Where is the county going with its 2020 plan?

The Boone County Journal in the editorial on December 12, 2008 stated that --

“If 100 people outside the county courthouse were
asked how the building would be expanded to provide
more space, we doubt if anyone could state with accuracy
what will occur.”

Well I think we should make certain a few of us understand the county’s plan.  Whether the plan is good or bad , I am indifferent.  I just want to do what the county administration and elected officials don’t have time to do—explain what their plan is. First of all—they call their building program the 2020 Plan.

I am using the documents supplied to me by Mr. Terrinoni when I asked my representatives about the 2020 Plan.  The latest update was in November 2008.

 

We need to understand what exactly is being built, remodeled and purchased.  There are three major items on the 2020 plan:  (a) purchase of approximately 5 acres next to the Logan Ave Building,  (b)  adding 12,100 square feet and remodeling 4000 square of office space at the Logan Ave Building  and  (c)  remodeling the Courthouse for the circuit clerk, courts and probation. A thumbnail of the August 5, 2008 Space Plan is below. Please note the financing plans in item #5 changed and $4,995,000 was provided by bonds.

Click on it for a larger view.

 

Below is the Design Development Cost Estimates for the 2020 Plan.  Going first for the totals.  $5,203,954 is the projected cost of the land purchase ($850,000), building construction costs ($3,985,046), profession fees ($298,909), building permits ($30,000) and furnishing allowance ($40,000). The profession fees are actually $51,203 higher because of previously paid architectural fees.   There is a “Probation Additive Alternate”  for $576,184 however that appears not be being pursued at this time.

It is difficult from the figures supplied to exactly split the cost at the Logan Ave facilities from the courthouse complex.  Logan Ave probably will receive the bulk of the landscaping, site work and site lighting which total  $352,480. The cost of the new space construction  at Logan is $ $2,204,179 ($182 per square foot) and remodeled space $328,545 ($82 per square foot).   Based upon construction costs and square footage 80% of the professional fees($239,000)  appear to be due to Logan.  Adding these figures to the $850,000 land cost, the total for Logan is just under $4 million ($3,974,204). From the figures supplied, 16,100 square foot of additional space will be provided.  Thus the square footage cost for this space is $3,974,204/16100 or $246.85 per square foot.  Granted the land maybe large enough for future expansion, nonetheless the figure appear very high to me; especially since 4000 square feet of the 16100 square foot project is remodeling.

With the exception of the County Board’s current conference room which is already used as a court room, nearly all of the old administrative offices have some cost associated with the court’s reuse of the facilities.  An additional 16,654 square feet will be used for court related activities.  There are no cost associated with 2331 square feet, $5 per square foot cost on 5499 square feet ($27,495), $80 per square foot cost on remodeling 624 square feet of the entrance ($49,920),$80 square foot cost relocation for law library ($33,760), $68.34 per square foot cost on converting 4,818 square feet in the old Treasurer’s and County Clerk’s offices to the Circuit Clerk’s Office($329,479), finally a courtroom/Jury and Judge’s chambers construction, $148 per square foot for 2960 square feet($439,188).   I have estimated that 20% of the professional fees ($59,909) for the courthouse complex.  The total building cost for the courthouse is estimated at $940,000, (actual figure is $939,751).  The square footage cost of additional court space is $936,751/16,654, $56.43 per square foot.

Costs which I was unable to allocate to either building were $100,000 in shelving , $120,000 in contingent heating , $30,000 in permits (total: $250,000).  Plus a $40,000 furnishing allowance.

 

Here are some additional handouts regarding the County’s big construction project.  The first is the sequence of the events that will be occurring:

Next are some of the cash flow projections for repaying the bonds:

If we have questions, I think we ought to gather them together and ask that the county board provide us a formal response.  If you have a question use either the comment section of the blog or email me at:  boonecountywatchdog@gmail.com. 

Uncapped taxes on your bill--Is Rock Valley's 7.6% increase too much?

Talked today with Sam Overton, Rock Valley College, Chief Financial Officer. The following is a synopsis of the major items discussed and my personal analysis of Rock Valley's levy request. The numbers are derived from fact sheets from Mr. Overton sent via email.

1. Rock Valley is not subject to tax caps because the college has taxpayers within Ogle County and that county is not subject to tax caps.

2. As far as taxes, the administration's long term goal is to keep a constant tax rate for Rock Valley College. That is, the combination of (a) the corporate and special purpose property tax for Rock Valley and (b) its debt service and public building commission taxes, should not change. A rate of .4500/100 is the goal.

3. The projected combined rate for 2008 tax year (amount paid in 2009) will rise from .4421/100 to .4534/100 (2.6% increase). There is a projected (best guess estimate) of a 5% increase in the valuations of housing. Thus a 7.6% increase in an individual homeowner’s taxes is anticipated. For a house evaluated at $100,000 in 2007 the rate increase and assessment valuation increase would mean that taxes to Rock Valley College would climb from $147.37 to $158.68, an $11.31 increase.

4. I have attempted to review Rock Valley’s combined rate over time and compare it with the college’s goal in item #2—combined rate shall be held constant.

------------2002-----2003-----2004-----2005-----2006----2007------2008-----Averages
Rate/100--0.4351---0.4528---0.453----0.4471---0.466---0.4421----0.4534---0.449929
% Increase----------.07%----.05%-----(1.3%)---4.23%---(5.13%)---2.56%-------0.74%


Here is what I found out. Only in two years were there actual decreases in rate (2005 and 2007).The average combined rate is .4500/100. The 2008 rate of .4534/100 is less than 1 per cent different from the average rate.


5. Taxes are collected in multiple counties all with different payment dates. The college is on July 1 fiscal year and thereby a single year’s tax revenues are recorded in two fiscal years. It appears that the college budgets for a revenue stream from taxes at the .4500/100 rate.

A buildup of the combined rate—the multiple tax rates for various funds—is shown on one of Mr.Overton’s attachments. I am attempting to view the individual rates to see which increased the most. Thus far of the .0382/100 increase, most of it is in the Protection, Health & Safety tax-- this increased from .0377 to .0491, a 30.24% increase or a .0114/100 increase. The Protection, Health & Safety appear to vary a great deal from year to year. Debt Service levies increased from .0924 to .0955 or .0031/100 of the increase. Thus far I have accounted for 38% of the rate increase.

PSB--Bob's take on the vote.

I was surprised that the PSB Sales Tax was voted down by such a big margin. A considerable effort was made to explain to voters what items would not be covered and it would end after 20 years or sooner if the County Board voted to discontinue it. Certainly the economy is lousy and spending by governments at all levels (federal, state, county, city, schools etc). This leaves voter afraid on any tax increases. What purchased items would or would not be taxed was not consistently reported by newspapers etc. When they are not sure of all the facts, most people will vote no. The job market is very tight and little overtime is being paid so net wages are lower so tax increases are a burden most families cannot afford.
Bob Giovanoni

PSB: TG is not scared to talk, how about someone else?

TG said...

I can say that there were quite a few factors.
1. The economy stinks. If you're worried about keeping your job do you really want to pay a higher tax on something?
2. The community is burned out on referendums asking for more taxes.
3. Is there really a need Hard to say whether this was a need or want. Lots of space is open and will continue to open in the basement of the courthouse. Why not use that?

PSB Revisited

Do we have anyone out there who wants to talk about why the PSB Referendum failed? What do you think our city and county politicians need to know? Please send me your comments and thoughts at above email.