True Costs Of the MCSC School Levy

Message Rating: Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

Ms. Andrew, the original plan of the BOE was a project that would be a 
total amount of $118,000,000. How did 118 MM become 156 MM?

Most would call that scope creep on a project, but I will assume it will be called "higher construction costs over time" by the BOE.

Also,
 if the rule of thumb is correct, which is a levy generates about 3x 
actually construction costs, the true cost with interest over time, is 
nearly > $ 450,000,000.

Author	Message Rating: Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic
acclaro Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Prominent MUSA Citizen Joined: Jul 01 2009 Status: Offline Points: 1878	Post Options Post Reply Quote acclaro Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: Apr 21 2014 at 2:20pm
	Ms. Andrew, the original plan of the BOE was a project that would be a total amount of $118,000,000. How did 118 MM become 156 MM? Most would call that scope creep on a project, but I will assume it will be called "higher construction costs over time" by the BOE. Also, if the rule of thumb is correct, which is a levy generates about 3x actually construction costs, the true cost with interest over time, is nearly > $ 450,000,000.
	'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.' - Winston Churchill

Iron Man Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List MUSA Resident Joined: Sep 25 2013 Status: Offline Points: 112	Post Options Post Reply Quote Iron Man Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: Apr 21 2014 at 1:27pm


acclaro Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Prominent MUSA Citizen Joined: Jul 01 2009 Status: Offline Points: 1878	Post Options Post Reply Quote acclaro Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: Apr 21 2014 at 1:25pm
	chmoore1, the building PPT'S were put out on the website quite some time ago, I read every page. It was a high level, macro presentation that was countered by many architects and building (construction) project managers as being inflated and not offering an apple to apple comparison. I recall the feedback was akin to a math equation having the answer, and the presentation spent on a rudimentary justification. Fairly easy to formulate numbers giving desired effect. I believe "through" as used, would be an adverb, as it is used as a form of action. I would prefer "undertook", or initiated. But, my iPad misses the soft-keys so we won't worry about command of the English language. So sorry you had "guard duty" this weekend chm1, what a bummer over the holiday. I haven't reviewed Dean's numbers, but I believe they are low, but close. Phase 1 was about $60 MM, with 100 % of residential and businesses paying it, and Phase 2 is $55 MM, so in your head, easy to extrapolate the cost. BUT, it is not the figures your committee has been listing inaccurately. For a $59,000 house valuation, it would be $177.00 annualized. As opposed to taking out $1,486,486. MM annualized, over 37 years, with a sum of $55,000,000., imagine taxpayer how much cash would come into the economy locally without $1.48 MM per year spent on buildings having no impact upon learning. Lakota had an excellent weekend article associated with online instruction and effectiveness of teaching foreign languages online. Brick and mortar is a bad investment. Don't take out approximately $1.5 MM annually, from the local economy. for the next 37 years.
	'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.' - Winston Churchill

chmoore1 Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List MUSA Resident Joined: Jan 25 2012 Status: Offline Points: 230	Post Options Post Reply Quote chmoore1 Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: Apr 21 2014 at 11:38am
	Mrs. Andrew: as you know, all of the facilities' committee's information had been available on the MCSD's website. Perhaps Aflatkey/others would benefit by reading all of the pertinent information in those reports. I don't think it is currently available (on the site). Would you know how they could retrieve it? The information had the entire process that the committee went through. (Sorry Acclaro, for the sentence ending in a preposition). just 1chmoore.

Marcia Andrew Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List MUSA Citizen Joined: Jan 09 2010 Status: Offline Points: 365	Post Options Post Reply Quote Marcia Andrew Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: Apr 21 2014 at 10:35am
	Dean, I don't know Gene Saylor. I will assume from your comment that he was good at his job and you trusted him. George Long is MCSD's current business manager. Although he does split his time (and pay) between Middletown and Monroe, we did not bring him in from Monroe. His last position was as business manager/HR manager at Springboro School District, where he supervised a school construction project. He has overseen the efforts of the architects hired by MIddletown and the Ohio School Facilities Commission to estimate the costs of the various options for middle school/high school project. I am assuming that you did not participate in/attend any of the meetings of the Middletown Facilities Commission or its open forums in which they described the different alternatives and their respective costs and asked for community input. If you have questions, why not call him and ask to sit down and have him talk you through it, and answer your questions? As to Phase I, the business manager for most of that time period was Frank Chapman, and then Milt Thompson. Phase I project was completed on time, within budget, and employed a very large percentage of local contractors. I cannot comment on the accuracy of your estimates of the tax assessment for the combined bonds for both Phase I and Phase II, because I don't know the tax per $100,000 of the Phase I bond. The Phase I bonds are already in place and show up on everyone's tax bills each year, so they are no secret. I would just note that there are very very few houses in Middletown with a tax valuation of $300,000 or $400,000.

chmoore1 Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List MUSA Resident Joined: Jan 25 2012 Status: Offline Points: 230	Post Options Post Reply Quote chmoore1 Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: Apr 19 2014 at 5:01pm
	Dean: my calculator is old, but I think it still works. I assume you were saying that at $1,200 year, the cost would equal 10 high-priced Starbucks a day. $1,200/year divided by 365 equals $3.29 a day---perhaps one latte per day. just 1chmoore.

Dean Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List MUSA Resident Joined: Apr 15 2014 Status: Offline Points: 162	Post Options Post Reply Quote Dean Report Post Thanks(1) Quote Reply Posted: Apr 19 2014 at 1:56pm
	Ms. Andrew, I apologize for my dialatory response to your question regarding swimming pools and Oxford location. Although I did swim competitively in college, we would have been more likely to have bumped into one another when I swam in New Jersey as a Tiger on a pretty good P team, where one my fomer team members, about 10 years older, was Dave Voorhis, class of 69 I recall. Or, maybe when I was working out at the Highland Park Swim Club, but not at the Oxford Y. The odds were more favorable we would have passed each other in an Ephs lane, or Tiger, than a Y pool. I grew up in Lake Forest, right above Winnetka. Olson is a favorite Cincinnati 'W' guy, but no aqua-lunger. I thought we met at the Farmer School at a Board meeting, but it may have been someone from Fairfield's BOE. The butterfly was my stroke. To the levy. I would feel much better although I don't like the concept of rehiring, or bringing back retirees, if Gene Saylor put his stamp behind the Phase 2, and for that matter, Phase 1 numbers, than the folks brought in from Monroe, a district which broke away from Middletown at the same time Phase 1 was getting ready to be funded. I also do not like the funny numbers used to move this along. The backend use of a state match, without indicating what the taxpayer is truly paying. Here's what a collegue of mine ran: Phae 1 and Phae 2 combined, True Cost to Taxpayer Own a House Value COST TO PAYER 100,000 300. ANNUAL 125,000 375 ANNUAL 150,000 450 ANNUAL 175,000 525 ANNUAL 200,000 600. ANNUAL 250,000 750. ANNUAL 300,000 900 ANNUAL 350,000 1050 ANNUAL 400,000 1200. ANNUAL This is the cost daily of a cup of coffee.....if you are hitting Starbucks up for Quad caramel lattes about 10 times daily.