Rainy Day Fund
Interesting concept of a "rainy day fund" as discussed by the Oakley-Lindsay Center board in Friday's paper.....usually when we speak of a rainy day fund, it's money we already have that we set aside, not money we borrow.
posted by Allthenewsthatfits at 5:55 AM
4 Comments:
I was thinking the same thing. Why would you borrow money for a "rainy day fund" and pay interest on it rather than just waiting until you actually need it and then borrow if you don't have it. Well duh!!
Not to mention needing $500K to fix a roof that has been in place a little more than 12 years? Somebody got rooked. I'd be complaining to the company that installed it, or to the building's designer. Oh wait, we're not complaining....we're consulting with the same designer!
The roof doesn't need to be fixed. It's in fine shape. But after 12 years it's not under warranty anymore, and the smart money is on making sure you have something set by to keep it that way.
They're not extending the bonds to create a rainy day fund. They're extending the bonds to have a fallback as the building ages since they are currently bringing in enough to meet expenses, but not to build up a nest egg. That will change, one hopes, as they bring in more and more events. And then they can put back some money in the rainy day fund.
Speaking of events--there are things that should have been done when the place was built that were left out because of cost at the time. Some of those prevent some potential events from using the facility--like the lack of a proper acoustic system in the exhibit hall. Just adding that would mean a lot more musical events would be willing to book--and more money in the bank account for the OLC. Some of the bond money would be used for that as well.
Let's review: getting some $$$ at a favorable rate to have the place in a position to begin dealing with maintenance issues that will begin to rear their heads (the building being 12 years old, after all), as well as to improve the place in various ways to make it more attractive for potential lessees in order to increase revenues, and all without jacking up your taxes.
Sounds like a decent idea to me.
Why do you guys always jump to the conclusion that you are being ripped off? There's no rip off here--and hasn't been since the previous ExDir left. Dealing with the mess he left is the reason the OLC has had to work so hard in the last year.
Sorry, but if it's in fine shape, why is putting on a new roof in the five-year plan? That still means a new roof after 12-17 years, and even a simple household roof can have a twenty-year warranty.
I'll admit to being biased....every time I drive past that thing the words "white elephant" just seem to pop into my head. Small cities all over the country get the wanna-be complex and build "convention centers" which end up costing way more money than projected (both to build and to maintain) and which never attract the kind of convention business that their boosters imagine. I'm afraid the OLC is just such a thing. It goes beyond the issue of who happens to be the exec. director at any particular time.
Post a Comment
<< Home