I think overall that Mr. Wagner was a good council member and mayor although I have many areas where I think the citizens and taxpayers were passed over to favor special interests or pet projects of those in elected or moneyed positions. Many times I felt that expenditures and projects were decided on by people in a “bubble” of like-minded decision-makers (just like the school district).
Outside of that” bubble” is a majority of citizens and taxpayers who disagree and are angry about what happens. Many areas in need of city attention were ignored.
I find the mayor to be a good person although I would disagree with him on some of the projects and expenditures that he and the city council promoted. The fact that he served for 10 years deserves some appreciation and respect.
It is discouraging that we are not seeing some good quality candidates signing up for the upcoming election. There are many educated, experienced and qualified people who should help guide this city while protecting and highlighting our history and heritage. We need moderate, smart, and visionary people.
If asked for my opinion on the first announced mayoral candidate, I will not be endorsing or voting for that candidate. The fact that this candidate has shown themselves to be financially irresponsible in their personal finances (twice), along with wild spending proposals while a council person, plus the negative opinions and lack of knowledge expressed for expanding and improving our library (after the funding has already been approved by voters), makes me think we should expect better in a leader.
The role of city government is to provide “services and infrastructure” for a good quality of life within the city. City government’s role is not to over tax and then wildly spend taxpayer money on projects that do not meet the “services and infrastructure” category or benefit a small group at the neglect of others.
As we approach this year’s election, I’ll offer my ideas and thoughts on the issues and candidates. But it’s just one man’s humble (and not always right) opinion.
Without regard to the proper name for bonds of this type, I have serious questions about what the school district just signed on to. I will be the first to say upfront that I do not know exactly.
The bond information will be available at the district offices at some point and the district must provide this to any taxpayer who wants to read the complete deal paperwork.
These bonds that the school board just signed up for are front-loaded with low, low payments (and thus a lower required mill levy) for the first block of years (say 10 years). This makes them palatable to taxpayers and easy for the administration to "sell" them as a good deal.
But during those 10 years the interest and costs accrue and compound. Beginning in year 11, it's like a huge balloon payment. The repayment costs skyrocket and the mill levy must go up accordingly.
They are marketed under the assumption that in 10 years taxpayers will be earning far more than today and thus can afford to be taxed at a higher rate to pay the bonds off in years 10 through 16. While the interest rate quoted is lower, those first 10 years of interest and cost accrual have doubled or tripled the principal owed.
California school districts were sold these type of bonds years ago and build expensive, first class school buildings. But when the repayment costs began at 10 years the economy tanked and property taxes crashed. Thus many school districts could not pay their bonds. The state of California is in the process of outlawing these type of bonds.
So while the interest rate quoted for the Baldwin bonds seems low and the early year savings sound appealing, the surprise and shock may come in 10 years.
What will be apparent in 10 years is that the school buildings we just built will need to be renovated or rebuilt because of age, usage and population growth. But during years 10 through 16 (to 2029), taxpayers will still be paying off the 2012 bonds and at a much higher mill levy.
Piper Jaffray will do fine. They charge a fee for handling the bond issue, collect a commission for selling the bonds to investors or pension funds, and perhaps earn interest on any bonds they hold in-house.
My questioning of this deal is not that the superintendent and school board wanted to save taxpayers, but that they may have not spent the necessary effort to investigate what they were getting into on this deal.
I might suggest that readers Google CAB type school bonds. These type of bonds were pushed on hundreds of California school districts over the past fifteen years by Wall Street. These bonds require very little repayment for the first 10-15 years yet accrue interest, fees and costs. Beginning in year 15, the payments begin after accruing 15 years of interest. Wall Street sells them on the assumption that in 15 years taxpayer incomes will be 3 times higher than today and taxes can be jacked up to match. They are an "easy sell" or easy to "slide past inquisitive taxpayers".
So they borrow $50 million and build new schools and when the payments come due beginning in 15 years the repayment amount is astronomical and the facilities are "old" and antiquated by then. The new school facilities we just built will be at the very end of their life cycle when the payments on these bonds are the highest for taxpayers.
Needless to say, many California school districts are now approaching bankruptcy (some have filed) and the state government is attempting to outlaw CAB type bonds.
Hopefully, this is not what Piper Jaffray sold this superintendent and school board last month. As this newspaper reported, the school board seemed to jump out of their seats at this proposal expressing little interest in hearing the other options or investigating what these new bonds really were.
At the time last Spring when this "extra" $600,000 was mentioned and the Jr. High Auditorium was discussed, it was reported by school board members that they had received a very high volume of negative calls about this proposal. The majority of callers wanted this $600,000 used to retire the bond early and reduce the mill levy accordingly.
As I predicted our school board members and superintendent are "tone deaf" to any opinions outside their sphere of "yes" people at the schools. Either the superintendent has some kind mystical powers over the school boards members or we have elected a school board that is equally as bad and dishonest as the previous one.
Once the architect offered to design some possible options for the auditorium I knew exactly what was going on. The offer to do this work for free is disingenuous and misleading. Sure, the architect will do the design for free but later will become the construction manager and collect their 10% of total costs on the back-end. So, their work is not free and their opinions are highly tainted towards pushing this project to completion, no matter what the taxpayers and voters want.
The country is in the middle of economic stagnation and will be in another recession next year perhaps. Many, many taxpayers in Baldwin City are financially stretched and yet the school district seems oblivious to the world outside the walls of their buildings.
I might also suggest that readers Google CAB school bonds. These type of bonds were pushed on many California school districts over the past fifteen years by Wall Street. These bonds require very little repayment for the first 10-15 years yet accrue interest. Beginning in year 15, the payments begin after accruing 15 years of interest. Wall Street sells them on the assumption that in 15 years taxpayer incomes will be 3 times higher than today and taxes should triple also.
So they borrow $50 million and build new schools and when the payments come due in 15 years the repayment amount is astronomical and the facilities are "old" and antiquated by then.
Needless to say, many California school districts are now approaching bankruptcy and the state government is attempting to outlaw CAB bonds.
Hopefully, this is not what Piper Jaffrey sold this superintendent and school board last month.
Perhaps the school district can tell us when they plan to have representatives of the current state government attend a board meeting to present their views on public education and state involvement.
The taxpayers and voters are entitled to hear both political party's opinions and proposals then formulate their own informed decisions.
While Tom Holland may have invited himself to speak, the district has an obligation to now invite the other side to present their ideas and opinions.
At the time last Spring when this "extra" $600,000 was mentioned and the Jr. High Auditorium was discussed, it was reported by school board members that they had received a very high volume of negative calls about this proposal. The majority of callers wanted this $600,000 used to retire the bond early and reduce the mill levy accordingly.
As I predicted our school board members and superintendent are "tone deaf" to any opinions outside their sphere of "yes" people at the schools. Either the superintendent has some kind mystical powers over the school boards members or we have elected a school board that is equally as bad and dishonest as the previous one.
Once the architect offered to design some possible options for the auditorium I knew exactly what was going on. The offer to do this work for free is disingenuous and misleading. Sure, the architect will do the design for free but later will become the construction manager and collect their 10% of total costs on the back-end. So, their work is not free and their opinions are highly tainted towards pushing this project to completion, no matter what the taxpayers and voters want.
The country is in the middle of economic stagnation and will be in another recession next year perhaps. Many, many taxpayers in Baldwin City are financially stretched and yet the school district seems oblivious to the world outside the walls of their buildings.
I might also suggest that readers Google CAB school bonds. These type of bonds were pushed on many California school districts over the past fifteen years by Wall Street. These bonds require very little repayment for the first 10-15 years yet accrue interest. Beginning in year 15, the payments begin after accruing 15 years of interest. Wall Street sells them on the assumption that in 15 years taxpayer incomes will be 3 times higher than today and taxes should triple also.
So they borrow $50 million and build new schools and when the payments come due in 15 years the repayment amount is astronomical and the facilities are "old" and antiquated by then.
Needless to say, many California school districts are now approaching bankruptcy and the state government is attempting to outlaw CAB bonds.
Hopefully, this is not what Piper Jaffrey sold this superintendent and school board last month.
Do a search of this newspaper site above and you will see that the 1st and only time NEBORS, LLC has been mentioned is in this agenda article.
So, the council is considering a motion to authorize the mayor to spend taxpayer money on this NEBORS, LLC, and it has never been presented or explained in this newspaper before.
Any surprise here that the majority of taxpayers know nothing about it.
Perhaps we could be told why city (taxpayer) funding is still on the agenda for the Kansas Sculptors Association after many citizens voiced their unequivocal NO to this expenditure.
Maybe the city council and mayor need to take the public's pulse again over this "Visioning" exercise. It seems the first time around they didn't catch the public's disgust for all the wild, fanciful spending on projects beyond the basic scope of city services.
When can we expect a detailed news story regarding these important city meetings ? The public should be informed by "our" local newspaper as to what our elected officials are doing with our tax dollars.
Maybe this is the reason taxpayers are surprised (and sometimes shocked) by big dollar projects suddenly appearing on the horizon long after any discussion period has expired. Projects that IF the public was aware of might just generate a lot of criticism since they benefit a small, insider-connected constituency.
My constructive criticism is in regards to the complete lack of initiative or planning for sidewalks, gutters, rainwater drainage, curbing and street leveling and improvements to the 15 square block residential area surrounding the downtown- the "city center".
While I could offer some suggestions for improvement to the downtown business district, that area has in fact been improved recently and isn't a priority now, in my humble opinion.
My complaint is focused on all of these fancy and costly streets, sidewalks and intersections in "newly" developed neighborhoods paid for by all taxpayers while the city center is neglected and continues to deteriorate with age and use.
The 1055 / 6th Street project was paid for by all taxpayers and benefited a tiny minority of special interests with a new street, over-sized sidewalks, rainwater drainage and curbing that will be utilized by very, very few people. Just as the planned "nature trail" in this part of town would be.
Who it might benefit greatly is a developer looking to build a residential development on the west side of 1055 who wants to forgo the expense of paying for the streets and sidewalks themselves.
The city could just as easily have benefited the city center residents by allocating these funds to new streets, sidewalks, curbing and drainage within the 15 block city center area. This part of town should take priority over new development. The city administration's excuse that homeowners have to pay for sidewalks, curbing and drainage is no longer is valid.
And yes, as mentioned above, 2 areas of safety concerns are the hilltop intersection near the elementary schools and the 8th Street and Highway 56 interscetion. Our older residences have a nightmare trying to get to the grocery store across this busy intersection.
What peeves me is that the city is contemplating building new sidewalks now along Highway 56 out to the elementary schools at taxpayer expense. A route close to heavy vehicle traffic.
Incidently, I contacted the KDOT regarding a signal installation at 8th Street and Highway 56 after the improvements were completed and I was sent a very vague letter stating that this intersection was not in the original design plans and not a priority for future improvements. However, depending on the time of day, this interesetion is a safety hazard and traffic nightmare to navigate.
Wagner opts not to seek re-election as Baldwin City mayor
I think overall that Mr. Wagner was a good council member and mayor although I have many areas where I think the citizens and taxpayers were passed over to favor special interests or pet projects of those in elected or moneyed positions. Many times I felt that expenditures and projects were decided on by people in a “bubble” of like-minded decision-makers (just like the school district).
Outside of that” bubble” is a majority of citizens and taxpayers who disagree and are angry about what happens. Many areas in need of city attention were ignored.
I find the mayor to be a good person although I would disagree with him on some of the projects and expenditures that he and the city council promoted. The fact that he served for 10 years deserves some appreciation and respect.
It is discouraging that we are not seeing some good quality candidates signing up for the upcoming election. There are many educated, experienced and qualified people who should help guide this city while protecting and highlighting our history and heritage. We need moderate, smart, and visionary people.
If asked for my opinion on the first announced mayoral candidate, I will not be endorsing or voting for that candidate. The fact that this candidate has shown themselves to be financially irresponsible in their personal finances (twice), along with wild spending proposals while a council person, plus the negative opinions and lack of knowledge expressed for expanding and improving our library (after the funding has already been approved by voters), makes me think we should expect better in a leader.
The role of city government is to provide “services and infrastructure” for a good quality of life within the city. City government’s role is not to over tax and then wildly spend taxpayer money on projects that do not meet the “services and infrastructure” category or benefit a small group at the neglect of others.
As we approach this year’s election, I’ll offer my ideas and thoughts on the issues and candidates. But it’s just one man’s humble (and not always right) opinion.
January 10, 2013 at 8:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
USD 348 bond refinancing approved
Without regard to the proper name for bonds of this type, I have serious questions about what the school district just signed on to. I will be the first to say upfront that I do not know exactly.
The bond information will be available at the district offices at some point and the district must provide this to any taxpayer who wants to read the complete deal paperwork.
These bonds that the school board just signed up for are front-loaded with low, low payments (and thus a lower required mill levy) for the first block of years (say 10 years). This makes them palatable to taxpayers and easy for the administration to "sell" them as a good deal.
But during those 10 years the interest and costs accrue and compound. Beginning in year 11, it's like a huge balloon payment. The repayment costs skyrocket and the mill levy must go up accordingly.
They are marketed under the assumption that in 10 years taxpayers will be earning far more than today and thus can afford to be taxed at a higher rate to pay the bonds off in years 10 through 16. While the interest rate quoted is lower, those first 10 years of interest and cost accrual have doubled or tripled the principal owed.
California school districts were sold these type of bonds years ago and build expensive, first class school buildings. But when the repayment costs began at 10 years the economy tanked and property taxes crashed. Thus many school districts could not pay their bonds. The state of California is in the process of outlawing these type of bonds.
So while the interest rate quoted for the Baldwin bonds seems low and the early year savings sound appealing, the surprise and shock may come in 10 years.
What will be apparent in 10 years is that the school buildings we just built will need to be renovated or rebuilt because of age, usage and population growth. But during years 10 through 16 (to 2029), taxpayers will still be paying off the 2012 bonds and at a much higher mill levy.
Piper Jaffray will do fine. They charge a fee for handling the bond issue, collect a commission for selling the bonds to investors or pension funds, and perhaps earn interest on any bonds they hold in-house.
My questioning of this deal is not that the superintendent and school board wanted to save taxpayers, but that they may have not spent the necessary effort to investigate what they were getting into on this deal.
December 27, 2012 at 9:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
USD 348 bond refinancing approved
I might suggest that readers Google CAB type school bonds. These type of bonds were pushed on hundreds of California school districts over the past fifteen years by Wall Street. These bonds require very little repayment for the first 10-15 years yet accrue interest, fees and costs. Beginning in year 15, the payments begin after accruing 15 years of interest. Wall Street sells them on the assumption that in 15 years taxpayer incomes will be 3 times higher than today and taxes can be jacked up to match. They are an "easy sell" or easy to "slide past inquisitive taxpayers".
So they borrow $50 million and build new schools and when the payments come due beginning in 15 years the repayment amount is astronomical and the facilities are "old" and antiquated by then. The new school facilities we just built will be at the very end of their life cycle when the payments on these bonds are the highest for taxpayers.
Needless to say, many California school districts are now approaching bankruptcy (some have filed) and the state government is attempting to outlaw CAB type bonds.
Hopefully, this is not what Piper Jaffray sold this superintendent and school board last month. As this newspaper reported, the school board seemed to jump out of their seats at this proposal expressing little interest in hearing the other options or investigating what these new bonds really were.
December 26, 2012 at 8:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Baldwin board narrows plan option on auditorium redesign
At the time last Spring when this "extra" $600,000 was mentioned and the Jr. High Auditorium was discussed, it was reported by school board members that they had received a very high volume of negative calls about this proposal. The majority of callers wanted this $600,000 used to retire the bond early and reduce the mill levy accordingly.
As I predicted our school board members and superintendent are "tone deaf" to any opinions outside their sphere of "yes" people at the schools. Either the superintendent has some kind mystical powers over the school boards members or we have elected a school board that is equally as bad and dishonest as the previous one.
Once the architect offered to design some possible options for the auditorium I knew exactly what was going on. The offer to do this work for free is disingenuous and misleading. Sure, the architect will do the design for free but later will become the construction manager and collect their 10% of total costs on the back-end. So, their work is not free and their opinions are highly tainted towards pushing this project to completion, no matter what the taxpayers and voters want.
The country is in the middle of economic stagnation and will be in another recession next year perhaps. Many, many taxpayers in Baldwin City are financially stretched and yet the school district seems oblivious to the world outside the walls of their buildings.
I might also suggest that readers Google CAB school bonds. These type of bonds were pushed on many California school districts over the past fifteen years by Wall Street. These bonds require very little repayment for the first 10-15 years yet accrue interest. Beginning in year 15, the payments begin after accruing 15 years of interest. Wall Street sells them on the assumption that in 15 years taxpayer incomes will be 3 times higher than today and taxes should triple also.
So they borrow $50 million and build new schools and when the payments come due in 15 years the repayment amount is astronomical and the facilities are "old" and antiquated by then.
Needless to say, many California school districts are now approaching bankruptcy and the state government is attempting to outlaw CAB bonds.
Hopefully, this is not what Piper Jaffrey sold this superintendent and school board last month.
December 21, 2012 at 4:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Local legislative delegation to share views with Baldwin school board
Perhaps the school district can tell us when they plan to have representatives of the current state government attend a board meeting to present their views on public education and state involvement.
The taxpayers and voters are entitled to hear both political party's opinions and proposals then formulate their own informed decisions.
While Tom Holland may have invited himself to speak, the district has an obligation to now invite the other side to present their ideas and opinions.
December 18, 2012 at 9:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Baldwin school board to receive recommendation on BJHS auditorium reuse
At the time last Spring when this "extra" $600,000 was mentioned and the Jr. High Auditorium was discussed, it was reported by school board members that they had received a very high volume of negative calls about this proposal. The majority of callers wanted this $600,000 used to retire the bond early and reduce the mill levy accordingly.
As I predicted our school board members and superintendent are "tone deaf" to any opinions outside their sphere of "yes" people at the schools. Either the superintendent has some kind mystical powers over the school boards members or we have elected a school board that is equally as bad and dishonest as the previous one.
Once the architect offered to design some possible options for the auditorium I knew exactly what was going on. The offer to do this work for free is disingenuous and misleading. Sure, the architect will do the design for free but later will become the construction manager and collect their 10% of total costs on the back-end. So, their work is not free and their opinions are highly tainted towards pushing this project to completion, no matter what the taxpayers and voters want.
The country is in the middle of economic stagnation and will be in another recession next year perhaps. Many, many taxpayers in Baldwin City are financially stretched and yet the school district seems oblivious to the world outside the walls of their buildings.
I might also suggest that readers Google CAB school bonds. These type of bonds were pushed on many California school districts over the past fifteen years by Wall Street. These bonds require very little repayment for the first 10-15 years yet accrue interest. Beginning in year 15, the payments begin after accruing 15 years of interest. Wall Street sells them on the assumption that in 15 years taxpayer incomes will be 3 times higher than today and taxes should triple also.
So they borrow $50 million and build new schools and when the payments come due in 15 years the repayment amount is astronomical and the facilities are "old" and antiquated by then.
Needless to say, many California school districts are now approaching bankruptcy and the state government is attempting to outlaw CAB bonds.
Hopefully, this is not what Piper Jaffrey sold this superintendent and school board last month.
December 18, 2012 at 9:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Baldwin City Council agenda for Monday, Nov. 19
Do a search of this newspaper site above and you will see that the 1st and only time NEBORS, LLC has been mentioned is in this agenda article.
So, the council is considering a motion to authorize the mayor to spend taxpayer money on this NEBORS, LLC, and it has never been presented or explained in this newspaper before.
Any surprise here that the majority of taxpayers know nothing about it.
November 26, 2012 at 3:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Baldwin City Council agenda for Monday, Nov. 19
Perhaps we could be told why city (taxpayer) funding is still on the agenda for the Kansas Sculptors Association after many citizens voiced their unequivocal NO to this expenditure.
Maybe the city council and mayor need to take the public's pulse again over this "Visioning" exercise. It seems the first time around they didn't catch the public's disgust for all the wild, fanciful spending on projects beyond the basic scope of city services.
November 26, 2012 at 2:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Baldwin City Council agenda for Monday, Nov. 19
When can we expect a detailed news story regarding these important city meetings ? The public should be informed by "our" local newspaper as to what our elected officials are doing with our tax dollars.
Maybe this is the reason taxpayers are surprised (and sometimes shocked) by big dollar projects suddenly appearing on the horizon long after any discussion period has expired. Projects that IF the public was aware of might just generate a lot of criticism since they benefit a small, insider-connected constituency.
We are now 1 week past this meeting.
November 26, 2012 at 7:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Baldwin USD 348 agrees to donate easement for expanded KDOT project
Greyghost. Thanks for your comment.
My constructive criticism is in regards to the complete lack of initiative or planning for sidewalks, gutters, rainwater drainage, curbing and street leveling and improvements to the 15 square block residential area surrounding the downtown- the "city center".
While I could offer some suggestions for improvement to the downtown business district, that area has in fact been improved recently and isn't a priority now, in my humble opinion.
My complaint is focused on all of these fancy and costly streets, sidewalks and intersections in "newly" developed neighborhoods paid for by all taxpayers while the city center is neglected and continues to deteriorate with age and use.
The 1055 / 6th Street project was paid for by all taxpayers and benefited a tiny minority of special interests with a new street, over-sized sidewalks, rainwater drainage and curbing that will be utilized by very, very few people. Just as the planned "nature trail" in this part of town would be.
Who it might benefit greatly is a developer looking to build a residential development on the west side of 1055 who wants to forgo the expense of paying for the streets and sidewalks themselves.
The city could just as easily have benefited the city center residents by allocating these funds to new streets, sidewalks, curbing and drainage within the 15 block city center area. This part of town should take priority over new development. The city administration's excuse that homeowners have to pay for sidewalks, curbing and drainage is no longer is valid.
And yes, as mentioned above, 2 areas of safety concerns are the hilltop intersection near the elementary schools and the 8th Street and Highway 56 interscetion. Our older residences have a nightmare trying to get to the grocery store across this busy intersection.
What peeves me is that the city is contemplating building new sidewalks now along Highway 56 out to the elementary schools at taxpayer expense. A route close to heavy vehicle traffic.
Incidently, I contacted the KDOT regarding a signal installation at 8th Street and Highway 56 after the improvements were completed and I was sent a very vague letter stating that this intersection was not in the original design plans and not a priority for future improvements. However, depending on the time of day, this interesetion is a safety hazard and traffic nightmare to navigate.
November 21, 2012 at 9:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )