Intended as a discussion group, the blog has evolved to be more of a reading list of current issues affecting our county, its government and people. All reasonable comments and submissions welcomed. Email us at: bill.pysson@gmail.com
REMEMBER: To view our sister blog for education issues: www.district100watchdog.blogspot.com
Saturday, July 18, 2015
Letter to Editor: County Board & Animal Service Building
1 comment:
Anonymous
said...
The original plan (Phases 1-4) was for a 4516 sq ft building that along with the site work was estimated at S1,016,000 (I believe). The Board didn't like that dollar figure and requested something smaller. The next building was 2750 sq ft and with the site work was estimated to be $713,000. The Board thought this was doable, but should be paid for through a referendum. So the $713,000 building had bond costs added to it and the voters said yes to the $800,000 referendum.
Unfortunately, the site location was not included in the referendum. The site is now in a different location from the original site location. In fact there were two other site locations to be voted on. The site location furthest from IL 76 was selected by the Board. Was it mentioned that these site locations required money for the designs? Did the money come from the $713,000 building fund (referendum)? Hope not.
The minute the referendum was passed, the original building design was expanded. It made it to 3650 sq ft, if I recollect correctly. With the bids all over $1,000,000, they want the building size reduced to hopefully, not under 2700 sq ft.
In other words, and in line with Bob's letter, had the Board put the bid out in December or January, the bids would be closer to the $713,000 design cost. Had everyone let the original design alone, and let the site location where it was designed to be, the overage cost would be minimal. Instead the Board and others have appropriated moneys that were earmarked for the construction of the site and building and spent it on unnecessary site studies and unnecessary building designs.
So here's the real question. How much of the original $713,000 is left to construct the $713,000 site and building that the taxpayers were envisioning?
Will the deficit created by the Board, be picked up by the Board and NOT by Animal Services? After all, those who managed badly, need to take responsibility for their poor business practices. It shouldn't be borne by others who do not have that fiscal responsibility. The Board has the fiscal responsibility of running Boone County, NOT running under.
AND when all of this is said and done, it looks like the cats will not be welcome at the new Animal Services Building. I wonder if the voters really wanted that.
1 comment:
The original plan (Phases 1-4) was for a 4516 sq ft building that along with the site work was estimated at S1,016,000 (I believe). The Board didn't like that dollar figure and requested something smaller. The next building was 2750 sq ft and with the site work was estimated to be $713,000. The Board thought this was doable, but should be paid for through a referendum. So the $713,000 building had bond costs added to it and the voters said yes to the $800,000 referendum.
Unfortunately, the site location was not included in the referendum. The site is now in a different location from the original site location. In fact there were two other site locations to be voted on. The site location furthest from IL 76 was selected by the Board. Was it mentioned that these site locations required money for the designs? Did the money come from the $713,000 building fund (referendum)? Hope not.
The minute the referendum was passed, the original building design was expanded. It made it to 3650 sq ft, if I recollect correctly. With the bids all over $1,000,000, they want the building size reduced to hopefully, not under 2700 sq ft.
In other words, and in line with Bob's letter, had the Board put the bid out in December or January, the bids would be closer to the $713,000 design cost. Had everyone let the original design alone, and let the site location where it was designed to be, the overage cost would be minimal. Instead the Board and others have appropriated moneys that were earmarked for the construction of the site and building and spent it on unnecessary site studies and unnecessary building designs.
So here's the real question. How much of the original $713,000 is left to construct the $713,000 site and building that the taxpayers were envisioning?
Will the deficit created by the Board, be picked up by the Board and NOT by Animal Services? After all, those who managed badly, need to take responsibility for their poor business practices. It shouldn't be borne by others who do not have that fiscal responsibility. The Board has the fiscal responsibility of running Boone County, NOT running under.
AND when all of this is said and done, it looks like the cats will not be welcome at the new Animal Services Building. I wonder if the voters really wanted that.
Post a Comment