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

#41 woo

woo

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,724 posts

Posted 15 March 2015 - 04:12 PM

 The DLGF approved the extra million, so parks has been collecting funds for new parks...in or near the annexed area...for several years.

Yet, the parks dept does not want to take care of Allison Brooke park because it is not in the budget.

 

We need a real (non political) parks board.


  • IntegrityMatters, GrumpyGranny, kelley and 1 other like this

#42 IntegrityMatters

IntegrityMatters

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,995 posts

Posted 15 March 2015 - 04:15 PM

Forget whether it is called an "indoor soccer facility" or an "indoor sports facility" or "indoor whatever facility" ----- For Ed Z to say that "NO indoor soccer facility has been proposed in the past"  is just quibbling over words.  He knew exactly what I meant when I called it an "indoor soccer facility" and he knew that an indoor sports facility has been proposed/discussed for some time.  I apologize for referring to it as "soccer" instead of "sports", but it will be located at the Woehrle complex which is primarily soccer and I have a feeling that if it is built it will be used a lot more for soccer than anything else.

 

The fact remains -- whatever we call it --- it is still a multi-million facility that this City does NOT need to own and operate.  Period.   And the fact that the Council is not forthcoming in its "plans" for the use of this taxpayer money which they are taking out of the GENERAL fund is horrendous.


  • Donna likes this

#43 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 15 March 2015 - 04:36 PM

Jeffersonville City Council Watch
This is really quite easy to understand if a person has an open mind.
 

 

1.) The council has been planning this project with the glitzy indoor sports/soccer/conference center
     for a long time. The Newsandtribune has covered it, has printed the quotes, and has reported
     their original bids came in at $6,900,000.,
2.)The very nice existing soccer complex has been built. It is in use. Some say it has a total
     price tag so far of around $4-5,000,000. The amount of the spending to date
    has NOT been released. Why?.
3.) There was a presentation made at the council meeting on February 2.
     Votes were taken then and at  another council meeting to move
      funds into a non-reverting fund to buy yet more land and prepare it
      for a parking lot. Members of the current council stated that it was for a parking lot.
      The newsandtribune reported on that as well. More money will be needed for any indoor facility.

4.) The current soccer site is too small, in a terrible location, has already cost a mint,
       and is unsuitable for expansion even by buying an adjoining 11 acres.,
5.) The glitzy indoor soccer/sports/convention facility is not needed
      and would cost a lot of money yearly to operate.,
6.) The new idea to spend $3,000,000 in additional hard earned, scarce tax money
     for a second site is also  excessive.,
7. The new site is best used in the port area for industrial  development
    that will provide jobs and taxes.,
8.) Millions additionally are planned to be expended to develop the second site.,
9.) The vast sums of money can be reprioritized to be used more wisely
      on economic development projects.,
10.) The projected return on investment (ROI) for the soccer/sports gig are not believable for many.,
11.) This would be best handled by the private sector and would be in competition with other venues.,
12.) Attempts at obfuscation by the persons who created this mess are not very original.,
13.) The matter is not about DJ, MM, or council persons .It is only being made political
       by the enablers pushing this poorly thought out plan.
14.) The discussion IS about the WISDOM  of the first soccer site location,

      the spending, and the TOTAL planned expenditures.,
15.) The development costs for a second site will be substantial.,

16.) The existing site and the proposed expansion are in a congested industrial area

       that may not be all that safe with auto, truck, and railroad traffic..

17.)This is the alleged "fiscally conservative" and oh-so-careful council.....,

18.) Tell us about appeals to the DLGF to increase the amount allowed for the expenditures...

     Is that yet another million of tax dollars?.,

19.) What is the sports bonded indebtedness at the present time?

 

 

:poke: :sweat: :sweat: :sweat:


Edited by Savile Row, 15 March 2015 - 05:27 PM.


#44 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 15 March 2015 - 05:20 PM

Just some little additional questions:

Is the City of Jeffersonville's total bonded indebtedness at the present time $175,000,000?

 

Who is working on behalf of the beleaguered taxpayers to REDUCE that?

Lets stop the spending on excessive projects and reduce the debt.

 

:popcorn:


Edited by Savile Row, 15 March 2015 - 05:22 PM.


#45 Not Super But Honest Mike

Not Super But Honest Mike

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,711 posts

Posted 15 March 2015 - 08:03 PM

Who knows the total indebtedness....with the way moore and rd spend money it could be 350 mil....



#46 Donna

Donna

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,464 posts

Posted 15 March 2015 - 08:32 PM

I know you have fallen out with Moore, and you're not fond of Waiz or Redevelopment.  I've asked you before what reckless spending has the RD done and you've not answered that question.  But you continue to push for $3 million dollars for a parking lot and start up for an indoor "sports" complex.  Care to explain? 


  • IntegrityMatters, GrumpyGranny and grammy like this

#47 Big Bopper

Big Bopper

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,035 posts

Posted 15 March 2015 - 09:13 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.


We know how much you love new parks. Lol

#48 Donna

Donna

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,464 posts

Posted 15 March 2015 - 09:45 PM

I'm not buying it, hopefully!  Along with a lot of other folk. I think this nonessential expenditure, when there are vital infrastructure needs, is outrageous. 



#49 IntegrityMatters

IntegrityMatters

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,995 posts

Posted 16 March 2015 - 07:17 AM

Council meets tonight at 7 p.m.    Hope a lot show up and speak out against this $3 million "whatever it is"!!


  • kelley likes this

#50 hillbilly highway

hillbilly highway

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 531 posts

Posted 16 March 2015 - 08:43 AM

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.


I Bet If this was Mike Moore's idea you would be a supporter of a sports building no matter what the cost.

#51 Tina

Tina

    Tinacious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,739 posts

Posted 16 March 2015 - 09:32 AM

I Bet If this was Mike Moore's idea you would be a supporter of a sports building no matter what the cost.

 

And I bet if it was Moore's idea you (and NSBHM) would be dead set against it no matter what the cost.


  • IntegrityMatters, GrumpyGranny, kelley and 3 others like this

#52 kelley

kelley

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,119 posts

Posted 16 March 2015 - 10:09 AM

I Bet If this was Mike Moore's idea you would be a supporter of a sports building no matter what the cost.



You perhaps have Donna confused with someone else.
  • Tina, Donna and woo like this

#53 Greg Clark

Greg Clark

    ACCOUNT CLOSED

  • Account Closed
  • PipPipPip
  • 462 posts

Posted 16 March 2015 - 08:28 PM

I would like to see a financial and economic impact analysis comparing any proposed indoor/outdoor recreation complex and the new riverfront marina being built. Analysis should take into account amount of public dollars and private dollars invested and the overall fiscal and economic impact of both projects.

The marina went through and was funded with a few bumps in the road, but nothing major. A lot of buzz and talk about this proposed recreation facility and improvements, would like to see the comparisons. If economic and/or fiscal impact favors the recreation facility or even if it's equal, I think it raises questions on why this proposal (as compared to the marina project) is recieving the amplified scrutiny.

#54 Greg Clark

Greg Clark

    ACCOUNT CLOSED

  • Account Closed
  • PipPipPip
  • 462 posts

Posted 16 March 2015 - 08:31 PM

And I bet if it was Moore's idea you (and NSBHM) would be dead set against it no matter what the cost.


See my previous post but your post is spot on (along with the posts you are responding) to highlight my point. Do you think this is primarily a political issue?

#55 Donna

Donna

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,464 posts

Posted 16 March 2015 - 09:21 PM

I think it's a taxpayer issue.  Attempts are being made to make this political, but a number of chatterers are saying "enough is enough, stop squandering taxpayer dollars."  IMO, another study/analysis to see if we should squander taxpayer dollars is another way to squander taxpayer dollars.



#56 hillbilly highway

hillbilly highway

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 531 posts

Posted 16 March 2015 - 09:38 PM

And I bet if it was Moore's idea you (and NSBHM) would be dead set against it no matter what the cost.


Tina am sorry to say but you are 100% correct.

#57 hillbilly highway

hillbilly highway

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 531 posts

Posted 16 March 2015 - 09:40 PM

You perhaps have Donna confused with someone else.

Kelly you could be right I get confused sometimes.

#58 Greg Clark

Greg Clark

    ACCOUNT CLOSED

  • Account Closed
  • PipPipPip
  • 462 posts

Posted 16 March 2015 - 10:01 PM

I think it's a taxpayer issue. Attempts are being made to make this political, but a number of chatterers are saying "enough is enough, stop squandering taxpayer dollars." IMO, another study/analysis to see if we should squander taxpayer dollars is another way to squander taxpayer dollars.


So how does one attempt to statistically and empirically distinguish the squandering of taxpayer dollars versus the prudent and desired use of taxpayer dollars? What level of due diligence do you think decision makers should be required/expected to perform?

I just don't see how you can truly act in a fiscally resonable/prudent/responsible manner in making decisions without there being some reasonable analysis and comparisons. How can one weigh the priority of expenses without these considerations?

#59 Donna

Donna

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,464 posts

Posted 16 March 2015 - 10:10 PM

I could be wrong, but an indoor sports complex is not a priority for taxpayer dollars.  Things like sewers, roads, bridges, now those are priorities.  When they need upgrades or start to show wear and tear, THOSE are PRIORITIES.   We also need our police, fire, sanitation, etc.  No studies/analysis need to be hired.  We KNOW these things.



#60 Greg Clark

Greg Clark

    ACCOUNT CLOSED

  • Account Closed
  • PipPipPip
  • 462 posts

Posted 16 March 2015 - 10:45 PM

I agree with that all of those things you listed are priorities. No question. But shouldn't there be some measurable criteria to determine the priority of those categories? Should all public dollars go for those items you listed, thereby eliminating other initiates? If not, how do you determine/measure when one of those categories has received sufficient funding? Are you taking into account statutory limitations, restrictions and mandates on the uses of certain revenue sources and collections - where essentially the Statehouse regulates the use of certain municipal collections? You seem to be critiquing and assessing expenditures by implanting a subjective standard, I don't see how any fair assessment can be completed with this model. Doesn't it have to be objective?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users