Any comments Ms. Andrew?

Posts related to the "All's Quiet on the Western Front topic....

"Reminds me of the fleecing of the voters by MCSD & Price on the Rosedale / Miller Ridge boondoggle"

and.....


"Also, for those that paid no attention- it was indicated the deal the MCSD got in 2001 was not a good deal with the state matching contribution. How convenient they let you know they get a better rate now because of declining property values, AFTER the election passes by about 12 votes. Always seems the city and BOE gas secrets revealed after the fact, with the Journal's assistance."

Since you and your levy supporters are so adamant in defending your levy stance, what is your explanation for these statements?

I'm guessing we can file this in the "No Response" category, now that you have gotten what you want. Surprise us Ms. Andrew by providing an answer.

Or, do you wish to operate like the city building and hide agenda items from the people?    
   

Ms. Andrew, thank you for the reply. I didn't think you would bother with a response. In your typical way, you demonstrate a degree of testiness and a defensive posture in your response. I merely asked for your opinion and didn't realize it would border on tirade status. Your passion for defending your board position and your supporter friends is as strong as my resistance to your gameplan. The money outlay, time and time again, with no positive outcome and any additional taxes absorbed by the taxpayer for any reason are a concern on my part. It is not how much money we saved by going one way or the other as you have explained. It is the fact that ANY money is being spent on an additional "new school" theme that has yet to be proven as a sound idea since the new elementaries were built. How many more new schools do we have to build before any of the pro-levy/school supporter people realize it isn't the answer to the school's stagnated performance? Why would you make mistake number 2 (new middle school/high school additions) when you have seen the lackluster results from mistake number 1 (new elementaries)? Not logical.

The two posters that were quoted might not agree that their posts are "making no sense".....but we move on.

your last line...

"This is a good development. This will lower the tax imposed on property owners to pay for the school construction, by about 20%."

It isn't a "good development" to those who can't afford any new tax regardless of the 20% decrease. ANY amount may harm those on a fixed income with the population ever increasing in the fixed income category. This city has many seniors that match that criteria. Wonder how they feel about your tax increase?

MS. ANDREW, MY ISSUE, REGARDING YOUR LEVY'S PASSAGE INVOLVES SEEING SOME INDICATION THAT THE MONEY YOU ARE TAKING FROM OUR WALLETS IS DOING ANY GOOD. YOU HAVE BUILT THE NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS AND THEY HAVE MADE A MINIMAL IMPACT IN THE OVERALL PRODUCTIVITY AND UPWARD PERFORMANCE WE ARE LOOKING FOR. IMO, NOT WORTH THE MONEY SPENT. I SUSPECT THIS NEW MIDDLE SCHOOL AND THE ADDITIONS TO THE HIGH SCHOOL WILL YIELD THE SAME RESULTS. TIME WILL TELL AND ONE CAN ALMOST PREDICT THE OUTCOME BASED ON DECADES OF RELATIVE STAGNATION. JUST FLAT OUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE MONEY EXPENDED AND THAT MAKES IT A POOR INVESTMENT. IN THAT RESPECT, IT IS NOT A "GOOD DEVELOPMENT". I'D LIKE TO SEE SOME INDICATION THAT THERE IS SOME UPWARD MOBILITY IN THIS SCHOOL DISTRICT, RATHER THAN HEARING THE REPETITIVE THEME OF "JUST GIVE US ONE MORE LEVY APPROVAL AND WE'LL DO BETTER" NONSENSE. YOU GET THE TAJ MAHALS AND THE LATEST TECHNOLOGY, AND, INCREDIBLY, BECAUSE OF NAIVE VOTERS, GET WHAT YOU WANT AND THE REST OF US GET MEDIOCRITY AND MORE OF THE SAME OLD STORY. IT IS INCREDIBLE THAT THE MAJORITY DON'T RECOGNIZE THE SITUATION AND IN RESPONSE, DENY THE SCHOOL'S REQUEST FOR MORE MONEY. HOPEFULLY, THE CITY VOTERS WILL WAKE UP AND REALIZE THE REALITY OF WHAT THE SCHOOLS ARE PRODUCING NOWADAYS AND COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT JUST ISN'T WORTH A YES VOTE. THROWING MORE MONEY AT THIS DISTRICT IS NOT HELPING THE OUTCOME.

WE CONTINUE TO SEE THIS DISTRICT IN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SCENARIOS. I HAVE NO IDEA WHY ANYONE WOULD SPONSOR THIS GAMEPLAN.

Vet,
Ms. Andrew answered your question very factually and in a straight forward manner. All has been very above board and the BOE has done a good job minimizing the cost to the taxpayers.

Your disagreement about the need for new school buildings is a separate issue. I'm sure she understands that you think the district needs to "Earn" the new buildings through improved performance. However, it is up to ALL the voters and they approved the bond levy.

I'm glad that the BOE is continuing to seek ways to reduce the cost of the new buildings and to reduce our tax burden. I'm sure it would have been a lot less work for the BOE to just let the current agreement play out. I thank them for their continued work to improve our schools and to minimize the cost.

Acclaro,
I agree that the signage was in violation and once it was brought to the BOE's attention (they did not control the campaign) they probably could have taken more action.

I don't understand your second point.

Reading Vet's post he was inquiring how and why there MAY be a reduction in the required bond levy amount. Ms. Andrew answered his question and then Vet responded with his points regarding MCSD not "earning" the buildings. Anyone who has paid attention knows Vet's position regarding "earning" the buildings. This is well trod ground and won't change the outcome of the vote.

Acclaro,
I'm not sure that your statement that the funding % would have gone up is accurate. My understanding is that MCSD had entered a contract with the state such that the state would pay 26% of the total cost provided MCSD would pay the balance. Many years after this contract was signed, the tax laws changed and using the original state formula based on the reduced property valuation the state would pay a much higher %. Our representative trying to get MCSD's agreement changed through legislative action but was unsuccessful. The choice that MCSD faced was either proceed with the current contract or don't proceed and lose the state's funding. If they didn't proceed then it was a crap shoot regarding any additional funding. They chose to take the sure thing and get the state funding. There are many districts around the state wanting the same money and there was no guarantees that MCSD would get the funding.

After the levy vote the facilities commission offered a plan "B" which, in effect, does somewhat what you suggest (but only on the new portion of the project.) It cancels the original agreement and offers a much higher reimbursement, but JUST on the balance of the project...not on the elementary schools. This is still not a sure thing, just a likely thing.

I don't see where the BOE mislead anyone...it's just some things have changed and the BOE is taking advantage of it.

Maybe Ms. Andrew can weigh in again and confirm or correct my statements.

I will try to respond to a couple of points.

As a point of clarity, although moot, and not desiring to further a debate on outcomes which may have occurred, I had contact a few weeks before the levy with the chief financial officer within OSFC in regards to the future calculation and predictability of MCSD receiving a higher % state match in the event the levy failed. Further, the question centered upon the time-frame such match would be made available.

From such discussion, using financial projection modeling forecasts, it was stated the expectation on the subsequent schools, MCSD would receive approximately 40%-45% state match, and typically, when a district levy fails, is placed in a separate category and has availability of new funding via OSFC school match, in about 3-5 years. This came directly from a senior OSFC member. One might argue the cost for capital would increase over 3-5 years associated with inflation, and other factors, but 9 out 10 typically would agree, 40-45% state match, is higher than 26%.

It is indisputable the state match through OSFC  is based upon tax valuation; that is, if a district is poorer compared to a richer district, and all districts are stack ranked accordingly, the % contribution/ match by OSFC is inversely proportional, lower tax base- higher state match.

My statement is justification for my belief in May, it was better to await a better future match, that had no material detriment to the district, by failing the levy on the contribution of OSFC at that time. It passed, and its history.

Vet--Yes, the property owners will have to pay less than originally thought at the time of the vote on the bond levy.  As I stated, if the OSFC commission members approve what their staff are recommending to us, Middletown will have to borrow bonds in the amount of $45 million, not $55 million as originally planned.  That will reduce the millage from approximately 4.0 mils to 3.2 mils. (Again, that is not the official word of the auditor. That is my math that 45 is 82% of 55; 3.2 is 82% of 4.0.)  The property tax increase has not been calculated yet, because it does not go into force until the January 2015 tax bills.  We hope that we will be able to have the OSFC vote on the new percentage in time for the January bills to reflect the lower bond amount.

Thank you Spiderjohn.  Believe it or not, the board has been (and will continue to be) focused on improving academics.

I understand the teacher's union informed the MCSD teachers yesterday that they cannot expect much in the way of more money in the new contract being offered to them because the school district is broke due to mismanagement of money by the board and the treasurer.