Posted by bobhornet (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 1:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why doesn't the county demand that George Groh and Sons pay to fix their own botched job? Why do the taxpayers continue to pay for a bad roofing job?

Posted by TeamKansas (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 6:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This project wasn't completed my Groh & sons. It was some outfit from Wichita that was the successful LOW BIDDER and as usual is bid projects ...... YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR!!!

And if this is the project Im thinking it is they had problems from day one when the city urged them to install the tapered insulation when there was a high percentage rain/snow.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 11:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The problem is that the entire project was unduly influenced by the third branch of government that was much more concerned about the aesthetics than the functionality of the building. They were like the proverbial "hogs at the trough" getting as much opulence, woodwork, new furniture, personal perks, large offices, corner lounge with full windows, restrooms for only one person, new technology, etc. Our elected executive/legislative branch (the County Commission) of that time abdicated its responsibilities. Now, the chickens have come home to roost. We need to remember this the next time that a large publicly funded project comes along. It may be called the Court House, but it houses more than the courts. We didn't get our monies worth. Problems of this kind will be with us for the next forty years (when the next new Courthouse will be proposed).

Posted by LifeGoesOn (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 7:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

people will complain when lows bids are taken then problems arise, others will complain when good quality goods are purchased at higher prices because of the larger sums of taxes needed. the county And city commission cant seem to win no matter what they do. By the way the courthouse was put to a public vote, it passed and was built.
Also what does the new court house have to do with the old one needing roof work?

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 5:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LifeGoesOn: The issue on the ballot (at a municipal election with few contests on the ballot, meaning that only a small minority voted) was NOT whether to build a courthouse; the only issue was whether or not to pay for it with a sales tax. The only thing decided at that election was whether property taxes or sales taxes would pay the bill. I know that this issue is ancient history, and I understand why you are tired of hearing about it, but I intend to post on it every time that an opportunity presents to do so for these reasons: 1) Our leaders abdicated to others on the design and cost of the building, resulting in way too much grandeur and not enough soundness; 2) If we had built in the tradition of our fathers, we would have had a much simpler, but nice (and paid for) courthouse now; and 3) we need to be watchful of those who have only their own narrow personal interest who we allowed too much power in decisions (take a tour of the private areas of the third floor of the courthouse to see what I mean). Its all done now, but we need to be reminded because there will be other projects in the future.

Posted by LifeGoesOn (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 6:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Nothing like beating a dead horse. That commission is no longer in office. it's one thing to be watchful and quite another to keep bringing up something you have no control over, is over and done with and continue to complain about it. JMO

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 6:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 6:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Although I was in the Army during most of the planning time, I recall the decisions to build the new courthouse that we occupied in 1950. I subscribed to the Emporia Gazette by mail (when I was overseas, I would get about one month's worth at a time - my buddies from all over the country would help me read them), and even though young, I paid attention to the issues of the day. I vividly recall how the planners were focused on building a functional and affordable building, with some limited concern about appearance. That building was paid for as it was built and lasted 52 years (and would have lasted much longer if it had been bigger). I admit that that building was ugly, but it served us well. I suspect that, with adjustment for inflation, it cost us less than 25% of the current building. The difference: in 1950 our leaders were still good stewards of our money, and we didn't try to build a monument to others' egos.

Posted by LifeGoesOn (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 10:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Guess it all depends on your definition of good stewards, I will not judge others on thier intentions, I'm not a mind reader. guess in 50 years or so maybe you can look me up and say "told ya so" if the courthouse is falling down. If we use your logic when you said "That building was paid for as it was built and lasted 52 years (and would have lasted much longer if it had been bigger)." Then it just may be possible the new courthouse willl last longer than the old one, it is bigger isn't it.

Your other statment ". I suspect that, with adjustment for inflation, it cost us less than 25% of the current building." Key word is "suspect" because you really have no idea.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 10:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LifeGoesOn: You are right - I really don't know for sure about the comparative costs. I do know, however, that the relative cost of construction skyrocketed in the intervening years, so I feel comfortable in saying that the cost of the 1950 Courthouse, even when adjusted for inflation, was substantially less than the 2002 Courthouse. I also know that in 1950 that our local government, as a was true of the times, was more frugal and interested in getting quality for its money. As to the size of the two Courthouses, it is true that the planners of 1950 did not anticipate the rapid increase in the size of county government. However, I understand that there is already concern that the 2002 Courthouse is getting crowded. We all know that, unlike 1950, many county agencies are housed outside of the courthouse. That trend will likely continue because the courthouse is much too small now to house all of them. I hope that the 2002 courthouse wears as well as did its 1950 predecessor because, Lord knows, we can't take on another financial obligation like that any time soon. It about broke us, and continues to do so. Because of the 1/2% sales tax imposed to pay for it, our recent election to impose a 1% additional sales tax was invalidated. It seems that the financial ramifications of our courthouse continues to haunt us in that it is yet unpaid for and sucks the oxygen out of the need for tax revenue for current needs. We're stuck with it now, but I think that we all need to recognize what a calamitous mistake that it was in order to avoid a repeat in the future.

Posted by LifeGoesOn (anonymous) on September 7, 2008 at 7:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If the 1/2% sales tax nearly broke you, there are programs out there that you may want to check into for some needed financial help. It didnt really bother me that much so I'm doing fine. And looks to be paid off years in advance, pretty good money management there seems to me. I will concede that the 50's courthouse probably costs less then the new one (adjusted for inflation) , but you can not compare what was needed in the 50's to what is needed in 2002 to run county goverment.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 7, 2008 at 1:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LifeGoesOn: The 1/2% Sales Tax dedicated to paying for the Courthouse generates $1,974,702.02 per year. It went into effect o/a July 1, 1999, so it has been on the books for over 9 years, and has raised over $18,000,000.00. The original costs of the project was advertised at $17,000,000.00 total (including financing, interest, etc.). Since we have already paid in $1,000,000.00 more than the original price (no doubt that the actual costs greatly exceeded the cost we were told about), with years yet to go, you are incorrect that we are paying this off "years in advance." In fact, we are years behind in paying this off. What an albatross.

Posted by LifeGoesOn (anonymous) on September 7, 2008 at 8:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jayhawker, I disagree

Since September 2007, the county has been eligible to make early payments on the courthouse and they (commissioners) have done so. So far the county has paid off $4.2 million, which has Saved Taxpayers more than a million dollars. The county is on track to have the courthouse paid for by 2011 instead of 2019 which was the orignal date.

Our community has been generating good sales tax revenue and the county is putting some of that money toward paying down the courthouse debt.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 7, 2008 at 9:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm very sorry, LifeGoesOn, I made certain assumptions about business transactions that I thought would be understood, but since I was not clear, l'll try again. The advertised cost for the 2002 Courthouse was $17,000,000.00 including land, brick & mortar, professional fees, bonding fees and interest (that's right, interest included). So far, the 1/2% Sales Tax, dedicated exclusively for retiring that debt, has collected over $18,000,000.00, $1,000,000.00 more than the advertised price. Therefore, it should be paid. However, the projection now is that it won't be paid until 2011, 3 more years, meaning that (if sales tax collections continue at the same rate, now almost $2,000,000.00 per year) the total cost will be $24,000,000.00, $7,000,000.00 more than advertised. I'm certain that this account is subject to independent audit each year and therefore the fund has not been misused, so the only conclusion is that there was some cost associated with this project that we weren't told about. Let's get real basic, LifeGoesOn. If you buy a car and finance it, the terms of the promissory note will require a certain monthly payment that will be amortized to pay off in a predetermined number of months. If you pay more than the required payment monthly, the note will retire earlier than scheduled. That doesn't mean that the purchase price of the car was any less, it just means that you would have expedited the note's retirement and saved a little interest. I'm sure that that is what the County has done. That does not mean that the Courthouse was cheaper - in fact, it apparently was $7,000,000.00 more than we understood at the time. By paying it off ahead of schedule, which I hope that they do, they will keep it from becoming even more expensive. If there is something further about this that you don't understand, post again and we'll talk about it.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 7, 2008 at 10:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

By the way, LifeGoesOn, if you are correct that the county paid off $4.2 Million and that alone saved the taxpayers $1 Million, are you saying that the bond interest is 25% per annum? I doubt that it is that high, at least I hope not.