Quote Originally Posted by Kerry View Post
You need to factor in the $54 million in interest earned on MAPS money. Cost overrun was 17%. However, since there was not any debt at the end of construction you could argue that there was $0 cost overrun.
Kerry,

First of all, the $54M in interest is questionable. In a Journal Record article dated 2/24/99, Jim Couch, (MAPS Project Manager, now City Manager), stated it had only earned $4.7M in interest. This was after many projects were already well over what voters were told. The original MAPS tax had 9 months left, plus the additional 6 month extension. The extension was projected to bring in $30M total or $5M a month. Is it mathmatically possible for $75M to earn the remaining $49.3M? Are you saying in 15 months they earned 66% in interest? If that is possible, someone please show me the math on it.

In the article he said the $4.7M that it was due to the delays in construction of the Arena because of the shortage of funds, once those funds started coming in again, you don't even have the $75M due to the fact that money would be going out for construction and expenses involved with the Arena.

2nd, presuming the $54M in interest is correct, that number is added to the total amount collected by the tax ($309M), not subtracted by the amount spent.

There seems to be some confusion. "If Revenue - Expense is Zero, there is no cost over run." That isn't what we are talking about here. It is the amount voters were told minus the amount spent. Or $238M - $351M = (-113.7M). The negative is the amount you are in the hole, or overspent from what was originally budgeted.