Wow, that's great except for the fact that, according to their filings with the state, the construction costs were $23.7 million and other allowable costs were $4.4 million for a total of $28.1 million. It's that number less the $9.5 million in insurance proceeds or $18.6 million that they used for the Bond Referendum.
Now, maybe it's me, but if their cost was $28.1 million and the insurance proceeds were $23.6 million, doesn't that mean that we still have to pay $4.5 million - or was it just yet another Bloated Bond Referendum.
Either way, it's a joke on the People of Edison and so is this letter.
If this letter doesn't tell you that we have an ineffective board in dire need of change, transparency, leadership, oversight over Super Dr. Richard 'Looking for the Exit Ramp' O'Malley and SOMEBODY Looking Out for the TAXPAYERS - nothing will.
Here's their numbers for the $28.1 million Bond Referendum:
Anyhoo, this is what You get here in Downtown Edison when Our Elected Leaders over there on Mythomania Lane - Lead from Behind!
This is what my reference to a lie is ,drO did tell the truth in the letter that construction cost as a definition are covered.....the deception is that there are other cost of legal architectural engineering that we do pay for ..WHY can't he just come out and say some cost are covered and some are not ,just be truthfull ,why our current boe would sign there names to this deceptive letter speaks volumes
ReplyDeleteNo, actually he didn't. He says after receiving the $23.6 million, the entire construction costs of $19.6 million will be covered. Problem is their construction costs were $23.7 million, not $19.6 million. Unfortunately, it's deceptive and misleading to try and make people believe that the $23.6 in proceeds will cover both hard and soft costs.
ReplyDeleteThat is were the wizard of dr ozz comes into play he uses the English language to be deceive, construction cost are only the material and direct labor cost and the bid came in less then originally estimated, so his statement seems correct,but to the taxpayers we would believe total construction cost to be total cost .that is the point with the wizzard he is deceptive and our current boe either knows and is the problem or does not and that is maybe just as bad
ReplyDeleteFrom a taxpayer's point of view, this board is useless. It follows rather than leads and is blind to the obvious. And the consequences are things like this. The problem people should have here is why they planned to bond for something, they said, would cost $28.1 million but now say they can do for $23.6 million - without any explanation or reconciliation.
ReplyDeleteThe answer to your question i am hoping is that the the bond was past during a non election time,now with our elections in november i hope the public takes a more active role in what is happening
Delete