The the total cost of the Iron Horse bridge is $29.1M over the years pre-2020 to 2025, at least $16.3M of which was already spent by 2020-2021 as shown in Row 5 of the 20-21 budget
Per the FAQ the final cost of $29.1M uses $23.5M in grant/Measure J funds that could not be used to fill gaps in the general city budget.
The feasibility, community input and design work happened between 2009-2015. Delaying the project further would risk the and the final costs would like only grow higher.
Thanks Geoff, Well I am not pointing just one project. There may be genuine reasons at times. But we don't have diverse voices, how many times have you seen council members debating the cost. Board being unanimous don't seem right to me. With the board also unanimously endorsing my opponent speaks for itself they don't want questioning from within.
I could also be that the rest of the board thinks that your opponent is better qualified for the position. A unanimous board can also be due to the chosen decision being though to the best out of possible options.
A comprehensive review of city spending/operations is a easy thing to say. I'd be much more swayed by seeing what your proposals for cuts would be given that you think the current cuts are "blackmail".
I've read through this note and have a specific question regarding the expenditure on the Iron Horse Bridge. Are you saying that the funds ($21.7M) spent towards the bridge could have been used to cover our budget deficit, which the tax measure hopes to address?
The message i want to highlight is the kind of spending priorities we are seeing here. If we did not do some of it then we wont be in deficit. This is shows poor oversight with a pattern of unanimous voting. If there is someone questioning these kind of spending going forward and recovering deficit by charging developers a fees like nearby city charges we should be just fine.
The the total cost of the Iron Horse bridge is $29.1M over the years pre-2020 to 2025, at least $16.3M of which was already spent by 2020-2021 as shown in Row 5 of the 20-21 budget
Per the FAQ the final cost of $29.1M uses $23.5M in grant/Measure J funds that could not be used to fill gaps in the general city budget.
https://www.sanramon.ca.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_10826046/File/Shared%20Documents/IHT%20Project%20FAQ%20050823.pdf
The feasibility, community input and design work happened between 2009-2015. Delaying the project further would risk the and the final costs would like only grow higher.
Thanks Geoff, Well I am not pointing just one project. There may be genuine reasons at times. But we don't have diverse voices, how many times have you seen council members debating the cost. Board being unanimous don't seem right to me. With the board also unanimously endorsing my opponent speaks for itself they don't want questioning from within.
I could also be that the rest of the board thinks that your opponent is better qualified for the position. A unanimous board can also be due to the chosen decision being though to the best out of possible options.
A comprehensive review of city spending/operations is a easy thing to say. I'd be much more swayed by seeing what your proposals for cuts would be given that you think the current cuts are "blackmail".
Its all open to interpretation. Its opinion. We all should differ its a core of any discussion.
I've read through this note and have a specific question regarding the expenditure on the Iron Horse Bridge. Are you saying that the funds ($21.7M) spent towards the bridge could have been used to cover our budget deficit, which the tax measure hopes to address?
The message i want to highlight is the kind of spending priorities we are seeing here. If we did not do some of it then we wont be in deficit. This is shows poor oversight with a pattern of unanimous voting. If there is someone questioning these kind of spending going forward and recovering deficit by charging developers a fees like nearby city charges we should be just fine.