John, if you want your furniture shredded, get a cat, and if you want 1940's-era thinking, keeping letting the same two dudes run your council. It's that simple.
Meanwhile, the reporter Morris does his job well and locates the best quote of the night, from council youngster Brad Striegel:
“This is a quality of life issue. Funding will be tough on both sides, but we have an obligation to meet. I’m tired of hearing how the [David] Camm trial is going to hijack quality of life in this area.”
Me, too. Someone buy that man a cigar.
Floyd County OKs parks deal; City Council will take final vote on measure April 19, by Chris Morris (Pop-Up Reproduction Laboratory)
... However, before the final vote, county Councilman John Schellenberger had several questions for NA-FC Parks Board President Scott Klink and Director Roger Jeffers. After those questions were answered, Schellenberger said he didn’t think it was fair to make threats in the newspaper about closing a particular facility or trying to make the county council look like the “bad guy” during the process.
“Why would you say you would close Community Park and not other parks. That misinformation gets people stirred up,” Schellenberger said. “I feel like we are being used as a pawn in all this when it’s a bigger issue. It bothers me that something lands in the Tribune and gets people all stirred up. People read it and think we are going to close Community Park.”
While everyone else in the room was saying we can't point fingers Schellenberger was channeling Coffey and the ghost of Steve Price.
ReplyDeleteHe was even quoting an entire online comment from the newsandtribune.com of someone named "kitty"
It's pretty obvious that most of the county officials "forget" that the citizens of NA pay COUNTY taxes, too. Most of the non New Albany residents of Floyd County also "forget" it.
ReplyDeleteThe past city administration and county council are both to blame for this situation. The city wasn't keeping good accounting records and the county wasn't adjusting their required funding.
ReplyDeleteThe worst part, New Albany is still receiving the short end of the deal. And when you compare the parks out in the county to the parks located within city limits the county parks are by far much better. The original funding ordinance was more equitable than the new one. I hope that New Albany residents become aware of the funding discrepancy and start demanding better city parks, at least like the ones in the county.
I'm getting very tired of the county representative repeated notion that county government isn't accountable to the city residents who fund so much of their operation. Along those lines, I'm glad Klink, Gahan, and others have finally stepped up to say differently. It's our money, not their money. Levels of service and obligation should reflect that.
ReplyDelete911 funds are next. Stop being jerks about it and give us our share.
For some reason, Councilman Schellenberger wouldn't call me out by name at the meeting last night. I was the person who made the comment in the Tribune about possibly closing Community Park. Now, the other interesting thing, Councilman Schellenberger quoted word for word into the record a comment by "Kitty" which was posted on the Tribune website related to the comment I made. I am posting "Kitty's" comment in full below:
ReplyDeleteKitty wrote:
Why is it that the politicians always want to target the best and most used park as the one in jeapordy?
I never see anyone using Binford Park, which is run down and unattractive.
If something has to be eliminated, why consider closing the one park that so many people love and use daily when there are smaller parks that aren't maintained or used and would not be missed?
It's too bad the citizens, who the parks are here for, could end up as victims of this power struggle.
April 3, 2012, 11:01 PM
I posted a reply to "Kitty" hoping to shed some additional light on the subject. My comment was as follows:
Steven G. LaDuke wrote:
Kitty, The reason Community Park is mentioned... Even though Sam Peden Community Park is located inside the City, it is actually a County property. Since this issue comes from a lack of funding from the County and not the City, it wouldn't be fair to close a City Park. Community Park is the largest and most expensive property to operate. Someone suggested Community Park should not be closed because it is used by a majority of City residents. I would like to point out that ALL residents of the City are also residents of Floyd County. Please contact your County Council members and ask them to adhere to the existing agreement calling for equal funding and to support the new agreement again calling for equal funding. Believe me, the NA-FC Parks Board does not want to close ANY Park however, the existing agreement states the Board shall alter services if either financial body does not hold up their end of the agreement.
April 5, 2012, 12:28 PM
I asked Councilman Schellenberger after the meeting if he had seen my reply to "Kitty". He said that he had and that he had a copy of it with him, which he showed me. I guess he didn't feel it was necessary to read my reply, which I feel like explained the situation pretty well, word for word into the record.
In the end, all worked out for the best and we can now move forward from here. We have some exciting things in the works. Stay tuned!
Mr. LaDuke, I find it difficult to believe that all worked out for the best. It is my understanding that the funding is now 50/50. Seeing how county parks are 380 acres, and the city only 90 acres, city residents are shouldering a greater burden of the operational cost for the parks. The city also pays a capital fund that county "only" residents do not.
ReplyDeleteIt is not a secret that the county parks are better equipped and larger. It should be the other way around but isn't. The parks board needs to correct this wrong.
I understand the board is working on getting a new pool funded, but I would first rather have quality and more parks here within the city to correct the imbalance.
Don't forget that the "50/50" funding is actually bogus from a taxpayer standpoint. NA citizens are paying taxes into the county coffers that help fund the county's share. These same NA citizens are also paying into the city coffers that help fund the city's share. NA citizens are paying roughly double. Now add the capital fund that Jameson mentioned and the imbalance grows even larger.
ReplyDeleteI'm revisiting my opposition to a special Park taxing district. It may be the best and fairest way to go.
I need to back up on my statement that NA citizens will be paying roughly double for the parks under the new agreement. It has come to my attention that the city's valuation is excluded when the park tax rate is figured for the county's share. A rare exception when figuring county rates but it seems to be true in this case.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't change that the county failed to live up to their obligations in the prior agreement but if they do live up to the new agreement, the citizen's tax burden will be roughly equal between city residents and non city residents of Floyd County.
Thanks for the info, Jeff.
Remember, maybe I should have chosen my words a little more carefully. I agree with you! Things worked out for the BETTER, not the best. It is my opinion the Parks District would be BEST! Jeff, notice I called it a Parks District not a Parks TAXING district! hahaha I know, technically that's exactly what it is.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad to see that you are open to this idea. I'll admit, we went about it all wrong last time. I would love the opportunity to explore the idea of a the district again but this time do it with input from City/County along with citizens. If we are able to pass a Parks District, the main advantage is our "income" would be set. We would know what we would have in our bank every year and no one could "not live up to their end of the bargain". At that point, we wouldn't have to worry about what we would have to cut but think about where to go next.
One last thing to remember... Remember mentioned we are working on a pool. We are working on not only a pool but other projects as well. I would love for anyone to stop by a Parks meeting anytime or maybe I could suggest an openhouse one evening when we can display some of the blueprints and designs we have on a few of these projects.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteWhen does the Parks Board meet? Good to "see" you here.
I get what you're saying, Steve, but the idea that we should give up local control because a handful of replaceable folks can't be trusted isn't really a solution, either. That said, if people can read the comments from Schellenberger, Fendley, Aebersold, et al, and still reelect them, we'll get what we deserve.
ReplyDeleteTo suggest that county council members had no idea there was a problem or that it's unfair to discuss consequences is ludicrous, unless they want to cop to extreme ignorance of county income and obligations.
Our library system is the closest example we have to the type of district you're talking about and it's woefully underfunded. Most people don't understand how much private funding has to occur every year in addition to the district to maintain current programming levels nor how much bang for the buck is actually delivered. I'm guessing at least part of that is true for parks as well.
I appreciate the newfound willingness amongst parks staff and board to be open about the situation, but Community Park was the wrong target. I know it's owned by the county but it largely functions as a city park due to location. Cavan and Galena-Lamb are better targets. If they don't pay, lock the gates and negotiate as they return to nature.
For the City's part, they too often act as if they're powerless to deal with the county. While state law may not mandate sharing in places where it makes sense, there are certainly some strategies - some nicer than others - that could be employed if needed to change some attitudes. Political pressure works both ways if polite cooperation isn't cutting it.
Mark, Our next Parks Board Mtg. is 6:00pm April 24th at the YMCA. We may be just a tad late as we have an execuitive session before the meeting but we should be close.
ReplyDeleteJeff, You point out the EXACT reason I say we went about it all wrong last time. The impression was we were trying to avoid what local people thought and just push it through at the State level. The one thing I hate the most about our approach was that it was seen as political and that it was a Republican vs. Democrat or Democrat vs. Republican thing when, actually we weren't thinking about that at all. We had briefly talked about the idea of the District to Rep. Cochran while he was in office but we weren't far enough along with the legislation yet. Like I said before, we need to gather input from everyone, educate and then let the people vote.
Steve, the larger problem (and I know you've said the same thing) is what Mark mentioned earlier: county officials fail to recognize that city residents provide much of their funding and thus should receive attention, commitment, and services in kind.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, state funding distribution often makes that situation worse instead of better by encouraging rewarding costly behavior(s) and penalizing what would otherwise be considered successful. One of the reasons I object to more state control is because so many of their funding mechanisms have been far worse for New Albany/Floyd County for far longer than our current parks problem.
Most of the local budgeting process in Indiana is counterproductive and, given decades in some cases to fix it, state government hasn't and we have far less influence in getting them to do so than we do at the local level. The best state Ds or Rs have come up with is to mostly blame locals for what are largely structural problems via state government.
A lot of that at the state and local levels could be laid at Democrats feet not too long ago. More recently, it's been Republicans. Honestly, though, you can't worry about stuff like that. I got the "You just don't like Clere" business when all that was happening, even though I would've had the exact same objections if Cochran would've handled it the same way.
Thanks for the communication. And, jeez, an official admitting things could've been handled better? That's gold around here.