full thing because I was only talking about construction costs, since the lease certificate can *only* be used on construction and general funds can *only* be used on not-construction.
With that said, I think its bullshit that the interpretation of the statute is that the voters have to approve construction, which only means physical building structures and not all the stuff that goes along with that. It seems like a pedantic loophole.
I think the fact they haven’t presented you a full budget speaks volumes about their incompetency. Zero clue. The fact there is literally no one at the district with a smidge of experience in this is like handing over the keys to vault of cash and saying have fun. Your expectation of oversight can’t be third parties. But then again that’s what the district has always done - hire consultants. This time the stakes are really high.