Tyler Goodman

Tyler Goodman 2 months ago on Steamboat police warn of suspicious pay-at-the-pump activity

Wow, filled up at the Ski Haus on Sunday and the bank called yesterday about fraudulent activity...now I know where they got my card from.

0

Tyler Goodman 5 months, 3 weeks ago on Coloradans ponder Amendment 69's ColoradoCare

Wow, this thing equates to another 10% in income taxes?! This is on top of the about 34% effective rate (EE and ER taxes) we pay already. So the average Joe gets to pay about 44% of their income to the government...no wonder the labor force participation rate and the U6 unemployment rate are still the worst they've its been in decades; there's no incentive to work! What about the people that don't earn any income; how with they pay their fair share of this new program?

What are we going to do when there's more people out of the labor force and collecting government benefits, than in the labor force paying for the government benefits? Oh yeah, I get to go work all day, only bring home half of my salary, meanwhile the other half is handed out like candy...good on ya America...way to go....

0

Tyler Goodman 9 months, 2 weeks ago on Jim Clark: Housing need 'critical'

So, you're ready to start forking it over at the cash register? It's the people that will pay for higher wages. Unless you're a Bernie Sanders fan and think money grows on trees, the money has to come from somewhere...

0

Tyler Goodman 9 months, 2 weeks ago on Jim Clark: Housing need 'critical'

So what you're saying is that you're willing to pay 20% to 40% more for the goods and services you consume locally? You're ok with raising local taxes to pay for the increased payroll costs for the city and the county? You're ok with buying a $6 gallon of milk at the grocery store?

0

Tyler Goodman 9 months, 2 weeks ago on Jim Clark: Housing need 'critical'

Scott, yes, from first hand experience, business that pay $15/hour (even sometimes up to $20/hour) are having difficultly finding the work force they need to fill year-round, full time positions; chiefly because of housing costs.

0

Tyler Goodman 1 year, 1 month ago on Tiana Buschmann: Proposal an investment

Scott, It's not often I agree with you but on this one we couldn't agree more. Just ran some more calculations using the 'Yes 2Schools' estimates which are pretty shady but for sake of argument they will say their estimates are correct so we'll use them for now.

If we split the difference of their interest rate estimate at 5% that comes to a total repayment cost of $161,346,851 on the bonds. Plus the maintenance and admin for 30years, which is about $94.2 MILLION.

In other words we’re looking at a total cost of $255.5 MILLION.

All to increase the capacity of the high school 55%. Which in it’s current location won’t reach capacity until when? Yes 2schools' projections show it at 92% capacity in 2019 using the high side of the estimate. Ignoring the fact that there are significant opportunities to add on and increase capacity in its current location at a fraction of the cost.

Then we have the middle school which they're proposing increase capacity by 65%. It’s only over capacity right now by 8% and they essentially project enrollment to be flat over the next several years giving a range of 97.3% to 99.4% of current enrollment. That’s actually a decrease! We apparently need another 65% capacity; how long is that going to take to fill?!

Last, but certainly not least, we have the elementary schools. Using the high side of 'Yes 2schools' estimates again we’ll be at 101.6% of capacity in 2019. $255.5 MILLION DOLLARS over the next 30 years to be right back in the same spot in 4 years?! Using the low side of their estimate we’re still at 88% of capacity in 4 years. (PS they need to redraw their little bar graph on their enrollment page so light purple crosses the red dotted line on top, because it's visually misleading…)

So let’s recap: we’re going to spend a GIGANTIC amount of money to fix problems we don’t have and not fix the problem we do have. This is senseless. We can definitely come up with a better plan to address what is needed at a fraction of the cost! Sure interest rates and costs may go up, but that’s using tomorrow’s dollars, which will inflate right alongside in comparison anyway. We would still save a whole boatload of money (pardon the pun) with a better plan.

Just thought folks would appreciate knowing these figures. Let’s kick this thing to the curb and go back to the drawing board.

TG

0

Tyler Goodman 1 year, 1 month ago on Latest Google poll shows support dropping for Steamboat school bond

So if we split the difference at 5% interest that comes to a total repayment cost of $161,346,851. Plus the maintenance and admin for 30years, which is about $94.2 MILLION.

In other words we’re looking at a total cost of $255.5 MILLION.

All to increase the capacity of the high school 55%. Which in it’s current location won’t reach capacity until when? You projections show it at 92% capacity in 2019 using the high side of the estimate. Negating the fact that there are significant opportunities to add on and increase capacity in its current location at a fraction of the cost.

Then we have the middle school which you’re proposing increase capacity by 65%. It’s only over capacity right now by 8% and you essentially project enrollment to be flat over the next several years giving a range of 97.3% to 99.4% of current enrollment. WAIT, that’s a decrease! We apparently need another 65% capacity; how long is that going to take to fill?!

Last, but certainly not least, we have the elementary schools. Using the high side of your estimates again we’ll be at 101.6% of capacity in 2019?! $255.5 MILLION DOLLARS over the next 30 years to be right back in the same spot in 4 years?! Using the low side of your estimate we’re still at 88% of capacity in 4 years! (PS you also might what to redraw you’re little bar graph thingy on your link so light purple crosses the red dotted line on top, that’s just visually misleading…)

So let’s recap: we’re going to spend a GIGANTIC amount of money to fix problems we don’t have and not fix the problem we do have. This is senseless. We can definitely come up with a better plan to address what is needed at a fraction of the cost! Sure interest rates and costs may go up, but that’s using tomorrow’s dollars, which will inflate right alongside in comparison anyway. We would still save a whole boatload of money (pardon the pun) with a better plan!

Let’s kick this thing to the curb and go back to the drawing board.

TG

0

Tyler Goodman 1 year, 1 month ago on Latest Google poll shows support dropping for Steamboat school bond

Scott, couple of questions:

  • How long is the bond repayment period?
  • What is the projected interest rate for the bonds?
  • How long will it take to fill the significant unused capacity increases this plan implements?

Also, would like to confirm that you're inferring the Steamboat Today's numbers are incorrect?

Thanks.

0

Tyler Goodman 1 year, 1 month ago on Latest Google poll shows support dropping for Steamboat school bond

This makes sense as voters are starting to see the impacts of this plan. Here's what property taxes for schools looks like if both referendums pass:

Per $100k of assessed value: $200 - $134 = $66, $66/$134 = 49.254% increase

No matter how you slice it $92 M is a lot of money and what it inflates to with interest isn’t pretty either: $128,055,106 (roughly, if I’m doing my math right: 240 payments (20years?) on a rate of .292% or 3.5% APR/12 to keep it simple) Does anyone know what current bond rates are for this type of thing? That figure is probably conservative at roughly 3.5%, the total is probably higher.

And don’t forget the ongoing maintenance and admin: $1.98m growing at 3% a year over 30 years = $94.2 M

Total 30 year straight-line estimate: $222.25 Million

The 'Yes 2Schools' folks will point out the mill levy override is static but that doesn't mean the cost of running the new high school and other elements won't grow over time sucking up additional tax dollars from somewhere.

This is a gigantic burden for a community our size. Let’s see if we can re-think it and come up with an option that makes sense so people can get on board with it. Most people agree our elementary schools are crowded but we can fix the problem and not have to spend this kind of cash.

I’ll be voting no and would encourage others to do so as well. We can go back to the drawing board and come up with a better solution to bring back to voters. I hardly think the additional time is going to lead to undue "suffering" as proponents claim, we're a resilient community and we can figure something out.

TG

PS. Here where I got the figures: http://www.steamboattoday.com/news/2015/jun/30/cost-and-details-mill-levy-override-run-new-steamb/

0

Tyler Goodman 1 year, 1 month ago on Mike Morris: Vote yes on 3A, 3B

Ok, so the plan hasn't compensated for inflation? All of the new people we're going to hire don't get any raises to at least keep up with said inflation? What happens in 10 years when upkeep is growing, it digs into the larger school district budget?

If this is true let me correct my statement, this is a really bad plan; we need to go back to the drawing board.

0

Prev