Jump to content



Photo

Jeffersonville City Government Races 2015

Spending Priorities Essential Serices Jobs and Prosperity Separation of Powers

  • Please log in to reply
421 replies to this topic

#21 Big Bopper

Big Bopper

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,035 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 03:01 PM

A number of people for some unknown reason have purposely misrepresented many aspects of the process and ideas related to parks expansion in the newly annexed area and the possible solutions being considered for parking issues at the Woehrle Athletic Complex.  

 

Here is a question for you... When did the Park Authority ever vote 9-0 for an indoor soccer facility?

 

Just to clear a few things.... There is NO indoor soccer facility being considered by the Jeffersonville Parks Department. There was NEVER been an indoor soccer facility proposed in the past.   AND there has never been a vote for or against such a facility.

 

No vote yet, but the way is being paved.


  • Tina likes this

#22 Councilman 2

Councilman 2

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 193 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 06:22 PM

So --- Councilman 2, are you saying that the Woehrle Non-reverting fund was established for nothing?   No indoor facility is planned?   The 9 to 0 vote to establish this fund and then to put $3 million into it was an 'error'???    So if there is no indoor facility planned, just exactly what is the non-reverting fund for and what is the $3 million for?

 

If what you say is true, I am very glad to learn that the council and the parks department has absolutely no intention of building an indoor facility for soccer or any other sport.   Please explain what happened at the last council meeting?   You were one of the 9 who voted "yes" for the non-reverting fund and the $3 million.   If people are misrepresenting the facts for some "unknown reason", please set the record straight and tell us exactly what the plan is for this fund and this money.

 

You said and I quote "...The vote was 9 - 0 for the indoor soccer facility..."

 

There has been votes to create a park fund and appropriate money into that park fund.   No money has been spent.  No contracts have been signed.  No indoor SOCCER complex has been proposed or voted on.  

 

This parks fund was created to possibly: 

1) Fund options to solve the parking issues at  the Woehrle complex which may include the purchase of land.  

2) Help fund the building of a multi-sports indoor building (not indoor soccer specific).  The building of a multi-sport building (hard sports flooring -volleyball, tennis, basketball supported) is not a new idea and was part of the original plans for the build out of the Woehrle complex.

3) Fund the expansion of Jeffersonville parks in the newly annexed area. 

 

I say "possibly" because there are no contracts in place to purchase anything or spend this money as of yet.  There was only a 9-0 vote to create a fund and put money into that fund for possible future uses outlined above.  If the money placed into the parks fund is not spent that money will be moved to another fund and made available to be spent somewhere else.  

 

Obviously my hope is that the Parks Authority spends these city resources for all three options listed above but as of today that has not yet happened and I am only one vote out of the 9 member parks authority.  It always takes at least 5 votes from the Parks Authority to take any action or spend any money. 

 

I'm not going to keep repeating the same message over and over with words twisted or parsed out.  So just to be clear... there has been NO vote to spend $3,000,000 on a parking lot and there has NOT been any 9-0 vote for a $3,000,000 indoor soccer complex.

 

I understand people may disagree with my opinions or disagree with the actions of the Parks Authority but lets not misrepresent the facts for what I believe to be election year political fear tactics.

 

Anyone that wants more details or has more questions about the actions of the Parks Authority are welcome to give me a call and/or set up a meeting and I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have.   

 

Thanks

 

Ed Zastawny

Jeffersonville Parks Authority President

502-693-8890

eddiez2000@yahoo.com


Edited by Councilman 2, 14 March 2015 - 06:26 PM.


#23 kelley

kelley

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,111 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 06:45 PM

You said and I quote "...The vote was 9 - 0 for the indoor soccer facility..."

There has been votes to create a park fund and appropriate money into that park fund. No money has been spent. No contracts have been signed. No indoor SOCCER complex has been proposed or voted on.

This parks fund was created to possibly:
1) Fund options to solve the parking issues at the Woehrle complex which may include the purchase of land.
2) Help fund the building of a multi-sports indoor building (not indoor soccer specific). The building of a multi-sport building (hard sports flooring -volleyball, tennis, basketball supported) is not a new idea and was part of the original plans for the build out of the Woehrle complex.
3) Fund the expansion of Jeffersonville parks in the newly annexed area.

I say "possibly" because there are no contracts in place to purchase anything or spend this money as of yet. There was only a 9-0 vote to create a fund and put money into that fund for possible future uses outlined above. If the money placed into the parks fund is not spent that money will be moved to another fund and made available to be spent somewhere else.

Obviously my hope is that the Parks Authority spends these city resources for all three options listed above but as of today that has not yet happened and I am only one vote out of the 9 member parks authority. It always takes at least 5 votes from the Parks Authority to take any action or spend any money.

I'm not going to keep repeating the same message over and over with words twisted or parsed out. So just to be clear... there has been NO vote to spend $3,000,000 on a parking lot and there has NOT been any 9-0 vote for a $3,000,000 indoor soccer complex.

I understand people may disagree with my opinions or disagree with the actions of the Parks Authority but lets not misrepresent the facts for what I believe to be election year political fear tactics.

Anyone that wants more details or has more questions about the actions of the Parks Authority are welcome to give me a call and/or set up a meeting and I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thanks

Ed Zastawny
Jeffersonville Parks Authority President
502-693-8890
eddiez2000@yahoo.com


Ed,


I appreciate your usual thoughtfulness and your willingness to participate here. I have no "election year" dog in your particular fight.

But you're splitting hairs here. There's a $3 million appropriation. It is for some mix of a parking lot for existing soccer fields and/or an indoor sports complex expected to include soccer facilities.

Most of us are saying we're against that. SR's dramatic flair doesn't detract from serious comments, information and opinion presented by him and others.

We're saying there's other stuff to spend money on, or, if not, we'd rather money wasn't spent. A sports complex of whatever sort can be provided by private money and risk. This is being done elsewhere, and these other projects will be competition for this facility.

We get what the plans are, and, for many sound reasons, we're saying, "please don't."

Edited by kelley, 14 March 2015 - 07:25 PM.

  • IntegrityMatters, GrumpyGranny and Donna like this

#24 IntegrityMatters

IntegrityMatters

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,993 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 06:46 PM

You said and I quote, "There has NEVER been an indoor soccer facility proposed in the past."  

 

  Let's not play the semantics game by saying it is not specifically soccer but includes other sports as well.  If nothing has been proposed or put forth, then why is there a youtube video showing the glitzy complex and indoor soccer/basketball/tennis/whatever facility --- which clearly says "Jeffersonville Parks Department - Kovert Hawkins -- City of Jeffersonville".  

 

You said  and I quote, "there is NO indoor soccer facility being considered by the Jeffersonville Parks Department".    Please don't say that statement is true just because the complex will include other sports - not just soccer.    In your post above, you say, "the building of a multi-sport building is not a new idea and was part of the original plans for the buildout of the Woehrle complex."    So you say that "no facility is being considered" but that it is "not a new idea and part of the original plan".    Therefore, it IS being considered isn't it?  

 

Why create a fund at all and fund it with $3 million if you don't plan to spend it for those 3 purposes you stated?   Why not wait until there is a solid proposal or plan before setting aside money?   It is hard to believe that you just have an extra $3 million here or there to set aside for a "maybe" scenario.  And why call the fund a "non-reverting" fund if you say it can be moved to another fund.   "Non-reverting" means it cannot be moved back doesn't it?

 

By the way, I did email all council members for information about this fund and only 3 responded --- you were not one of the 3.


Edited by IntegrityMatters, 14 March 2015 - 06:47 PM.

  • RiverFox and Donna like this

#25 Big Bopper

Big Bopper

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,035 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 07:02 PM

You said and I quote, "There has NEVER been an indoor soccer facility proposed in the past."  
 
  Let's not play the semantics game by saying it is not specifically soccer but includes other sports as well.  If nothing has been proposed or put forth, then why is there a youtube video showing the glitzy complex and indoor soccer/basketball/tennis/whatever facility --- which clearly says "Jeffersonville Parks Department - Kovert Hawkins -- City of Jeffersonville".  
 
You said  and I quote, "there is NO indoor soccer facility being considered by the Jeffersonville Parks Department".    Please don't say that statement is true just because the complex will include other sports - not just soccer.    In your post above, you say, "the building of a multi-sport building is not a new idea and was part of the original plans for the buildout of the Woehrle complex."    So you say that "no facility is being considered" but that it is "not a new idea and part of the original plan".    Therefore, it IS being considered isn't it?  

 
Why create a fund at all and fund it with $3 million if you don't plan to spend it for those 3 purposes you stated?   Why not wait until there is a solid proposal or plan before setting aside money?   It is hard to believe that you just have an extra $3 million here or there to set aside for a "maybe" scenario.  And why call the fund a "non-reverting" fund if you say it can be moved to another fund.   "Non-reverting" means it cannot be moved back doesn't it?



 
By the way, I did email all council members for information about this fund and only 3 responded --- you were not one of the 3.


Good luck getting a straight answer on this one.
  • RiverFox and Donna like this

#26 Pesty Version 2

Pesty Version 2

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,953 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 07:32 PM

Ed,


I appreciate your usual thoughtfulness and your willingness to participate here. I have no "election year" dog in your particular fight.

But you're splitting hairs here. There's a $3 million appropriation. It is for some mix of a parking lot for existing soccer fields and/or an indoor sports complex expected to include soccer facilities.

Most of us are saying we're against that. SR's dramatic flair doesn't detract from serious comments, information and opinion presented by him and others.

We're saying there's other stuff to spend money on, or, if not, we'd rather money wasn't spent. A sports complex of whatever sort can be provided by private money and risk. This is being done elsewhere, and these other projects will be competition for this facility.

We get what the plans are, and, for many sound reasons, we're saying, "please don't."

 

Many said "please don't" when he and his fellows wanted to shut down Jeff City Court.   

 

But, they had to do what was fiscally in the best interests of the taxpayers of Jeff.


  • IntegrityMatters, GrumpyGranny, Donna and 1 other like this

#27 kelley

kelley

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,111 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 08:16 PM

fiscally in the best interests of the taxpayers of Jeff.




That's precious.
  • GrumpyGranny, Pesty Version 2 and Donna like this

#28 Pesty Version 2

Pesty Version 2

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,953 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 09:06 PM

What?  ....that's what they said Kelley.


  • kelley and Donna like this

#29 Not Super But Honest Mike

Not Super But Honest Mike

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,711 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 11:02 PM

A number of people for some unknown reason have purposely misrepresented many aspects of the process and ideas related to parks expansion in the newly annexed area and the possible solutions being considered for parking issues at the Woehrle Athletic Complex.  
 
Here is a question for you... When did the Park Authority ever vote 9-0 for an indoor soccer facility?
 
Just to clear a few things.... There is NO indoor soccer facility being considered by the Jeffersonville Parks Department. There was NEVER been an indoor soccer facility proposed in the past.   AND there has never been a vote for or against such a facility.


some unknown reason??

Ed, it is election season, no reason needed!

But, in my opinion, Saville and others are trying their best to make the council look bad by stretching the truth, creating fear, and a predicting a gloomy future for Jeffersonville. Why? My guess is they are trying to smear the current council in hopes of getting at least 5 new members elected that would support moores spending plan. Nothing he would like more than to get his hands on the councils funds.

I noticed Saville started a new thread asking members who they thought would win the primary.....probably to see if he is making any headway in swaying the voters. I remember Wilder saying if you told a lie and repeated it often enough people would soon take it for the truth. Looks like he has some believing his bs.

#30 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 11:05 PM

nsbhm: That is weaker than usual.

Sad.


  • woo likes this

#31 Not Super But Honest Mike

Not Super But Honest Mike

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,711 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 11:22 PM

savile, may I suggest you  pay attention to redevelopment's spending....not the council's!

 

Rd has spent about 5 mil to purchase property, clear it, and turn it into the unsightly weed patch it is today. Plus they are going to spend up to 2 mil to install the gigantic sewer pipe and 3 million to improve the 9th and Spring intersection.....and then sell the property for 1.2 mil or less......

 

Take time to add up how much TIF tax dollars they have spent...and bonded....since 2012.  The council's spending is peanuts compared to RD.


Edited by Not Super But Honest Mike, 14 March 2015 - 11:50 PM.


#32 Not Super But Honest Mike

Not Super But Honest Mike

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,711 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 11:29 PM

savile, follow the TIF money......pay attention to the Falls Landing TIF on Jan 1st, 2012....then look at the balance on the 31 Dec, 2012 and 2013....

 

figure out how much NEW bond debt RD has taken on since 2012........

 

And the "cash" that is being used for 10th Street......see if you can find where that money came from.....



#33 Not Super But Honest Mike

Not Super But Honest Mike

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,711 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 11:32 PM

savile.....just report the facts of RD and our TIF....no scare tactics needed.....the facts are scary enough......



#34 Not Super But Honest Mike

Not Super But Honest Mike

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,711 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 11:37 PM

And while you're at it, see if you can find out where the taxes from the 10th and Spring project, and the Court Ave-Mulberry Street project, are going.  Do they go in the TIF? How many years will it take RD to recover all the TIF $$$  investment in these properties?



#35 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 11:51 PM

Nsbhm, your attempt to ignore the spending issues and make this political
miss the point  entirely.
That may be intentional.
The lack of sound wisdom and the arrogant spending at the current soccer site are the focus.
Continuing  to waste precious tax funds at that site is inappropriate.
Please re-read the extensive details that have been posted.
This  is not about Z/DJ and their campaign against MM.
Many of us do not care who wins that battle
or if Z or  MM or DJ wins.
Your try to divert attention and ignore the reality of the poor decisions
that led to the use of that site is not helpful.
The great amount of tax funds that will be spent there
or at an alternative site is the issue.
 It is about the issues,

the deception,

and the arrogance
that have been displayed.

We need to curtail the spending
and re-prioritize the use of the tax funds.


Edited by Savile Row, 14 March 2015 - 11:53 PM.


#36 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 15 March 2015 - 12:11 AM

Nsbhm, you know that I have a lot of information on the canal,

TIF funds, EDC, and the other areas of investment to which

you are referring in your obfuscation.

It might be wise if DJ would speak out against the wasteful soccer field ADDITIONAL spending

and block the extensive proposals.

There is no needed rush to slam more money into the project.

The details of the soccer plan/glitzy arena which have  been proposed

need to be discussed and exposed. Continuing to pump millions into the current site

 and the second site  is felt to be REALLY unwise.

 

Senator Grooms has met with other  knowledgeable persons in Indianapolis

and discussed that the spending velocity cannot continue.

The economic development funds to which you refer

will be analyzed in the course of this election.

Block the soccer spending FIRST.

Re-prioritize the spending of scarce tax funds.

We are taking a close look at ALL

city spending.

The process is just starting.

Remember, fiscal conservatism and sound spending are  the goals.


Edited by Savile Row, 15 March 2015 - 12:20 AM.

  • theinformer likes this

#37 IntegrityMatters

IntegrityMatters

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,993 posts

Posted 15 March 2015 - 02:02 PM

Savile -- I also wonder why DJ hasn't spoken out for/against this sports complex.   Someone who is running for mayor needs to be more transparent.   He did vote in favor of the non-reverting fund and transferring $3 million into it.  But he said nothing at the council meeting.  Nothing.  And he did not respond to my email --- the only one who has been considerate enough to reply in depth is Councilman Samuels.   Bravo for him for at least responding to the taxpayers.

 

While the money put in the non-reverting fund could possibly be transferred to another fund (just like the Vissing Park fund was transferred), it is my understanding that it CANNOT be transferred back to the general fund.  $2.5 million of the $3 million came from the general fund ---- is this possibly a way for the council to move funds out of the general fund so that the administration does not have access to those dollars?   Is this another example of the wall that exists between the council and the admin?

 

Where does the council plan to get the money to operate this complex on an annual basis?  Do they even know how much it will cost?    But since Ed Z said, "there has never been an indoor soccer facility proposed in the past" and there is "no indoor soccer facility being considered by the Jeffersonville Parks Authority", perhaps we don't need to worry other than to wonder why the council is transferring such a large amount of dollars into this fund.   I wonder if the other 8 councilmen realize that there are NO plans for an indoor facility???



#38 Donna

Donna

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,455 posts

Posted 15 March 2015 - 03:14 PM

Councilman 2 - Ed - nice parsing.  No, there wasn't a vote by the PARKS AUTHORITY of 9 - 0, that was done by the CITY COUNCIL!  You are part of the city council but apparently want to misrepresent the origination of the vote as you are also the head of the Parks Authority.  And, it is simply NOT TRUE that no indoor facility was planned.  I've re-read the entire Jeff City Abolished thread (I chuckled quite a bit and had to actively disengage my trigger happy "like" button finger!)  Your post #290 on that thread, "If we end up building a sports building AS ORIGINALLY PLANNED . . . "  and, how about your posts #60 & #82? 

 

So, you're not "repeating the same message over and over with words twisted and parsed out" but that is exactly what you are doing to concerned taxpayers, twisting and parsing words and your message HAS been changing. 

 

THERE has been a 9 - 0 vote, just not the Park Authority, but with the City Council (I suppose IM should have been exact to allow a little less wiggle room on your part.)  Which facts are "being misrepresented for what" you "believe are election year political fear tactics?"   You're running unopposed. 

 

If we were wallowing in money, infrastructure updated and taxes lowered, then your constituents might give you a green light on a vanity project.  Right now, it seems to be an irresponsible waste of taxpayer dollars.


Edited by Donna, 15 March 2015 - 03:16 PM.

  • IntegrityMatters and RiverFox like this

#39 woo

woo

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,722 posts

Posted 15 March 2015 - 03:38 PM

This thread shows the need for a real parks board, without any council members on it.


  • IntegrityMatters, RiverFox and grammy like this

#40 Not Super But Honest Mike

Not Super But Honest Mike

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,711 posts

Posted 15 March 2015 - 03:53 PM

Donna, my take on this....its not an indoor soccer building, its an indoor sports building. It can be converted for all sports (except maybe baseball) and used by those needing an indoor place to exercise in the winter. At least this is what was planned a couple years ago.

 

Perhaps the one thing that has been overlooked....the annexation special levy appeal. When the annexation occurred all departments added to their budgets for items needed as a result of the annexation. Parks department added 1 million to their budget to build parks in the annexed area. The DLGF approved the extra million, so parks has been collecting funds for new parks...in or near the annexed area...for several years.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users