True Costs Of the MCSC School Levy

Ms. Andrew,

Dean,

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.

 
    

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.

   

156 MM x .26- 40.56 MM

156 MM - 41 MM- 115 MM

Same numbers. About a 7.5-8 mil cumulative levy (Phase 1, 2)

Glad you aren't on the votemiddies.com team chm1.

Guarding the truth : D Amortized pain---brilliant strategy.

processor, albeit accelerated or not, the cost would be as was indicated, or a close. Phase 1 was not matched, hence, we have principle costs, which now appears to be heavily front-end loaded (using the acceleration you refer), but I understand your point. But, if you look at LFI, the chasm/ variance, between Phase 1 and Phase 2 is negligible; about $ 5 Mm.

On the top end (300-400 KK property value), paying about a Wildwood membership annually, .4 % Brown's Run, and about 1.6 of membership at Forest Hills---annually.

ROI has to be there; pretty high numbers.

chm1;" Also, not "my committee."

Reference to votemiddies.com NOT your committee?

Levity, know you support the 'Starbucks' tax. Spirited debate, nothing personal.

Heck, I'd like to see the monthly fee per day broken into CPM   (Cost Per Minute).

.29 cents an hour.

.005 cents a minute.

In other words, lets squeeze that number where it vanishes.

chmoore, the school district website was re-designed last year. We are looking to re-post in one place all of the documents from the Facilities Committee.  In the meantime, one could go to the Board Docs page and search "master facilities" and a number of presentations to the board pop up.  However, this only goes back to I think 2010 when we started using the Board Docs software.  It won't show the process prior to that.

Several posters keep stating, as if it is a fact, that the middle school building is in the shape it is in because the district has supposedly not spent any money on maintenance and repair of the building since the last "major renovation" of the building 50+ years ago.  I asked our treasurer to pull information from the district's records as to amounts spent on repairs and maintenance at the middle school.  Over the last 7 years (the time period available on the financial system) the district has spent over $100,000 per year on average on maintenance and repairs of the middle school.  This does not include the time of salaried maintenance workers (before we outsourced maintenance to Sodexho 2 years ago) or the portion of the Sodexho contract attributable to the middle school (much routine maintenance or small repairs are done within the contractual payment to Sodexho).  This is during a time period when the district has been deferring major repairs or replacements on the middle school once the master plan anticipated that the building would be replaced as part of phase two.

Attention Voters....we have to take commercial break from one of our sponsors:

Valentine's Day Dinner

February 14th, 2014, 5:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.
Spagetti Dinner at Middletown Middle School
$8.00 - Adult Ticket
$4:00 - Child/Student Ticket
Stay for the Varsity Boys Basketball Game & Senior Night
Dinner provided by Sodexo

The voter should determine who puts $1.5 MM into the economy, not the BOE, nor its vendors.

Ms. Andrew; respectfully, you have made the case for the opposition, by stating very little maintenance was done after Phase 1, conveniently, teeing up Phase 2 replacement----"why bother with maintenance, we are getting a new car!"

Also, this project was visioned by a BOA that did not want new buildings. The Ohio Facilities Commission authorizes alterations for any capital expenditures weighing new build vs renovation of old, above 66% of outlay.

Movement to the east end is the driver, maintenance costs just along for the "ride."

When considering the numbers leaving the middle school years and returning, they are very nominal when considering the capital outlay.

The voters should vote this down in my opinion, and wait until MCSD sees improvement and in all probability, has a better state match than .26%, in my opinion.       

Vet, maintenance and repair includes preventive maintenance.  Repair is fixing something that has broken, maintenance is routine care and prevention, like oil and gas changes and tire alignments for your car. Both have been done.

Acclaro, I don't remember all of the details regarding the higher initial bond payments and I don't know where to go to get the details, but in concept it was like two different bond issues. The largest one for full term and the bulk of the cost. The second one for 5 years, or so, for a smaller portion of the total cost. Since the second bond issue was a much shorter term the payments were higher than they would have been with a longer term. This "second" short term bond issue will go away and the new bonds for phase two will be at the max term allowed thus not adding much to the millage and to the yearly cost for property owners.

Marcia Andrew wrote: Vet, maintenance and repair includes preventive maintenance.  Repair is fixing something that has broken, maintenance is routine care and prevention, like oil and gas changes and tire alignments for your car. Both have been done.

NOPE. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR DO NOT INCLUDE PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR HAPPEN AS A RESULT OF HAVING NO PM. (PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE) IF ONE WATCHES AND TENDS TO THE MACHINE (BUILDING IN THIS CASE) AS TIME GOES BY, PM IS DESIGNED TO LESSEN THE IMPACT AND COST OF MAJOR REPAIRS.

Ms. Andrew, I will use a very simple analogy so that you may understand the difference between routine maintenance/repair and PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE..

YOU AND I OWN HOMES. THE HOMES HAVE A LAWN. THE LAWN REQUIRES WATER, FERTILIZER, WEED AND INSECT CONTROL AND CORE AERATION TO STAY ALIVE AND FLOURISH DURING THE GROWING SEASON/SUMMER MONTHS.

IF YOU DO NOT SPEND THE MONEY ON A HIGHER WATER BILL IN SUMMER MONTHS, DO NOT INVEST IN SCOTTS HALTS FOR CRABGRASS, TURF BUILDER PLUS TWO FOR WEED CONTROL, SUMMERIZER FOR FERTILIZER AND INSECT CONTROL AND WINTERIZER FOR THE FALL, YOU MAY LOSE YOUR ENTIRE LAWN AND INVEST AN EVEN GREATER SUM OF MONEY RE-ESTABLISHING YOUR LAWN.

YOU MUST SPEND MONEY TO PROTECT YOUR INVESTMENT AND TO PREVENT AN EVEN BIGGER CATASTROPHY...IE- LOSING THE ENTIRE LAWN.....OR BUILDING.

SAME WITH VAIL. IF YOU DIDN'T SET UP, IN YOUR BUILDING BUDGET, A SUM OF MONEY TO TACKLE THE THINGS NECESSARY TO PREVENT SOMETHING MORE SERIOUS FROM HAPPENING TO THE BUILDING EACH YEAR OVER THE 50 YEARS WE ARE DISCUSSING, YOU INCURED LARGE REPAIR BILLS WHEN THE PROBLEMS CAME TO A POINT OF NO RETURN.

IT IS WHAT FACTORIES USE TO KEEP THEIR MACHINES ON LINE AND RUNNING TO MEET PRODUCTION SCHEDULES. BEATS THE HECK OUT OF A MACHINE SITTING IDLE FOR WEEKS/MONTHS WAITING FOR AN EXPENSIVE REPAIR BILL TO BRING IT BACK ON LINE.

AGAIN, WAS THERE A PM PROGRAM SET UP DURING THIS 50 YEAR PERIOD, KNOWING THE BUILDING WAS IN A SITUATION OF REQUIRING MORE ATTENTION AND WAS THERE A SPECIFIC FUND SET UP IN THE BUDGET FOR PM? IS THERE ONE NOW FOR ALL SCHOOL BUILDINGS OR IS THE PLAN JUST TO LET THEM FALL APART, TENDING TO THE MAINTENANCE ASPECT WHEN THE SITUATION BECOMES CRITICAL?...THEN ASK THE TAXPAYER TO BUY YOU A NEW BUILDING LIKE YOU'RE DOING NOW AND WITH THE ELEMENTARIES YEARS AGO?