I appreciate Marilyn Pearse’s desire to bring gigabit broadband to Baldwin City. However, the taxpayer investments involved and equipment required would be cost prohibitive for such a modest community as Baldwin City. There are, in fact, other cities that have completed these networks so it can be accomplished. (And I have mentioned this “service” in my own list below.) But the timing for this investment is inappropriate given the current economic situation and high level of taxation now.
(The shell-shock of Baldwin City taxpayers next year when they discover the hidden costs of the school district iPad program is going to hinder any broadband project in the immediate term.)
As a one (major) issue candidate, I would find it difficult to support Ms. Pearse. I cannot learn much about the other issues she supports or promotes.
As quoted above, “There is no single issue motivating her current run for mayor, nor does she have any big disagreements with the job Mayor Ken Wagner, who chose not to seek another term, and the Baldwin City Council has done the past four years”, Pearse said.
There are 3 candidates for mayor on Tuesday, April 2, 2013 – Bonnie Plumburg, Marilyn Pearse and Jason Mock.
While Ms. Plumberg has served on the city council this past term, I will not support her for mayor. A mayor has the responsibility for running a city, including managing employees, wisely dispensing taxpayer’s money and providing a living environment that meets the “service” needs of the population.
In Ms. Plumberg’s personal life, I am told, she has encountered not one, but two financial mismanagement episodes. It is apparent from this track record that Baldwin City taxpayers should not gamble on someone who has not managed their own financial matters responsibly.
I do not find Ms. Plumberg’s issues to be compelling. It is the responsibility of city government to provide for the necessary “services” in town to make their lifestyle safe, healthy and easy to maintain. It is not for the city to continually raise taxes to pay for a city manager’s and city government’s pet projects.
Baldwin City developed a business park in the 1970s at a cost of $50,000 that produced no large scale employment. The high risk of a second attempt by the city now is the uncertainties of (for the next 4 or 5 years) and intense competition from closer cities to the BNSF Intermodal currently under construction. What does Baldwin City have to offer that 40 million square feet of new warehouse and office space in Edgerton fails to provide?
As quoted from above, “If you are happy with the status quo or how things have been done the past four years, then you should vote for me. The truth is, many Baldwin taxpayers are not happy with the status quo.
With the election coming upon us this next Tuesday, I felt compelled to offer my analysis and comments on the candidates. No newspaper article can offer the in depth “pulse of the city” adequately enough for the voters to make solid voting decisions. I would not present my opinions as the final authority on any candidate or issue in this election, however, I hear from many people in town and I feel I can judge the general atmosphere of the political wind in Baldwin City with some accuracy.
While I am not presenting myself as the sole authority on Baldwin City, I have spent many decades in town and my family goes back 3 generations to the early 1900s.
Needless to say, almost all of my contacts and communications with voters and taxpayers in town have shown that there is a lot of genuine anger and angst at both the school district and the city government.
I have not met, nor do I personally I know any of the mayoral candidates. I do know a considerable amount of information about them; enough to form intelligent opinions as to their suitability to serve as the mayor of Baldwin City. I present my mayoral choices and opinions based on the candidate’s personal history, business experience and reputation in the political arena.
Many people have asked that I run for mayor and I appreciate those comments, however, as with myself, some people have schedules and travels that don’t mesh well with a mayor’s obligations to the taxpayers and voters. That does not mean that as a taxpayer and voter that I do not have the right to voice my opinions, concerns and approvals on the spending of all taxpayer’s monies or the direction that Baldwin City is taking.
I'm not sure why you feel that is an uncomfortable question, GreyGhost. I would suggest it is a serious question that taxpayers demand the superintendent and school board answer.
"IF" the software was developed by a school employee who's salary was paid for by taxpayers, then the software is the legal property of the school district. If the software was developed and utilized by the Baldwin City school district prior to offering it to other school districts, then this fact clearly shows it belongs to Baldwin City taxpayers.
The superintendent has no right to "give away" school property, then sign a contract to buy back the use of said property. So taxpayers paid to have the software developed, the superintendent gave it away for free, then signed a contract whereby taxpayers will pay all over again for using the software (that they owned) after the 2013-2014 school year.
Refective Group is receiving software that they paid nothing to develop and can now sell the software to school districts all over the USA and earn a profit off Baldwin City taxpayers.
At the very minimum, Reflective Group should be required to purchased the software from Baldwin City taxpayers.
Is this a surprise? After all the old elementary school and high school property was appraised at $1.2 million by Douglas County and $800,000 by an independent appraiser. The elementary school encompassed 2/3 of the total property and thus around $550,000 to $800,000 in value. So the superintendent and school board gave the property away for $200,000.
Or how about the $25,000 in playground equipment the superintendent gave away to a local church at no cost. Had he dipped into the school district bank account and gave away $25,000, he would be in jail. Somehow playground equipment is different?
If you think that this is the last straw for this superintendent, just wait until next year and they spring all the undisclosed costs that will come about involving the Apple iPad project. The superintendent and school board are either hiding these future costs or they are incredibly uninformed about the equipment and operating costs that will be required.
The sequester is a 2% reduction in projected "future growth" of the federal budget. It is not a "cut of funds" involving current spending. It is meaningless, unless you're a partisan.
"As the discussion continued at a special meeting Monday, the board learned that the district architect has offered to produce a remodeling plan for the old Baldwin Junior High School auditorium at no cost to the district........"
Quite dishonest how last year at this time, Doug Loveland of DLR Group, volunteered to perform all the design work for this project at "no cost". No matter how you twist the semantics, " $96,000 in design fees" seems to have just been a bunch of bull crap looking back now.
"Doug Loveland, architect with DLR Group, said his early plans showed the project coming in at $717,000. That included $96,000 in “soft fees,” such as DLR’s design fees — which were approved Monday — and permit fees. "(from above)
If you read my comments in the Signal last year, I predicted that DLR Group would in fact attempt to collect a construction manager or design fee hidden on the back end. I said they were lying then.
They didn't even attempt to hide the design fee, so maybe Mr. Loveland and the School Board just think the taxpayers are forgetful buffoons who wouldn't remember.
Also, last year the School Board members admitted they had been inundated with negative telephone calls regarding this project. The calls wanted the $600,000 used exclusively to pay down the bond issue and reduce the mill levy. Perhaps they developed sudden deafness or disdain for the taxpayers.
Needless to say, this School Board is as bad as the previous one. They were voted in to control (and remove) our foolish superintendent and now it appears they are hypnotized by him.
Kudos to the city crews for another excellent job clearing the streets very early in the morning and throughout the day. It doesn't go unnoticed and is very appreciated.
I would venture to say Baldwin City does a better job than any surrounding town or even KDOT (as Highway 56 always lags in plowing and sand even with supplies now located at the Junction).
And yes, Mr. Mayor, the surrounding areas of the train depot are embarrassing. They have been for 40 years. While the city's previous method of communicating with the owners may incur criticism, the facts are there for all to see.
I hope an incentive for the business owners to clean up will be the publics general acknowledgment that the area is junky and rundown.
Acknowledging the problem is foremost and a partnership or offer of assistance in helping clean up the area is a good plan of action.
Elvyn, while your articles are appreciated, the city council dealt with other issues at their meeting that are equally or more important to the voters and taxpayers.
An agenda was missing from the newspaper this week, and even when one is posted, there is no follow-up article to report on the meetings or issues discussed.
While the Depot is newsworthy and important, the newspaper is the sole source of public checks and balances for Baldwin City citizens.
We want reporting that includes all pertinent information concerning the city government and the school board.
Thank you.
And Ms. Greyghost. While I was not so in favor of the financial assistance to the Kansas Belle, I tend to feel now that the criticism of these guys is not what Baldwin is about. They incurred a huge cost to come here and assumed a great risk. As a start-up business essentially, I personally feel they are doing what they can under their business cycle. Given time, I think we all hope they succeed. Respectfully stated.
It's bad enough that in a severe economic downturn that the school district would flaunt $25,000 on an experiment, but they still seem to be living in an hallucination to consider spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayers dollars as our neighbors and citizens are losing their homes or moving away because of high property taxes.
Based on this news story, here's what's wrong with this picture and shows why this "experiment" is flawed.
The cost for 400 iPads is $225,000 for a basic model. Consider the fact that within 12 months the current iPad technology will already be antiquated. So by 2014 the school district will be stuck with 400 old iPads.
Not all textbooks are offered now as eBooks, so hard cover textbooks will still have to be purchased unless a teacher wants to choose between a great hard cover text book versus a substandard eBook textbook. Many publishers prefer to offer their best textbooks in hard cover still because they make a higher profit.
Managing 400 iPads and eBooks for students involves a dedicated tech person to manage the servers, wireless network equipment and iPad maintenance issues. This person must be Apple / Mac and network trained.
The additional costs of wireless and server hardware is easily $50,000 to serve 400 students.
Just because the small experiment sampled only a few iPads, ramp that up to 400 iPads and it is inevitable that you will have breakage, lost, stolen and wear-and-tear issues.
What about the "legacy material" left on the iPads when student turns their equipment in and it is issued to a new student. You can be assured that personal pictures, emails, browser histories, passwords would all need to be permanently deleted - not an easy task in the iOS system.
It's obvious that these and other issues haven't been considered by the school district. It is not as simple as just writing a check for 400 iPads. The infrastructure and management of something is much more involved and costly.
And taxpayers shouldn't be expected to shoulder another school district boondoggle. These are thing that families and parents buy for their own children.
Baldwin City mayoral race draws three current or former council members
I appreciate Marilyn Pearse’s desire to bring gigabit broadband to Baldwin City. However, the taxpayer investments involved and equipment required would be cost prohibitive for such a modest community as Baldwin City. There are, in fact, other cities that have completed these networks so it can be accomplished. (And I have mentioned this “service” in my own list below.) But the timing for this investment is inappropriate given the current economic situation and high level of taxation now.
(The shell-shock of Baldwin City taxpayers next year when they discover the hidden costs of the school district iPad program is going to hinder any broadband project in the immediate term.)
As a one (major) issue candidate, I would find it difficult to support Ms. Pearse. I cannot learn much about the other issues she supports or promotes.
As quoted above, “There is no single issue motivating her current run for mayor, nor does she have any big disagreements with the job Mayor Ken Wagner, who chose not to seek another term, and the Baldwin City Council has done the past four years”, Pearse said.
March 29, 2013 at 4:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Baldwin City mayoral race draws three current or former council members
There are 3 candidates for mayor on Tuesday, April 2, 2013 – Bonnie Plumburg, Marilyn Pearse and Jason Mock.
While Ms. Plumberg has served on the city council this past term, I will not support her for mayor. A mayor has the responsibility for running a city, including managing employees, wisely dispensing taxpayer’s money and providing a living environment that meets the “service” needs of the population.
In Ms. Plumberg’s personal life, I am told, she has encountered not one, but two financial mismanagement episodes. It is apparent from this track record that Baldwin City taxpayers should not gamble on someone who has not managed their own financial matters responsibly.
I do not find Ms. Plumberg’s issues to be compelling. It is the responsibility of city government to provide for the necessary “services” in town to make their lifestyle safe, healthy and easy to maintain. It is not for the city to continually raise taxes to pay for a city manager’s and city government’s pet projects.
Baldwin City developed a business park in the 1970s at a cost of $50,000 that produced no large scale employment. The high risk of a second attempt by the city now is the uncertainties of (for the next 4 or 5 years) and intense competition from closer cities to the BNSF Intermodal currently under construction. What does Baldwin City have to offer that 40 million square feet of new warehouse and office space in Edgerton fails to provide?
As quoted from above, “If you are happy with the status quo or how things have been done the past four years, then you should vote for me. The truth is, many Baldwin taxpayers are not happy with the status quo.
March 29, 2013 at 4:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Baldwin City mayoral race draws three current or former council members
With the election coming upon us this next Tuesday, I felt compelled to offer my analysis and comments on the candidates. No newspaper article can offer the in depth “pulse of the city” adequately enough for the voters to make solid voting decisions. I would not present my opinions as the final authority on any candidate or issue in this election, however, I hear from many people in town and I feel I can judge the general atmosphere of the political wind in Baldwin City with some accuracy.
While I am not presenting myself as the sole authority on Baldwin City, I have spent many decades in town and my family goes back 3 generations to the early 1900s.
Needless to say, almost all of my contacts and communications with voters and taxpayers in town have shown that there is a lot of genuine anger and angst at both the school district and the city government.
I have not met, nor do I personally I know any of the mayoral candidates. I do know a considerable amount of information about them; enough to form intelligent opinions as to their suitability to serve as the mayor of Baldwin City. I present my mayoral choices and opinions based on the candidate’s personal history, business experience and reputation in the political arena.
Many people have asked that I run for mayor and I appreciate those comments, however, as with myself, some people have schedules and travels that don’t mesh well with a mayor’s obligations to the taxpayers and voters. That does not mean that as a taxpayer and voter that I do not have the right to voice my opinions, concerns and approvals on the spending of all taxpayer’s monies or the direction that Baldwin City is taking.
March 29, 2013 at 4:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Baldwin USD 348 superintendent wary of state, federal actions
I'm not sure why you feel that is an uncomfortable question, GreyGhost. I would suggest it is a serious question that taxpayers demand the superintendent and school board answer.
"IF" the software was developed by a school employee who's salary was paid for by taxpayers, then the software is the legal property of the school district. If the software was developed and utilized by the Baldwin City school district prior to offering it to other school districts, then this fact clearly shows it belongs to Baldwin City taxpayers.
The superintendent has no right to "give away" school property, then sign a contract to buy back the use of said property. So taxpayers paid to have the software developed, the superintendent gave it away for free, then signed a contract whereby taxpayers will pay all over again for using the software (that they owned) after the 2013-2014 school year.
Refective Group is receiving software that they paid nothing to develop and can now sell the software to school districts all over the USA and earn a profit off Baldwin City taxpayers.
At the very minimum, Reflective Group should be required to purchased the software from Baldwin City taxpayers.
Is this a surprise? After all the old elementary school and high school property was appraised at $1.2 million by Douglas County and $800,000 by an independent appraiser. The elementary school encompassed 2/3 of the total property and thus around $550,000 to $800,000 in value. So the superintendent and school board gave the property away for $200,000.
Or how about the $25,000 in playground equipment the superintendent gave away to a local church at no cost. Had he dipped into the school district bank account and gave away $25,000, he would be in jail. Somehow playground equipment is different?
If you think that this is the last straw for this superintendent, just wait until next year and they spring all the undisclosed costs that will come about involving the Apple iPad project. The superintendent and school board are either hiding these future costs or they are incredibly uninformed about the equipment and operating costs that will be required.
The sequester is a 2% reduction in projected "future growth" of the federal budget. It is not a "cut of funds" involving current spending. It is meaningless, unless you're a partisan.
March 22, 2013 at 6:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Baldwin board updated on BJHS auditorium remodel
Baldwin City Signal, June 13, 2012
Architect offers to draw plans for Baldwin Junior High auditorium remodel at no cost
http://signal.baldwincity.com/news/20...
"As the discussion continued at a special meeting Monday, the board learned that the district architect has offered to produce a remodeling plan for the old Baldwin Junior High School auditorium at no cost to the district........"
February 26, 2013 at 6:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Baldwin board updated on BJHS auditorium remodel
Quite dishonest how last year at this time, Doug Loveland of DLR Group, volunteered to perform all the design work for this project at "no cost". No matter how you twist the semantics, " $96,000 in design fees" seems to have just been a bunch of bull crap looking back now.
"Doug Loveland, architect with DLR Group, said his early plans showed the project coming in at $717,000. That included $96,000 in “soft fees,” such as DLR’s design fees — which were approved Monday — and permit fees. "(from above)
If you read my comments in the Signal last year, I predicted that DLR Group would in fact attempt to collect a construction manager or design fee hidden on the back end. I said they were lying then.
They didn't even attempt to hide the design fee, so maybe Mr. Loveland and the School Board just think the taxpayers are forgetful buffoons who wouldn't remember.
Also, last year the School Board members admitted they had been inundated with negative telephone calls regarding this project. The calls wanted the $600,000 used exclusively to pay down the bond issue and reduce the mill levy. Perhaps they developed sudden deafness or disdain for the taxpayers.
Needless to say, this School Board is as bad as the previous one. They were voted in to control (and remove) our foolish superintendent and now it appears they are hypnotized by him.
February 26, 2013 at 5:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Baldwin City digs out
Kudos to the city crews for another excellent job clearing the streets very early in the morning and throughout the day. It doesn't go unnoticed and is very appreciated.
I would venture to say Baldwin City does a better job than any surrounding town or even KDOT (as Highway 56 always lags in plowing and sand even with supplies now located at the Junction).
February 23, 2013 at 11:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
City, partners seeking grant for historic depot upgrades
And yes, Mr. Mayor, the surrounding areas of the train depot are embarrassing. They have been for 40 years. While the city's previous method of communicating with the owners may incur criticism, the facts are there for all to see.
I hope an incentive for the business owners to clean up will be the publics general acknowledgment that the area is junky and rundown.
Acknowledging the problem is foremost and a partnership or offer of assistance in helping clean up the area is a good plan of action.
February 6, 2013 at 12:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
City, partners seeking grant for historic depot upgrades
Elvyn, while your articles are appreciated, the city council dealt with other issues at their meeting that are equally or more important to the voters and taxpayers.
An agenda was missing from the newspaper this week, and even when one is posted, there is no follow-up article to report on the meetings or issues discussed.
While the Depot is newsworthy and important, the newspaper is the sole source of public checks and balances for Baldwin City citizens.
We want reporting that includes all pertinent information concerning the city government and the school board.
Thank you.
And Ms. Greyghost. While I was not so in favor of the financial assistance to the Kansas Belle, I tend to feel now that the criticism of these guys is not what Baldwin is about. They incurred a huge cost to come here and assumed a great risk. As a start-up business essentially, I personally feel they are doing what they can under their business cycle. Given time, I think we all hope they succeed. Respectfully stated.
February 6, 2013 at 12:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Digital decision
It's bad enough that in a severe economic downturn that the school district would flaunt $25,000 on an experiment, but they still seem to be living in an hallucination to consider spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayers dollars as our neighbors and citizens are losing their homes or moving away because of high property taxes.
Based on this news story, here's what's wrong with this picture and shows why this "experiment" is flawed.
The cost for 400 iPads is $225,000 for a basic model. Consider the fact that within 12 months the current iPad technology will already be antiquated. So by 2014 the school district will be stuck with 400 old iPads.
Not all textbooks are offered now as eBooks, so hard cover textbooks will still have to be purchased unless a teacher wants to choose between a great hard cover text book versus a substandard eBook textbook. Many publishers prefer to offer their best textbooks in hard cover still because they make a higher profit.
Managing 400 iPads and eBooks for students involves a dedicated tech person to manage the servers, wireless network equipment and iPad maintenance issues. This person must be Apple / Mac and network trained.
The additional costs of wireless and server hardware is easily $50,000 to serve 400 students.
Just because the small experiment sampled only a few iPads, ramp that up to 400 iPads and it is inevitable that you will have breakage, lost, stolen and wear-and-tear issues.
What about the "legacy material" left on the iPads when student turns their equipment in and it is issued to a new student. You can be assured that personal pictures, emails, browser histories, passwords would all need to be permanently deleted - not an easy task in the iOS system.
It's obvious that these and other issues haven't been considered by the school district. It is not as simple as just writing a check for 400 iPads. The infrastructure and management of something is much more involved and costly.
And taxpayers shouldn't be expected to shoulder another school district boondoggle. These are thing that families and parents buy for their own children.
January 21, 2013 at 8:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )