I want to point out another Horton lie that was true then and is true now - the lease certificates were never meant to cover the full cost of construction. They can only be used on “hard construction costs” which means all the other stuff - interest, architects and consultant fees, third party reports, legal fees and the fixtures and fur…
I want to point out another Horton lie that was true then and is true now - the lease certificates were never meant to cover the full cost of construction. They can only be used on “hard construction costs” which means all the other stuff - interest, architects and consultant fees, third party reports, legal fees and the fixtures and furnishings in the school - have to be paid for with outside funds. This amounts to $7 million on the latest budget. It’s something that really bugs me bc no one ever questioned it then and we allowed this guy to just run his mouth and tell lies. It also serves to show the lack of financial oversight this board and admin have provided. This money will likely be funded with the 2017 referendum funds or at least what’s left of it. That’s $7 million that could help balance the budget. $7 million that was levied on taxpayers to NOT build a school. That was not part of the plan. I am furious that referendum proceeds are being used to build a school that should only be constructed had a new referendum been passed. It’s all so sleazy and should be illegal and is a major reason the school should not be built.
Yeah, this is still the case. If you look at the current budget for Foster School:
$42 million in the lease certificate is pretty much the money that they need to do physical construction of the building.
They need $6 million for stuff in the building. Not clear where that money is going to come from. The reserves, I guess? Even the Bessie Rhodes property isn't going to sell for a few years.
Other Districts, like Skokie, when they built Lincoln Middle School took out two financings: a lease certificate for construction and regular general obligation bonds for the stuff in the school. We only did the first part and to date, nobody has really thought through the second part.
And to your point, the whole thing is a shady loophole anyway to avoid the specific language of a referendum.
I want to point out another Horton lie that was true then and is true now - the lease certificates were never meant to cover the full cost of construction. They can only be used on “hard construction costs” which means all the other stuff - interest, architects and consultant fees, third party reports, legal fees and the fixtures and furnishings in the school - have to be paid for with outside funds. This amounts to $7 million on the latest budget. It’s something that really bugs me bc no one ever questioned it then and we allowed this guy to just run his mouth and tell lies. It also serves to show the lack of financial oversight this board and admin have provided. This money will likely be funded with the 2017 referendum funds or at least what’s left of it. That’s $7 million that could help balance the budget. $7 million that was levied on taxpayers to NOT build a school. That was not part of the plan. I am furious that referendum proceeds are being used to build a school that should only be constructed had a new referendum been passed. It’s all so sleazy and should be illegal and is a major reason the school should not be built.
Yeah, this is still the case. If you look at the current budget for Foster School:
$42 million in the lease certificate is pretty much the money that they need to do physical construction of the building.
They need $6 million for stuff in the building. Not clear where that money is going to come from. The reserves, I guess? Even the Bessie Rhodes property isn't going to sell for a few years.
Other Districts, like Skokie, when they built Lincoln Middle School took out two financings: a lease certificate for construction and regular general obligation bonds for the stuff in the school. We only did the first part and to date, nobody has really thought through the second part.
And to your point, the whole thing is a shady loophole anyway to avoid the specific language of a referendum.