... ooh, really gettin' it (yes, Sewergeddon it).
Actually, Sewergeddon was averted, if only temporarily. Perhaps the chief omen was the clock on the wall. It stopped working after a mishap with the projection screen. Could a stopped clock be right one of two daily times during a meeting itself? Could it mean that the council itself might ... be ... right?
It had been suggested that there were five firm votes in favor of (a) seven million bucks for sewer projects, and (b) the mayor's "Plan B" for phased rate increases, and if any doubt remained, Dan Coffey's antennae spasmodically jerked with intermittent cattle prod jolts as the bile collected and end game approached.
Further evidence was provided when Steve Price abandoned pretense and began gatoring to the tune of Screaming Jay Hawkins' "I Put a Spell on You."
And, through it all, as the council sometimes debated, sometimes grandstanded, Pat McLaughlin sat, relieved, because knowing that there were five firm votes in favor, he was afforded the luxury of voting against it without once having to explain why. Even Jeff Gahan undertook an explanation, although barely adequate. Not Donnie ... I mean, not Pat. Perhaps having King Larry there, glowering at you, seems a bit too much like he's a vulture, and you're carrion. So much promise ... so little performance.
Here's the media rundown. I took notes, but the schedule is bruising today, and I may or may not get around to posting them right away. Discuss if you wish. I'll be back later.
New Albany City Council passes 23 percent rate hike on second reading, by Daniel Suddeath (Tribune).
Vote advances New Albany sewer rate hike, by Harold J. Adams (C-J).
ALEX, I'LL TAKE PLAN B FOR $7.4 MILLION, by Shirley Baird (VOP blog)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
There were some very good things said last night.
Kevin made very valid points why to take plan A or B
1. Loan rates are 2.5% and inflation is 3%
He said the SRF is practically giving New Albany money.
2. Delaying sewer work will only cause that work to become more expensive.
Mr. Gahan made very good points.
1. Do we really need this loan?
The total cost for the CAP projects are 7.2 but we are borrowing 7.4. There are 200,000 in administrative cost just to loan the money.
Mr. Ceaser asked at a pervious meeting how much interest will rate payers pay on the 7.4 million? The financing official told him 240,000
With the council voting to approve the loan we now increase spending by 440,000.
One needs to ask
What is the difference in cost of the points Kevin and Jeff made.
The worst part of it all is Jeff's and Pat's proposal has not even been considered by the Sewer Board or Mayoral Staff. I think it is because the latter stand to profit off of the loan, which is not illegal but clearly a conflict of interest.
There are many other details that need to be addressed but one big one is if they will be using at least 1.3 million in TIF, if not more, why do they still need to borrow 7.4 million? Shouldn't they only need 6.1?
One might think that Mr. Gahan would want his constituents, many of whom were plagued by the sewer backups, to have the problems solved sooner rather than later. Not to mention that he sponsored and voted for $400,000 to give to people for damages and restoration. A cynic just might think that he "likes" the problem. "I voted to keep the rates low. I voted to give you money. I voted to keep the rates low. I voted to give you money."
Good thing that I'm not the cynical type.
My comment is just to say that I've read as RAB has quoted Mencken and others, but I never thought I'd see the New Albanian borrowing from Def Leppard.
Mark, Mr. Gahan's and Mr. Mclaughlin’s questioning of why do we need to borrow more money is valid and doesn't effect flooding victims if thought out correctly.
I attended the special meeting that the sewer board presented to the public. The presentation was a very good one that answered a lot of questions for me but at the same time creating new ones.
One of the comments made at that meeting was that the first projects to be completed will be the ones affecting the Castlewood Neighborhood. (Basin 14)
It was after this meeting that I began to see what Mr. Gahan is talking about and I was pleased to read in the Tribune to know others saw the same thing.
Following that public meeting was the charade of a public brain storming meeting where at that time it was announced that TIF monies would be used to fix basin 14 one of the CAP projects and the very project that will address the Castlewood Neighborhood.
Mark, Mr. Gahan's idea has merit that should have support from anyone that would consider their self a Progressive.
What is a Progressive?
To me the term Progressive must start with the ending of the old order of unethical behavior.
Giving Mr. Gahan's and Mclaughlin’s comments fair consideration is Progressive.
What should we fear? That Mr. Gahan is wrong and Kevin right or that the current plan B is a farce that is only being considered because of a conflict of interest.
I wish I could share everything that I have witnessed at these past meetings but blogs are not very good at doing that.
"To me the term Progressive must start with the ending of the old order of unethical behavior."
We not need $75 million in sewer debt. Other than all that debt is good for Wall Street and the people who make a commission on making debt deals.
We need to charge the users what it costs to run the sewer system.
We need to incentivize conservation.
We need transparent accounting of the sewer books and we need it presented to the public so we can make decisions about our future.
This isn't rocket science, it just seems like that way when I try and understand what is going on.
I'm not in favor of more debt, per se. I am in favor of the sewers charging what it costs to run them. So where do we differ?
If "leaders" past had charged what it actually cost to run the sewers and spent that revenue on proper maintenance & upgrades, most likely we wouldn't be having this conversation.(With the EPA who knows but it probably would not have been so severe). Those "leaders" didn't. So here we sit.
Dragging all this out even longer is not progressive. There is no dispute that the projects in question will have to be done. The only dispute is when. While no one can say absolutely for sure, not many will deny that construction costs are likely to much lower today than starting these projects 2, 3, 4 years down the road. The only way to do "it" now is to borrow the money. That is just the math. Doesn't even address eliminating or minimizing some current problems that are affecting citizens of NA.
Jameson, feel free to email any more info that you have that is too long for the blog. I'm open to changing my mind. You have been to a meeting or two that I have not. On the other hand, I've dealt with Mr. Gahan longer than you have. For now, I'll just leave it at that.
In my opinion, the actual cost of this is probably not much different any way that you go. There is interest and borrowing costs with the loan. There is the high probability of much higher construction cost if we delay and fund the projects out of cash flow.
6 of one, half a dozen of another. How to decide when costs are "even". Sooner is better than later. That's progress. Delay is "old order".
I think where we disagree is that Mr. Gahan's and Mr. Mclaughlin's idea should be discussed publicly. The call for greater transparency.
The Mayor worked with Dan behind closed doors to come up with plan A.
I don't think Mr. Gahan has even had that opportunity. Because his idea is not being considered.
At the last council meeting when Jeff brought up the issue Diana asked Jeff where was his plan. I was very disappointed she reacted that way. What she should have said is we need to explore what Mr. Gahan is saying.
Mr. Gahan as a council person cannot come up with a plan alone it takes cooperation between all parties. His idea is being shut out.
So I ask you. Why is his idea being shut out?
I agree that there may not be much difference in cost. My desire is more about doing the right thing. The Progressive struggle for more ethical government should be a good enough reason to support Mr. Gahan.
Not addressing the problems is the old order. In no way is Mr. Gahan saying not to address the problems.
I would hope that out of all the different proposals the best one would be chosen but that can’t happen until all ideas are considered. Kind of like 8664 right?
The best way that I can show you the reasoning behind my position would be in person. There are a few documents and a power point presentation emailing them and then explaining what they are will take too much time.
My neighborhood will be having its association meeting this evening at 7:00 in the basement of the church at the corner of Silver and Elm you are more than welcome to come. I can show you some of the things.
For anyone else interested the Uptown Neighborhood Association will be talking about how to start a community garden at Becknell Park anyone interested is welcomed to come.
Mr. Gahan does not have an idea worth the name. Calling it a proposal presumes that one proposes. The Gahan proposal is to vote no.
Jameson,
Right way? Transparency? Gahan?
I once believed that about him. I got over it. Would like to believe it again but I've seen nothing to cause me to change back.
Well, lets see.
We go to the bank(srf) to get a loan(7mil) for a new car. The bank says our credit is maxed out at 60 million, sorry. BUT, if you could show us some additional income we might be able to loan you more money. OK, WE (the administration) will just raise rates. Now we can show on paper how we can ,make the payments on our 7 million dollar car and we get the loan even though we are now maxed out again. Individuals would be irresponsible in doing this but many here think that is hte way to go, to pay for projects that have not been mandated by anyone and that there are no time limits concerning them. We should raise the rates, perhaps 3% per year to take care of these one at a time, since there are NO mandates now.
Well, let's see--do you have **** backing up in your house? That might be considered a "mandate" by those that do. (I'm not one of them--thankfully).
Yeah, don't do anything unless we are absolutely forced to do it. Jeez, what do you think helped get us into this shape.
Looks like I was wrong.
CM Gahan actually will explain himself, just not do it, himself.
Jeff and Pat may have a plan, and it may be better than it appears. Neither of them has expended any effort in making this plan known. Maybe they need an assistant to articulate something -- anything.
Until then, they lie down with dogs, they get up with fleas: They vote in lock step with the no-nothings, and must be viewed alongside them as a new Axis of Banal.
What Knighttrain is saying is true.
Looking at the situation the sewer utility would be the antipathy of all the economic problems that is facing the nation, states, and individuals.
Mark, no one is saying not to fix the problems that need to be fixed.
Basin 14 will be fixed with TIF this year. What needs to be fixed will be fixed. The projects that are not related to people’s sewers backing up can be delayed for one or more years to allow New Albany to fix the problems without borrowing more money and putting the city at greater risk of insolvency.
All I’m asking for is a serious effort be put into examining why we have to borrow 7.4 and if we find out that it can’t be done reasonably then plan B is our best option.
Another discrepancy if 1.3 million will be used out of TIF for basin 14 why do we still need to borrow 7.4. Shouldn't we only need 6.1? What the council voted for on Monday was 7.4 and not 6.1.
I'm just gonna start sh**ting in the woods. It'll solve one mystery, anyway. Bear with me.
Post a Comment