IS KLASS TO BLAME AS WELL FOR THESE???
1. Covington Remodel - Not mentioned in the original bond measure that Covington would be renovated, nor that it would have priority over other district schools. Cost 6/30/03 $14.4m
2. District Office-Bond was designed to relieve overcrowding and to repair and rehabilitate aging local schools. It does not mention district offices. Cost 6/30/03 $3.2m
3. Corporate Yard - Again not mentioned in the Bond. Cost 6/30/03 $1.7m. Also interesting to note that Covington and the district offices were marked as complete at 10/31/02 meeting, yet the total cost is different in June 2003 from the amount shown in the October 2002 report. The actual cost has decreased by $1.5m. More creative accounting? What happened?
4. Egan School remodel was marked as complete in October 02 with an overrun of $2.3m. In June 03 this overrun has mysteriously changed to $0.9m.
5. Blach School remodel was marked as complete in October 02 with an overrun of $1.2m. In June 03 this overrun has also mysteriously decreased to $0.6m. At what Board meeting where these discrepancies identified, discussed or explained?
6. Blach camp school was left empty in school year 2002-03 at a cost to the district of $635k.
7. By moving Bullis to Covington a year early instead of closing the Blach camp school, the district has incurred another year of cost at the camp school $635k.
8. By not renting out the biggest facility (Covington) the District has been deprived of rental income of around $1m.
9. The school District closed Covington in 2000, with an immediate loss to the District general fund of lease revenues from the businesses located at the facility. $400k + per year.
10. At the September 22, 2003 Board meeting the financial update summary indicates that the cost of renovating Loyola and Santa Rita will be $20.05m. This is $4m over budget, and there was no discussion of this overrun, or approval of the increased spending. If this was approved at a prior Board meeting, show us the agenda item or where it appears in the minutes.
11. The School District (OR KLASS, AS YOUR LAYWER STATES) grossly mislead the voters when it made its case to the voters for measure H last fall. The CACF recommendation to only operate 6 elementary schools was published less than a week after the Measure passed, and the report states "...the full committee has met 7 times over the last two months, including a joint study session with the Board of Trustees". Would voters have approved the parcel tax if they had known that an elementary school would be closed? We think not!
12. The school district has run many campaigns to fund class size reduction, and again this mantra was used at the most recent Back-to-School night during the LAEF pitch. Is this clever or just misleading advertising?
13. Your lawyer’s letter of September 19, 2003 states that the Bullis budget is NOW $7,055,003, which is $1,250,000 under the original budget. This is clever but misses the point. What was portrayed to the voters in the original bond measure? That is the expectation level of voters. Why don’t you say the new budget is for just the new roof which has been done. Then you could be $7.8 million under original budget.
The list could go on but this conveys the main points. Taxation by Misrepresentation is a pattern which continues.