Just one week ago, about 4000 voters in the Ludington Area School District (LASD) went to the polls and answered the $100 million dollar question on whether the school can go that much in debt to build a new primary school out in the northeast corner of the school forest and do major renovations of the secondary school. Five out of nine of those voters said 'yes', which means not only will that construction happen, but that four lower elementary schools located in the city limits will soon be vacant structures all through the year.

'Aggressive' marketing of those buildings will likely be about as successful as passive marketing would be, since any diligent private buyer will witness a poor community that acts as if it has all the money in the world, fairly easily passing a 'road patrol' millage worth $600,000 a year in last year' election and then throwing over a tenth of a billion to the LASD in a scheme that illustrates that cost is no option. Would you invest?

This article will further illustrate that the numbers just don't seem to add up when you compare a couple of scenarios. We borrow the first two scenarios from the last public meeting held to solicit ideas and questions from the public, and from the LASD Board of Education meeting where they decided between two all-new scenarios (the winner of which looked mostly familiar).

There was a strong impetus to consolidate Lakeview, Franklin and PM lower elementaries, and I can see the logic in doing so, I have wondered why it hadn't already been done. But there was also some reluctance to consolidate them with the only upper elementary (serving grades 3-5) at Foster School. Foster not only has some historical value, but it has been modified several times to serve the students that go there, and is a 'modern' facility that has been brought in compliance with the various codes and the ADA.

That's why I favored scenario D among those offered, even though it had a rather dramatic price which would be hard to justify if the goal was to contain costs. It came in at $96.6 million.

If you wonder whether a 'transpiration center' is a place where they allow plants to transpire, it's just bad editing by the architect who designed these scenarios; they meant 'transportation center'. You need only look two spaces to see scenario F with the very similar price tag of $96.8 million and the only difference between the two is that this one doesn't renovate Foster Elementary, it consolidates it with the lower elementary:

The difference is insignificant (0.2% separates the costs), so effectively the architect (GMB) and construction company (Christman) are telling us that remodeling Foster will cost the taxpayers of the LASD the same amount as consolidating it with the lower elementary. Hogwash.

Let's first take a look at the facility assessment for Foster Elementary, and always keep in mind that this is designed by GMB Architects, who got the contract handed to them by the school not following their own protocols for competitive bidding. There is absolutely no reason for them not to inflate costs. It's midway through this facility assessment prepared by them.

Summarizing the problems that need addressing at Foster: the first floor restroom near the gym needs a full makeover, first floor carpeting/classroom doors are in poor shape, front entry ramp's slope needs to be reduced, raised platform in the gym is not ADA compliant, suspended ceilings in classrooms are in poor condition and should be replaced, occupancy sensors need to be installed for lights for energy-savings, some of the outside stone fascia is in poor shape, the stairwell needs adjustment to comply with fire codes, a grease trap needs to be installed in the cafeteria's sink.

There really isn't a lot more other than wanting to put in a central air conditioner and a couple of other totally optional add-ons. Needless to say, from what I've seen, on the exterior of the school and through classroom windows after hours, the other work with soffits, ceilings, carpeting and other cosmetic repairs look unnecessary from what I've seen.

Likewise, they are totally incorrect that the entrance ramp is not compliant with ADA. Ramps are recommended to rise one foot every twelve feet covered according to the ADA. I have personally checked the Foster entry ramp and it is well under that slope. The savings for doing something that doesn't need to be done: $78,000, as found in their facility plan assessment figures.

GMB Architect invented this ramp job so let's look at their other prices. A grease trap for a good sized sink appears to have about a median cost in the $300 range. It's not rocket science to install, this experienced plumber does it in a few minutes in this video:

So let's liberally say it costs $300 for parts and $300 for labor (average rates for plumbers is around a $100 per hour, so that's presuming they take their time), or $600. GMB believes it costs over ten times that amount:

Are you beginning to see why there is no cost containment in these proposals? The architects of GMB saw something that was inefficient with the serving line at Foster, but they don't really elaborate on what the problem is. What is the cost of having a more efficient line? Nearly a half million dollars:

They also plan on reconfiguring the outdoors, whatever that means, for a cost of just under $300,000--- not to be confused with all new playground equipment: $350,000.

One last one, because I could do this all day. They want to replace the roof. Now this is something I couldn't check directly to see whether it actually needed to be replaced. From the looks of what I can see of it, the roof looks as if it was done ten years ago, but regardless, they say it is a priority one project and attach a sizable figure to it: $860,000.

A basically flat roof costing $16 per square foot to replace?! The going rate in the area is around $3, and that's for roofing with a bit more character and hazard than Foster's. And you may say it's for the kids, so we need to adjust a ramp that doesn't need it for $78,000, we need to install a grease trap for over ten times than what the job's worth. We need to replace perfectly good roofing at over five times the going rate, and make those serving lines better for a half million.

Madness. This may be how the two scenarios come out similar, because the architect created and inflated what he needed to price Scenario D out as a workable option. For if expanding the new school to accommodate approximately double the kids they would otherwise need to by including 3-5 graders, it would seem like they would nearly have to double the costs of the new building. Not to mention the added costs that will be needed to make the two nearby roads able to handle the traffic issues of a thousand kids and school staff rather than just 500 closing in on that area twice each weekday.

This is the problem when you use one architect to assess your schools who is practically guaranteed the job by the way the school handled things. The absurd becomes even less plausible when you look at the inevitably scenario chosen, scenario J:

Scenario J differs from scenario F in that each building would have a single secure point of entry in all buildings. They had this as part of what they would be doing in the renovation of Foster School, and adding controls that could lock down front and back doors, but somehow, now that they are going down to two separate schools, one brand new, it costs nearly $4 million more just to do that.

Have fun paying those extra taxes to do whatever the contractors (none within 100 miles of Ludington) want to do with your schools, you'll be happy to learn they have reserved enough to tear down all the other schools they are replacing, including perfectly functional Foster Elementary.  

Views: 433

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Excellent analysis X. Again, Ludington aliens have convinced the mindless voters to turn their pockets inside out and let the money fall out. How many ways can stupid be expressed before people understand they are being taken for a ride down the pit of debt. $101 million dollars piled on all of the other over the top spending. 

I bet Superintendent Kennedy is kicking himself in the ass for not asking for the gold plated pork barrel of replacing ALL the schools with the recent bond vote.  He should have known not to underestimate the ignorance of the local electorate when these same schools are responsible for educating them on how to be ''feel good voters''. Too bad the voters poor comprehension skills are matched only by their lack of understanding economic fundamentals. I bet the local used car salesmen also appreciate the effort.

And the Board of Directors of West Shore Bank should also feel ashamed. Ashamed for leaving hundred of thousands of additional dollars that could have been pilfered from local taxpayers by requesting a highest amount of bond funding. 

Maybe they should request a do-over vote and get it right this time.

It would still pass, probably by an even larger majority.

A generation will be paying for this Rolls Royce grade school campus. And when their rents and taxes increase faster than their minimum wage pay, there will be a great howl and a wailing and gnashing of teeth.  

Funny post shinblind. Don't give the school or bank any ideas. They just might want a mulligan.

I've recently heard a tidbit from somebody who should be in the know, that Harsco Rails, the large manufacturing firm that decided in January to move its operations out of the Ludington area after being here for nearly 100 years in some form, figured this millage would pass-- which led them to more strongly consider moving.

It wasn't a bad bet, Harsco's bean counters undoubtedly seen the previous August's vote where the voters of Mason County, by a 24% margin, added on an additional (and superfluous) road patrol unit for every shift, upping the tax rolls by about $600,000 per year.  Seeing a new wave of new taxes coming this May, it became a bit easier decision to move south.  Recall, this was a company touting itself, its local heritage, and it's link to the local community as late as June 2017.

Harsco's leaving is significant. If many of it's employees leave the area with their families the population of Ludington will fall below the 8,000 mark. A number not seen for over a hundred years. Ludingtons growth has been mostly negative since 1960. Even knowing this the school system went ahead with it's foolish tax increase and lavish spending plan. Who knows what other companies related to Harsco may be affected which may spur more lay offs. Other companies may decide that Ludington is not favorable to operate in or to relocate here because of the ever growing tax burden.

I just wonder how many of the LASD board members are from Lud. originally. We already know Sup. Kennedy is an outsider, and bet there is alot more, including many teachers. Nice graph Willy, shows why we have been stagnant and losing for many years.

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service