No way, so here are two of the latest from the NewAlbanist blog:
So (angry) I can’t say much moreAnd: Living in a Reality-based (Under)World: "Show us this plan, Mr. Gahan. Call it your own, Mr. McLaughlin. Tell me where I’m just not getting it."
Four of New Albany’s city council members owe this city at least $6,000 a year for their dilatory tactics. These four (Gahan, Coffey, Price, McLaughlin) caused the city to incur 17 additional basis points on what should have been a “free” loan from Obama-instituted stimulus funds to bring New Albany (finally) into compliance with the Clean Water Act.
See also: Gahan opposed to NA rate increase due to added sewer debt, by Daniel Suddeath (Tribune).
10 comments:
Is the steve price couch indoors or out?
If you have to ask you already know the answer...
I have in front of me a six page report given by Crowe Horwath covering Plan A and Plan B and you want me to explain Plan C over a blog.
I sorry but I can't do that.
I wish I could.
No one ever said they had a complete proposed plan C.
All I ever wanted is to see is the option of not borrowing 7.4 looked at.
It has never been given a chance.
Randy, I have been at all of the meetings but one and the process at which was taken to get to Plan B was horrible. I started to being to question the need for the 7.4 million after the Sewer Boards Presentation not before and not because I discussed it with Mr. Gahan or Mr. Mclaughlin.
If I recall correctly neither of them were even there.
It was at the council meeting and in the paper when I learned that Jeff and Pat felt the same way.
If I as Joe Q Public could come up with the same thought without any prior conversation with Jeff or Pat I believe there is something there.
I know personally that no effort has been given to the idea but on the other hand at the "public brainstorm meeting" Dan Coffey, before the meeting ever started, was able to work with the Mayor to come up with Plan A. Dan did not do it alone he had cooperation. This is the same cooperation I'm asking the council and mayor to give to Jeff's and Pat's idea.
I don't know why this hasn't happened. If Jeff or Pat hasn't tried to work with the Mayor shame on them. My understanding is they have voiced there objections and they have been given the cold shoulder.
If they were to take the time and do this I would be very comfortable with the outcome of Plan B, Plan C, Plan B+C/2, or whatever but not until then do I believe that New Albany rate payers have been given proper representation.
And to be clear I don't think people are supporting Plan B just to make money but there reluctance to entertain other ideas leads me to believe that might be true.
During the Sewer Board Presentation one of the presenters showed some pie charts where they talked about the sewer's debt service to capital balance for 09 it was 25% to 25% and operational cost was 50%. This official said that the optimal ratio of debt service to capital should be equal parts but after the additional 7.4 million New Albany would have a 36% to 14% ratio for 2010.
His recommendation to borrow more money was a contradiction to what he said prior about optimal ratio should be equal parts.
I thought that is was Mr. Christmas that made these points but I'm not for sure.
The first thing that popped into my head was maybe they need to look at ways of not borrowing so much money.
If you fear receivership this path of borrowing more money will bring us closer to that possibility.
Another thing that no one is saying that you are claiming to make is that the plan given by the sewer board is wrong. The 70% rate increase was correct but it was only correct with what ability the sewer board possessed. Once other parties started to intervene did the rate increase change to a 36-19, and it was not until the Mayor got involved did we have 23-24.
You say I'm uniformed it will only appear that way if readers were to beleive your half truths Randy.
1.3 million will be used out of TIF to pay towards the cost of borrowing 7.4 million dollars.
Question
Why wouldn't the city use TIF directly to pay for projects and then borrow less from SRF thereby keeping the sewer utility at optimal debt to capital ratios?
Is there any other money that can be used to fund sewer capital projects?
If not what is the other money being used for or reserved for and should sewers take priority?
Why has the option of using EDIT or Rainday been taken off the table?
The Mayor and Dan worked out 700,000 for Plan A, to subsidize rates for twenty years, which was a horrible idea, but why not use these funds for a direct expense to sewer capital projects? If we did that we would be using them for their intent. If a plan, lets call it plan C, was to use TIF, EDIT, and/or Rainday combined with a six year plan, instead of a four year plan, along with an initial rate increase of 36%, to cover the short fall of current debt, and then a re-amortization of that debt, we could have the best plan yet.
Maybe TIF, EDIT, and/or Rainday funds are needed for other projects that should take priority over sewers. What are these plans? They need to be where the public can see them easily. If only some of the money can be used, fine, that way we may only need 2.3 million in additional debt not 7.4, thereby keeping the sewer utility closer to proper ratios.
Answering these questions would have been nice at the "public brainstorming meeting".
If a presentation was given, at that "brainstorming meeting", that was as good as the one the Sewer Board gave, where the public was shown what options were explored to formulate a proposal, this interaction wouldn't have been necessary. Instead attendees were presented a plan by the Mayor and Dan, formulated behind closed doors, which was changed later by the Mayor to form Plan B.
Not the transparency I’m asking for.
"Four of New Albany’s city council members owe this city at least $6,000 a year for their dilatory tactics. These four (Gahan, Coffey, Price, McLaughlin) caused the city to incur 17 additional basis points on what should have been a “free” loan from Obama-instituted stimulus funds to bring New Albany (finally) into compliance with the Clean Water Act."
How did four council members cost New Albany rate payers anything?
It takes 5 votes to win approve of an ordinance not 4.
I don't think Dan, Pat, Jeff, and Steve have filibuster capability.
If you should be angry at anything it is the process that people are not willing to cooperate openly and fairly thereby creating an atmosphere of distrust.
In my opinion the number one thing that is wrong with New Albany is the lack of transparency.
"In my opinion the number one thing that is wrong with New Albany is the lack of transparency."
I agree, then we could add accountability.
Only then can we start to address the myriad serious problems here.
A public discussion of one of the most important issues for the future sustainability of our community is embarrassing, without ethics, without one set of facts for the public to even discuss.
7 blocks from my neighborhood open sewage flows through the "country club".
The natural storm water system was destroyed and the local "leaders" propose we spend every dime we can get our hands on for the next 3 generations to shore up a totally unsustainable waste/water system some idiot developers came up with 50 years ago.
Please wake me up when city hall has it's accounting on-line so we can make some decisions.
I will say this. The one thing we've learned over the past six years is that you can't simply rely on someone's ability to understand reality because they say they went to all the meetings. Understanding what happens at those meetings and drawing logical conclusions from the information provided, and not selectively or with an intent to provide disinformation, is quite a bit more important than mere attendance.
If information is not made public, then it's not information that can be part of a public policy discussion.
That is very nice Randy, did you write that after you reread everything on your blog?
Post a Comment