APS Uptown Administrative Complex, "Taxing"

According to APS' John Dufay.

He wasn't talking about taxes, but he could have been.

I've been reading between the lines in a year old newspaper article regarding spending at the UAC. I will assemble a few quotes which will be presented out of context. That they are done so ethically can be verified by reading the first source link.

Background; the new board room renovation was unjustifiable in the context of the scarce financial resources in the district. Neither APS Communications, nor anyone else in the leadership of the APS has ever attempted to justify the new for a boardroom at 6400 Uptown Blvd.

Price tag:
$184,304 for bathrooms.
$440,920 for the boardroom.
$625,224 for furniture and "other" expenses (not including the technology still to be installed).

Not priceless - but not ritzy, either, says John Dufay, the Albuquerque Public Schools administrator who supervised the project.

Nevertheless, Dufay said he expected more criticism for the work at City Center, the twin towers of administrative offices that have been controversial from the start.

The City Center office complex was purchased in 2001 for $12.5 million. Renovation costs to date are approaching $6 million, but the work is not done, Dufay said.

The renovation of the first floor, which houses the boardroom, Human Resources Department, Community Relations Department, board offices and service center, carried a $831,146 price tag. More work will be done at additional costs, which have not been budgeted, Dufay said.

("... not budgeted"; why? Is it due to the incompetence of budget makers? Or were they left out deliberately to deceive stakeholders, due to corruption?)

As far as any oversight over the project by the protectors of the public interests, the school board;

"My general feeling is that it was more expensive that it was supposed to be," said board member Gordon Rowe of the new boardroom.

Board member Mary Lee Martin defended City Center as a "nice place to work" that employees deserve after spending years in the aging University Boulevard offices.

"Our employees suffered in the old building," she said. (define "suffered" please)

Still, she said renovation on City Center "was more than I wanted to spend. Everything went up and up and up over time. I have no idea how it got that expensive."

Dufay said the expenses mounted as building code violations had to be corrected.

(He does not point out that the code violations existed the time the purchase and should have been reflected in the purchase price, and should have been reported to stakeholder taxpayers.)

Much of the code work was done behind the walls and ceiling of the structure. Beams had to be fireproofed, a new water supply needed to be installed to support the sprinklers required, and false ceilings had to be torn out. ... delays were caused by the code work required by the city, he said.
(All of which were there at purchase and went unnoticed due to administrative incompetence, or, went undisclosed to taxpayers due to administrative corruption.)

The city-required work was not in the original renovation budget, Dufay said.

"Anticipating, perhaps, irate taxpayers who think their money was wasted..."


District officials had this (to say): The money for this project did not come out of property taxes.
(It came from the sale of public property which we all know, has nothing to do with property taxes.)

The (public property in question, the) Stronghurst property was valued at approximately $900,000, but details of the sale were confidential, said Rigo Chavez, district spokesman.

After the sale, all money in excess of the boardroom project will be set aside for additional renovations at the Uptown offices, Chavez said.



(Keep in mind please,
the need for the boardroom is yet to be justified.)