|
|
Post by Go Plainedge! on Jul 11, 2006 20:39:44 GMT -5
Pat Zinke - Plainedge BOE President
Cathy Flannagan - Plainedge BOE VP
A lot to digest from this meeting, especially the lack of information from the Admin as well as a possible serious miscalculation of remaining bond money.
Calgon take me away!
|
|
|
|
Post by concerned on Jul 12, 2006 10:18:39 GMT -5
I have to say the meeting was well attended. I think Pat will make a great President. What I was most pleased about was the level of discussion at this meeting. I've never seen so much discussion among the board and people were definitely questioning things. Refreshing. Also some interesting dynamics among the members at the table. Can't quite figure out what they all meant, but they definitely existed.
concerned
|
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Jul 12, 2006 11:03:15 GMT -5
The new Board, the new Board President and the new fiscal year!
Many have commented to me about the Board of Ed meeting last night. All were most favorable toward the new Board President and the revitalized interactions among Board members.
My congratulations to Mary Ann and Allen as new Board members. And my special thanks to Pat for starting off a BOE session in command of what transpires and setting the standard for future Board meetings.
There seemed to be a promising glow of fiscal enlightenment shown by this Board that's in command of the meetings.
Hopefully, they may provide light on the topic of why a projected $1 Million Construction Bond surplus of last year has turned into a $40,000 surplus as reported last night; or why a $1.2 Million estimate of the cost of a new construction effort, expands to a $2.4 Million project just because an additional $1.2 Million might be available from Excel Funding. Why double the size of the expansion? Is double the construction size necessary? Prudent?
Maybe all that is really needed is that the information provided by Dr. Richman be first presented to the Board. A Board who will then analyze it, rationalize it, and present it to the community in a logical, clear and consistent manner - sans Richman "spins" and enigmas.
So, overall, a TEN rating to the Board for last night's performance! Congratulations all!
Ed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Go Plainedge! on Jul 12, 2006 11:50:34 GMT -5
Ed:
It appears that this additional state money (only to be used for construction) that MIGHT be sent to us could already be spent. The amount COULD be either $1.2 million or $2.4 million. IF it’s that latter, than HE wants to completely renovate the HS Boys locker room for $1.2 mill - in addition to the Eastplain expansion. If both projects are to be done, we will be short approx $400k and HE suggested a new bond for that amount. He said that $400K over 10 years is a minimal amount for the community to pay back. The ideas of a RAN came up….bad idea IMO especially if there is no guarantee if and when we are to receive that money.
With regards to the short-comings on the bond; I don’t know if that $40k balance is BEFORE or AFTER repairs were/are made to Eastplain (soffits, doors, etc). Eastplain had a broken front door for the entire 2005/20065 school year. Perhaps someone may be able to answer this question or at least find out the correct information.
|
|
|
|
Post by patriot2415 on Jul 12, 2006 12:39:21 GMT -5
Hi all. Got held up at work last night. Did the BOE mention how they are going to interact with the community? Will there be community / BOE meetings? How will they share information with the community?
|
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Jul 20, 2006 21:36:59 GMT -5
GoPlainedge!
You asked in a recent post about the subject of RANs. The term Revenue Anticipation Notes, is usually reserved for Municipalities and other Authorities that have recurring sources of revenue coming to them periodically - such as from the MTA or the Triborough Bridge Authority.
It is rarely used, if ever, for School Districts that have one-shot expected amounts of funding that MAY come in - if ever approved!
So whoever brought up the topic with regard to some Construction money that may come in is showing their familiarity with the term - but exhibiting their lack of knowledge with regard to the applicability of that term to this type of funding!
Who was it that incorrectly brought up the term?
With regard to the Bond funds remaining - it would be prudent to separate, at least for the reporting phase of the proper use of the Bond Funds to the public, any use of the remaining funds in separate programs from the Bond issue costs themselves.
By using the unspent Bond as a source of excess funds for other projects it becomes difficult to separate and track actual costs for the Project which the Public approved the Bond. Bond issues are approved for a specific purpose and that use should be clearly reported to the public when that purpose is completed. Later, at its discretion, the BOE may approve the use of surplus Bond issue monies for other Capital purposes.
Certainly, the use of these funds for ordinary annual maintenance efforts (door and/or soffit repairs, parking lot re-pavings, etc.) is discouraged, and often prohibited, under the rules and regulations concerning the proper use of surplus Bond monies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Go Plainedge! on Jul 22, 2006 8:22:01 GMT -5
Ed:
The BOE and Dr. Spin mentioned a RAN as a means of getting money sooner and not having to wait for the state to give us the "speculated" money.
As far as the Bond money; I was under the impression that the bond was to be used for building a new school and repairs. So if the money was used for the middle school and repairs, fine. That's what we voted on. However, I haven't seen these repairs. Again, Eastplain looks like crap. It had a broken front door for the entire school year. It may still be broken for all I know. I should also mention the warped, broken and leaking soffits and gutters.
Where did the $900,000 - $1 mill (that we were told we had left over) go? Dr. Spin even thought about using that left over Bond money to build the extension onto Eastplain.
Is the abacus not working correctly?
|
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Jul 22, 2006 14:37:41 GMT -5
GoPlainedge!
1) Again, another fine example of Richman professing to be in control of, and have knowledge of, a subject - and potentially leading the Plainedge District down a false path of financial operations.
When his plan fails, we're not only stuck with the Bill as part of our taxes for the next few years - but we also have to pay for all the "overhead" costs; Study plans, negotiation meetings, architecture evaluations, lost time of staff and administration, lunches and dinners, etc.
He should spend some time instead reading past decisions of the State Comptroller which ruled against some Municipalities and Districts attempting to get RANs on income sources that were not allowed! Surprisingly, some normal income to a municipality from other State approved entities are NOT allowed to be used as a basis for RANs!
Nassau County does get RANs based upon portions (not even the estimated full amount) of such things as Sales Tax - as a reliable source of income per year, even though the amount each year is quite unpredictable.
But to expect a Bank to issue a RAN secured against a probable one-shot source of income is incredibly naive!
It's almost as bad as your in-law hitting you up for a big loan based on their expected win on the Trifecta next week as a source of the payback! What fool would do that!
2) That RAN falsehood statement is almost as bad as a prior District statement that STAR "mailed to the homeowner" tax checks would somehow make the Town's Property Tax Bill to residents smaller!
The Property Tax amounts are determined and levied solely by the District and those Tax Bills are not reduced one iota by the checks mailed to homes!
3) Your other comments about the Bond money just proves the point about how our present less than competent handing of these funds can lead to confusion! Remember - it was $600,000 in "PACKARD REPAIR FUNDS" that was transferred into the New School building account to buy a new air conditioner for that building!
It was done under the claim that because of State supplied Bond money support being lost due to late filing, the air conditioner was initially scrubbed - and then the Packard repair funds were used to restore the air conditioning into the building plans!
Now we seen to have mixed and variable reports on just how much of the Jeff Burns report in the trustworthy (?) "MINUTES OF A MEETING". The report was about an expected underspending by $1 Million of the Bond money actually occurred, even with the "boost" of $600,000 from the Packard repair fund!
Just whose reports and figures are we to believe? As for me, it would only be the report of the Auditors from the Comptroller's office!
4) Any report or estimate I see from this Administration would be untrustworthy. Prior ones have ranged all over the lot and never been put into the form of a competent written report. They are all "He said - They said", from one of the most unreliable sources of information that exists in all of Plainedge - the School District Administration.
If you don't believe that the Administration is unreliable, just check on the fiscal year 2004-2005 Budget finally approved by us at $57.3 Million, reported and audited at $57.3 Million - and then changed in State records on February 28th of this year by the Administration to be $57.9 Million.
And that overspending of a Voter approved Budget - an act prohibited by Section 1718 of the law - opens up an even bigger question! JUST WHERE DID THE EXTRA $600,000 SPENT COME FROM ? ? ? Anybody out there got answers to that one?
No Board Meeting Minutes show that the Board approved the extra spending - the only power allowed to make that motion and decision! So much for getting the truth, or even finding out about, overspending the Budget by going to Board meetings!
The actual amount spent was even over the first rejected Budget Request for that year! We said NO to an initial request for $57.8 Million! We thought we reduced that request by a half-million! HA!
That excessive Budget spending action essentially said - "TO HELL WITH THE BUDGET VOTES! - WE WILL SPEND WHAT WE WANT!"
NOTE: This Budget overspending info was just swept under the rug and fell through the cracks. It amazing that reports of it have to come from these community sites - No wonder Richman wants them to go away!
It would seem that every day is April Fool's Day in Plainedge!
Ed.
|
|
