Tag Archives: bond issue

local news

Going to vote early … for once!

Today I am going to do something I generally avoid like the proverbial plague.

Yep. I am going to vote early in advance of the May 6 election date. You see, I usually wait for Election Day to cast my ballot. My concern usually is to avoid being surprised by candidates for public office who mess up between the time I vote and the date we are scheduled to cast our ballots.

The Princeton, Texas, ballot features a bond issue request from the Princeton Independent School District. It’s a big one: $797 million to pay for construction of several new campuses over the next 10 years; my mind is made up on that matter. There also will be some seats to decide on the Collin College Board of Regents; I am going to take a chance and cast my votes for those seats with the hope that no one gets in trouble.

I am going to be out of town on May 6, which means I have to vote early. It’s the only reason I would do so. If I were King of the World, I would persuade the state to move Election Day to suit my schedule.

I can’t do that … obviously.

So I will do my civic duty as a proud American patriot and cast my vote early.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

education news

Princeton ISD crosses its t’s and dots its i’s

Make no mistake about this: The Princeton Independent School District is making a thorough effort to avoid “campaigning” on behalf of a bond issue it will ask its voters to approve in May.

The bond issue is a big’n: $797 millionĀ to build eight campuses over the next 10 years. Princeton ISD has compiled a thorough explanation of its request on its website:

Bond / Bond Information (princetonisd.net)

I was fortunate to be able to cover many of the meetings held by the citizens committee appointed to craft the proposal. They took deep dives into the cost of the project; the district’s growth projections; the impact on property owners; and even the names the district plans to attach to the new campuses.

Throughout the process, the committee was made aware of the restrictions the state places on local governments. They are empowered only to inform district residents of what they want to do; they are banned from campaigning for it using public money.

That doesn’t restrict board trustees or senior administrators from offering personal opinions on what voters should do when they go to the polls on May 6. It’s a sure-fire bet they will speak on behalf of the issue … which is OK with me.

The proposal laid out on the website is a thorough examination of the needs of a school system in the midst of a growth explosion.

It’s well done and I applaud Princeton ISD for the work it has done.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

business news, economic news, local news, political news

It’s in the timing

Amarillo city officials are going on trial very soon in which they will have to defend the legitimacy of a multimillion-dollar effort to deliver a new municipal complex of offices and convention space.

The lawsuit comes from businessman Alex Fairly. The trial will be in a Potter County district court. Fairly believes the city acted illegally in issuing $260 million in “anticipation notes.”

I am not going to assess whether the city’s actions broke the law. I am, though, in a position to comment on the timing of the issuance.

You see, voters already had spoken decisively in November 2020 when they rejected a $275 million general obligation bond issue to — that’s right — revamp the Civic Center and relocate City Hall. The City Council didn’t seem to care about what voters decided.

So, it acted without voters’ approval by issuing those anticipation notes. The debt load carried by the notes is virtually identical to the load that voters rejected.

I hate saying this, because for years I was a staunch supporter of City Council initiatives, but the decision to supersede voters’ rejection smacks too much of municipal arrogance.

It’s the timing of the issuance juxtaposed with the rejection of the bond issue that ought to rankle residents. Fairly has intimated, further, that the issuance of the debt notes was done without adequate public notice, giving residents a chance to comment publicly on what they thought about the project.

To be sure, if I still lived in Amarillo and had a chance to vote on the bond issue in November 2020 I likely would have voted “yes” on the city request. I can argue all day and into the night about the need for the city to upgrade its Civic Center and find a new site for City Hall. Most voters, though, said “no” to the proposal.

For the city to then come back and issue the anticipation notes — which do not require voter approval — well, plays right into the righteous anger that fuels a lot of voters’ interest in government.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com