Austin, TX, 78738, USA

Prop A is Overstated with Bond Fees, Admin and Contingency

District Administration has allocated the entire $19.5M of Bond Closing Costs, Admin Fees and Contingency (3%), resulting in an overstatement of Prop A, and understatement of Prop B and C. Why was this done? Overconfidence that all 3 will pass? Wanting to have more to work with in Prop A if Prop A passes but others are rejected? And how was the 3% calculated – it is $12.5M but that cannot be tied back. If more information on this becomes available, this question will be updated. For now, it’s an open issue.

Closing, Admin, Contingency

Entire $19.5M Allocated to Proposition A

Don’t we deserve a better bond? What is going to happen if all the Propositions pass? Will there be any financial controls to manage the contingency through Change Control to manage the costs? 2018 Track Record would suggest NO.