The Jeff Gahan Money Machine, Part 4: The Estopinol Group and Cripe Architects are just two facets of River Run Waterpark's fertilizing effect.

Previously: The Jeff Gahan Money Machine, Part 3: Eight-year donor Terry Ginkins and a consistency of beak-wetting.

Some people watch ballgames for fun, but during the coming weeks we'll be plucking highlights from eight years of the Committee to Elect Gahan's CFA-4 campaign finance reports. Strap in, folks -- and don't forget those air(head) sickness bags.

As a preface to what follows, it's a long and winding road when it comes to navigating Jeff Gahan's big money. Dozens of companies are connected to Gahan's ruinously expensive capital projects, and connecting all the dots between so many out-of-town attorneys, consultants and vendors eager to pay respects to Dear Leader with a few hundred dollars of spare pocket change from their natty three-piece-suits would be a fool's errand.

Rather, I'm merely offering a tantalizing taste of the golden dust swirling around Gahan's money machine, enough for us to #FollowThatSlush.

For instance, here's a small and seemingly insignificant donation: a one-time only, never-to-be-repeated $100 tithe to the benevolence of our Dear Leader.

This C-note came in during the 4th quarter of 2015. River Run (New Albany Family Waterpark) had opened in July. The donor's connection is circled.

Krempp Construction of Jasper was River Run's general contractor, and a rarity in the annals of Jeff Gahan's all-encompassing campaign finance Shop-Vac Mechanism because there is no record of donations coming to Hizzoner from Krempp. However, I suspect the list of sub-contractors might yield a more interesting result, and that's coming soon.

River Run exists today owing to the windfall Tax Increment Financing-propelled city parks build-out that so grandly summarizes the Gahan style of governance on the down low, recalling that no one can recall parks being raised as a campaign issue in 2011 -- not even once.

In October of 2012 the city of New Albany abruptly seceded from the combined New Albany-Floyd County Parks Department, paving the way for new parks planning (2013), contracts to be awarded (2014) and construction completed in 2015 -- providentially and by sheer coincidence just in time for the municipal election season in 2015, and loads of sunburned selfies by the water slide.

The $19.6 million bond floated by the city footed the construction of the aquatic center, Silver Street Park and upgrades to Binford Park. In April 2014, the redevelopment commission accepted Krempp Construction’s base bid of $6.89 million to construct the aquatic center.

It's worth recalling that in 2011 the city's share of the parks budget was $517,914. By 2016 this figure had ballooned to at least $2.08 million.

Bearing in mind that pre-construction matters like engineering, design, legal representation and various other consultancies are not determined by bidding -- they're at the discretion of appointed boards stuffed with lackeys and partisans, among them redevelopment, board of works, sewer board and stormwater -- here's a reminder that thankfully at least a few principled objections were raised.

Design costs for big New Albany projects draw criticism, by Daniel Suddeath

Some city officials aren’t pleased with how much money Cripe Architects will be paid to design the multiuse center at Hoosier Panel and the makeover of Binford Park.

The New Albany Redevelopment Commission approved on Tuesday paying the Indianapolis company up to $35,000 to design a refurbished shelter house, which will double as a concessions stand, at Binford Park.

That amount is in addition to the $122,000 the company will receive for engineering the rest of the Binford Park project and another $277,000 to design the multiuse recreational facility at the former Hoosier Panel property.

“That’s just too much money,” said New Albany City Councilman Dan Coffey, who is also a member of the redevelopment commission.

He abstained from voting on the additional $35,000 contract which was approved by the redevelopment commission 3-1. Councilman and redevelopment member John Gonder voted against the proposal.

Gonder questioned why Mayor Jeff Gahan’s administration chose to accept Cripe for Binford Park and the Hoosier Panel project and The Estopinal Group to design the outdoor aquatic center without getting other proposals for comparison.

All three quality-of-life projects are being footed by a $19.6 million bond.

The rough estimate for the cost of the multiuse center is $5 million, and up to $9 million for the aquatic center.

Gonder said he’s discussed the aquatic center project with an engineer who said he “can easily shave a pretty significant chunk off that pool price.”

But the city, with the approval of the redevelopment commission, has already entered into a contract with The Estopinal Group and Cripe for design.

The late Wayne Estopinol, founder of TEG (The Estopinol Group), dropped cash into Gahan's in-box in 2013 and 2014 with $5,000 divided between two donations.

For the longest time I couldn't trace an Indianapolis donor named William H. Stinson, who made five donations to Gahan from 2011-2015, totaling $2,700. Stinson remains nearly invisible on-line, but his title at Cripe says it all: Director of New Business Development.

Team Gahan doesn't do irony, so give credit to Mayor Gahan's daughter, bookkeeper for the campaign finance enterprise, for being impeccably and probably inadvertently honest about Stinson in 2011.

She identified him as a "political engineer."

Political engineer?

In other words, her veneer-schlepping dad's most favored type.

---

Belated postscript: American Structurepoint's role in the River Run buildout and the company's campaign donations) were inadvertently omitted in Part 4. Read about them here: The Jeff Gahan Money Machine, Part 13: United Consulting Engineers rocks Deaf Gahan like a hurricane.

Rebuttals are welcome and will be published unaltered -- so don't forget spellcheck. If you have supplementary information to offer about any of this, please let us know and we'll update the page. The preceding was gleaned entirely from public records, with the addresses of "individuals" removed.

Next: The Jeff Gahan Money Machine, Part 5: In 2019, Gahan will pass the half million dollar mark in campaign fundraising since 2011.

"NAY," screams city council, "WE DON'T WANT TO SEE THE MONEY!"

A regular NAC reader writes:

Scott's trying for accountability here and the council says "nay!" What is a council for? I've never seen a town with so much going on and no one demanding any accountability from the administration. This is where corruption begins. How much in debt is the city from all these bond issues? Wait until the tax rates shoot through the roof, that's when New Albanians will get pissed and by then it's too late. And - in the end - residents get what they deserve for sitting on their hands and remaining silent.

Maybe it's a case of pre-Harvest "business luncheon" giddiness, or more likely, the political isolation of an independent as a critical election looms. At any rate, we're only two seasons in, and already the aquatic center has taken its place as sacred cow atop the third rail.

Hmm. I want to know about Bicentennial finances, CM Blair wants to know about aquatic center finances, and we're both being stonewalled.

Anyone know CM Blair's position on two-way streets? Just curious, that's all.

New Albany City Council denies councilman's request for aquatic center income report, by Elizabeth Beilman (News and Tribune)

Majority call financial request 'micromanaging'

NEW ALBANY — Councilman Scott Blair's request for an income statement on the River Run New Albany Family Waterpark was thwarted by his colleagues Monday evening.

"I think it's important we understand the amount of revenues we're generating and the amount of expenses we're incurring, especially when you look at a revenue producing facility like the aquatic center," Blair told the council during a regular meeting.

Other council members voted against the request, many claiming the move was a form of micromanaging city departments and overstepping legislative boundaries.

"I think as long as the parks department is in their budget, we shouldn't question that," Councilman Greg Phipps said.

However, Blair believes it's the council's responsibility to examine all matters of money, as it's the body that creates the city budget.

In addition to revenue and expenses, an income statement could track the park's performance over time. That's common practice for city aquatic centers, Blair said.

"If you all don't want to be fiscally responsible and get information in order to make decisions, that's up to you," Blair responded.

Hmm. I want to know about Bicentennial finances, CM Blair wants to know about aquatic center finances, and we're both being stonewalled.

You don't think there's a pattern of non-transparency in Team Gahan, do you?

ON THE AVENUES: "Water on the brains: Much less for far more will keep us swimming in it."

ON THE AVENUES: "Water on the brains: Much less for far more will keep us swimming in it."

A weekly web column by Roger A. Baylor.

New Albany's River Run Family Water Park belatedly opened last week, and was formally dedicated yesterday by means of a mayoral re-election rally thinly disguised as a christening. By last night, several discussions were underway at Facebook and other social media sites as to the water park's value in a community context.

Memories are short, and the following was written by NAC co-editor Jeff Gillenwater. It was published here on May 20, 2013. Given that Jeff Gahan will be using the aquatics facility as a major component of his 2015 campaign platform, and depicting it as a precious gift bestowed upon loyal subjects, it seems only fitting to give over my column today to Gillenwater's matchless explanation of how Gahan might have claimed just as much credit for half the price -- because the money does indeed matter, whether Steve Sipes, Pat McLaughlin or any other Democratic functionary cares to discuss it or not, and they generally haven't.

This $9 million expenditure was not mentioned during Gahan's 2011 run for mayor, and once it was given the green light, there was no substantive public discussion of benefits versus cost.

Without such a discussion, how is the water park's ultimate value to be determined?

Answer: It isn't, and that's the whole point. In fact, River Run is a certified campaign issue in 2015, just not in the way Gahan assumes -- and Gillenwater explained why two whole years ago.

I'm delighted to let him do it again. Take it away, Jeff.

---

Water on the brains: Much less for far more will keep us swimming in it.

Since the serious prospect of a new municipal swimming pool or aquatic center was made public in New Albany, several people, though not elected officials or most media types, have issued numerous, relevant questions.

Roger did a fine job, for instance, of asking how or why an aquatics-based project fits with quality of life justifications, particularly when more pressing quality issues, some of which are much less expensive to address and more costly not to, stand mostly ignored.

Likewise, Sam Schad and his group asked why, with such a huge expenditure, we can't at least get increased utility from such a facility if we're going to build it anyway without the sort of considerations Roger suggests.

Somewhere in-between the two, I mused that whether the expenditure would be worth it or not would depend largely on what was ultimately and comprehensively delivered-- hardly a profound concept but one too readily dismissed by too many current decision makers. Given the vast amount of money then proposed and now doubly approved, I foolishly held out hope that council voices would rightfully point out that, for the price, we should be able to produce an aquatic center and a competitive lap pool and the reclamation of our two-way streets and perhaps some other potential initiatives.

Why did/do I think that? Because, apparently unlike some voluntarily voiceless council members, I bothered with a smidgeon of research into how comparable cities have handled comparable situations.

Marion, Ohio, is one such city. Its population of just under 37,000 is almost exactly the same as New Albany's. Marion, too, had an aging pool - a very common predicament nationwide - in a setting of roughly the same land space as Camille Wright: one that needed either substantial rehabilitation or replacement if the city decided to maintain a facility at all.

Conversation in Marion was somewhat similar to ours here as well.  Like New Albany, there were discussions of the overall usefulness of such a facility and whether or not it would cash flow. Totally unlike New Albany, there was even legitimate debate about proposed costs. Finally, Marion's city council online.com/uncategorized/2011/06/council-overrides-veto-of-aquatic-center/">overrode a cost driven mayoral veto to build an aquatic center, depicted below via text and images from online.com/">Marion Online and the aquatic center's Facebook page. It opened last summer, 2012, and has since online.com/news/2013/03/marion-aquatic-center-earns-state-award/">won a state award for recreation facilities.

"The new center will feature heated water, Lazy River, Floating Lilly Pads, Zero-depth entry, 25 foot Racing Slides, a 6 foot Family Slide, a Water Play set with a bucket that dumps 150 gallons of water, 25 meter 6 lane pool with a high dive and low dive and a separate baby pool."

 

It indeed appears to be a very nice facility that's been well received by the community. 

Here's the rub: That debate about cost that led to both a mayoral veto and a council override? It was a fight over whether to spend $2.4 million or $3.5 million. The council favored the 3.5 and won. 

All the above- much of it strikingly familiar - was built within the past couple of years for less than half of even the most conservative cost estimate provided by the administration and approved by the council for New Albany's impending center. Assuming we're not purposefully overspending for nefarious political purposes, New Albany could have something very similar and $4 - 5.5 million left over to address other quality of life needs without spending any more than what's already been approved.

Making that possible, though, requires a majority of council members who think beyond mayoral and Estopinal suggestions and consider such basic, comparative due diligence a part of their job. In terms of what our council has thus far publicly offered up relative to aquatic center merits, the one direct comparison offered here - easily gleaned from about 30 minutes of individual research - unfortunately represents more than our council members have collectively put forth over several months. 

The quantity and quality of discourse around numerous "park" projects has been so low and the prices so high that, if I didn't know some of the folks involved personally, I'd probably just assume they were receiving substantial kickbacks for such a dubious (lack of) effort. I don't believe that, but the lack of diligence has been egregious enough to make it a plausible explanation to fill an obvious void.

One would think (or at least I did) that the public embarrassment of a $750,000 downtown pocket park with less utility and flexibility than a $200,000 park could've offered and/or tens of thousands so casually given to a Bicentennial Commission who clearly told council members they had "no idea" how the money would be used before being granted funding should have been sufficient cause for a slightly more thoughtful approach in considering the aquatics expenditure. But, then, I already admitted to being foolishly optimistic.

If any of the council "yes" voters would like to explain exactly which portion of our proposed aquatic center justifies multiple, additional millions as compared to what we can plainly observe here, the floor is open. It's been open for months. Until any such rational, evidence-based explanation materializes, however, "rubber-stamp" criticisms will ring truer than usual for a group who, via the intelligence of its individual members, ought to know much better. 

As an overall experience, our current council group has in ways been even more frustrating than some of the lesser moments of the Kochert-led era that served as my introduction to New Albany politics. During that time, a distinct lack of intellectual capital coalesced with an abundance of insider bullying to render capacity so low as to substantially limit both expectations and actual potential. 

But that's not the case here. What we have now is an example of "won't" rather than "can't" in which acquiring council seats has somehow rendered usually talented people into an amorphous mass of counterproductive group decline. The sum is less than its parts. No one is consistently demonstrating their capacity for good questions, so we're settling for lousy, injudicious answers and losing badly.

So far, a bunch of really smart people have managed to haphazardly waste millions in public funding without so much as addressing some fundamental quality of life and prioritization issues. If such behavior continues unchecked by any number of council members quite capable of checking it, future councils and the city at large will have a much more difficult time responding to those issues as we try to dig ourselves out of holes already dug, some quite literally, at places like Bicentennial Park and the aquatics center. 

As a citizen and voter, I've always felt it important to extend at least some effort toward helping ensure that we elect as talented a group of leaders as possible. This council, however, with its inexplicable yet seemingly automatic brainpower off switch - apparently activated by the doors at city hall - is calling that premise into question. 

An unexamined "yes" is no better and sometimes worse than an ignorant "no" in that it actively reduces opportunities rather than just passively ignores them. In short, all this "no-brainer" malarkey when it comes to water features is costing us a lot of money that could easily be better spent but which we'll never get back. 

We've seen several frighteningly unthinking financial decisions from this council lately that, taken together, set quite a negative precedent that should be and, since no aquatics contracts have been let, can be immediately corrected before yet another boondoggle becomes a part of their permanent record.

---

Recent columns:

June 25: ON THE AVENUES REWOUND: Red scarf, white shirt and San Miguel beer (2012).

June 18: ON THE AVENUES: These 10 definitions will help you speak local politics like a native.

June 11: ON THE AVENUES: This is Dan Coffey, New Albany’s quintessential Democrat.

June 4: ON THE AVENUES: Dan Coffey speaks for Jeff Gahan and the Democratic Party … unless they say otherwise.

May 28: ON THE AVENUES: The last of the summer beer.

May 21: ON THE AVENUES REWOUND: "I Just Want to Know, Can I Park Here Somewhere?”

Phipps: City council has not been asked for more money; therefore, River Run Family Water Park is not over budget.

In response to this post ...

An idle question: Aquatics center cost overruns?

... 3rd district councilman Greg Phipps offers this reply.

If it had gone over budget, the council would have been asked to approve additional appropriations. To date, we have not received such a request.

Thanks to the councilman for this reply via Facebook. Not all city officials are willing to communicate in a fashion convenient for constituents, hence yesterday's post:

How does Jeff Gahan score using these "5 Best Practices for Open Local Government"?

For information on the city's newest economic development generator, go here:

Mayor Jeff Gahan Presents Your River Run Family Water Park

An idle question: Aquatics center cost overruns?

My friend writes with a very good question.

My dad built malls and anchor stores toward the end of his career. He told me "when things get late, budgets fly out the window."

Since we see lots of dinky, little billboards featuring Mr. Gahan superimposed in front of the rendering of the mythical swimming pool, saying "It's where you ought to be" (even though the featured "where" doesn't exist ) - I feel quite certain cost overruns are probably taking place.

Since it's money that hasn't yet been taxed into existence, who can find out about the amounts, the schedule, etc.?

It's something that might be discussed by any number of political appointees, or at Redevelopment, which approved the mayor's Eisenhower-era parks and recreation pending spree with little discussion, or even by the somnolent city council, which applied the coup de rubber stamp to the project.

Conversely, reflecting the voguish trend of the moment, we might join Dan Coffey in praying for the information to be disclosed.

Late note: It was revealed earlier today that water sports will begin on or near June 26.

Whither "Jeff Gahan Presents: Aquatic Center and Jiffy Lube"?

The Green Mouse was chatting with an insider who's been eyeing the possibilities on the outside.

What's up with the aquatics center?

First off, we delayed the opening to June 15th or 18th. Right now the pool is just concrete, still needs to be sealed and painted, and then electrical and plumbing finished -- not to mention finishing all of the building-out around it, like parking lots and concession stands being finished. I don't see it hitting anywhere close to the revised dates.

But then what?

Well, now we're staying away from advertising any opening day at all. We don't want to advertise something that can't be predicted.

I've heard that the pool manager's salary is $70,000 per annum. What's happening with that?

(strange ... but the connection went dead)

What they're saying: Al Knable on possible wetlands expansion; also, Diane Benedetti and David White.

As the weeks go past in route to May's primary election, I'll try to provide periodic unedited candidate statements of approximate substance, as lifted from social media and news reports, and as opposed to familiar gems (although they certainly have their place) like "yard signs win elections, not people" or "donate to my campaign first, and maybe I'll have something of merit to say much, much later."

That's because it is my aim to determine whether our declared candidates have anything to say at all, and I'll quote all candidates, whether or not they're in a contested race. Just promising change and new ideas without divulging them won't cut the mustard, aspirants.

With most Democratic candidates preoccupied with party directives to plant yard signs and sing kumbaya, there nonetheless were bits of wheat amid the chaff.

In the mayoral race, David White (Fb site reference) got cogent with his challenger's centerpiece, a $9 million aquatics center.

(Quoting an N and T story) "Though an exact operating budget per year hasn't been established, city officials have received projected cost estimates to maintain and staff the pool" ...  you've got to be kidding me! How can one agree to such a high dollar project without knowing it's overhead and financial impact on the city? 

5th district incumbent Diane Benedetti now has a campaign site at Facebook, and will be joining builders:

Look for Team Benedetti in the upcoming New Albany-Floyd County Habitat for Humanity Women Build Team, part of National Women Build Week.

You may notice Al Knable's name popping up here frequently, and that's because of all the candidates currently declared for council (he's seeking an at-large seat as a Republican), he's the one who has most often dared expound at length on a variety of topics. It would be an understatement to note how very refreshing this is.

Like this one, at his Fb campaign page. Finally, someone who sees the opportunities afforded by seeming reversals.

I reconnected with my inner-biologist today, toured some of the swamps near NOLA via airboat with my family.

I caught the kids by surprise when I told them during a quiet lull that we have areas similar to this near New Albany (sans alligators of course) and that I believe we can expand upon them to boot! I reminded them of the great resource we have in Loop Island and of the generosity that made that wetland's preservation possible.

The possible expansion? Gallagher Station.

I think the writing is on the wall. With the EPA's last round of regulations, Duke's options are very limited and I believe G.S. will be moth-balled in the near future.

This will create short term hardship as NA will face lost employment and revenue. Long term- great opportunity!

We need to start conversing NOW with state and federal agencies to assure the transition of this facility to protected wetland habitat.

This would allow for Green Belt continuity between Loop Island and G.S. wetlands. What a treasure for naturalists and fishing and hunting enthusiasts!

Clearly this goes beyond the scope of our City Council, but we need to be part of the discussion if we want to guide our future. I've actually already started this discussion with our current and former Governors and hope to continue the conversation as one of NA's elected representatives.

This is a decade's long project! We'll need leaders with foresight and discipline to pull it off. Please help me spread the word!

City of New Albany's social media feeds AWOL as winter storm hits.

The tone deafness never ceases. Wednesday afternoon, amid the third (or 50th) day of dire and continual news warnings as to the approaching snowstorm, the City of New Albany Government's social media effort clanked into gear -- and produced this:

The stats don't lie. The posting was a hit on Facebook (it appeared simultaneously at Twitter).

However, this is government's social media site, not an entertainment channel, and not the Re-Elect Mayor Gahan site (which is located elsewhere), and about the time this view of a future aquatics panacea was posted, the bad weather started.

Subsequently there was a major winter storm, travel advisories, hundreds of closings, and even a boil water alert later in the evening -- and through it all, the city of New Albany's social media remained completely silent. Postings belatedly resumed at around 7:50 a.m.

It's worth noting that Jeffersonville and Clarksville seemed to be getting it right.

There'll be fingers pointed at Promedia, but make no mistake: The buck in this instance stops with Jeff Gahan, because when propaganda is substituted for information, and the effort is outsourced to a contractor, the result is likely to be failure.

Will Gahan finally accept responsibility for a "fail"?

Jeff Gahan's re-election campaign, and what $9 million IS and IS NOT buying.

$9  million is buying a shiny wet bauble, and with this being an election year, the mayor (or more likely, an acolyte) finally has returned to his Facebook page to campaign after a couple of years off-line, and on the seemingly permanent down-low.

My first reply was deleted. Let's see how the second one fares.

Meanwhile, a vast selection of needed improvements will not receive $9 million or portions thereof. A few of these are depicted below.

Flashing lights at a crosswalk adjacent to an urban elementary school (they've been out for months, and the street department told a constituent it couldn't afford to fix them).

An explanation as to why New Albany's premier autumn festival gives independent small businesses the ingratitude of a bum's rush.

A crosswalk and calmed streets, so this lady can get from one side to another without being hit by ...

... trucks that shouldn't be allowed in a residential area in the first place.

Of course, it would help if signals like this one worked.

$9 million won't purchase relief for this house, located a fee blocks from the planned Coyle redevelopment, the city's cost for which isn't yet known, but hey: A million here, a million there, and it's okay, because HE'LL be paying for it:

(Can you find the truck that shouldn't be there in the first place?)

$9 million won't be addressing the city's trashiness.

It won't be used to address the abominable decay at Fairview Cemetery, where "perpetual maintenance" signs are used as metaphorical doorstops.

It didn't save the building at 922 Culbertson, which came down for no reason apart from the mayor's need to humiliate Landmarks -- and Dan Coffey's penny ante electoral deal-making with CCE's demolition teams.

There'll be no love for the Amphitheater, although 2015 will see a renewal of temporary re-election shows in places not built for the purpose, which require abnormally high expenditures for temporary infrastructure.

I could continue until bandwidth is as limp and exhausted as Jeff Gahan's governing tactics, but the message is fairly clear. Look past the shiny baubles to be financed by your (and their) grandchildren, and ask: Is New Albany genuinely cleaner and fundamentally better than it was four years ago?

I don't even swim, so brother, can you spare a dime to fix this neglected school crosswalk?

Yesterday, as the Bored of Works was meeting, a reader wrote:

"Called street department this morning about red flashing lights, out of order at East 10th and Oak Street by S. Ellen Jones school. Been out over a year. No money to fix it, they said."

By the way, city government's "Re-Elect the Mayor" social media feed informs us that the $9 million aquatic center build-out is going swimmingly.

Fundamentally better?

Desperate search for local analogies as Greenwood's water park is projected to generate a $200,000 shortfall.

)

Look ma, it's the first time I've linked to anything pertaining to Brownsville Station since 2009

Here's a submission from diligent daily reader K, who asks:

Hmm, this (Greenwood IN water park) reminds me of the Aquatic Center slated to be built soon in New Albany. Has anyone studied whether or not it will actually stay in the black?

Dear K:

Studied?

Perhaps you forget that in New Albany, study hall is something to be skipped so we all can sneak a smoke in the boy's or girl's room, so no, I don't think it has been studied ... at least not yet, unless of course Erika conducted a study of the girl's room while she was smoking there back in 1943.

However, we do know that the pool will be open a full 94 days a year (thanks to B for this), and for approximately 24 of those days school will be in session (thanks to M) -- and it's only going to cost $10 every time you go for a swim (thanks again to B).

I hope that helps, even as I know it doesn't. I miss Cub Koda.

Greenwood expects $200,000 shortfall to operate water park, by Vic Ryckaert (IndyStar)

Greenwood leaders will consider design changes, partnerships and advertising to offset an estimated $200,000 annual operating loss on the $10 million water park due to open next year.

Urban planning as "Light, Quick And Cheap"? Not in New Albany.

Kindly note the source of the rampant subversion to follow: Neither The Nation nor Mother Jones, but Forbes.

For those of a New Albanian bent -- or if like me, you've been bent by New Albany -- take special interest in the novel concept of making more on less. We've all been here before, as when municipal government concluded, seemingly overnight, that $9 million for an aquatics center must be prioritized.

Aquatics: More on less.

We've argued (in vain) that rather than concentrating money and resources on parks in the traditional sense, perhaps scattering spigots and green spaces throughout the neighborhoods would make more sense. As it stands, with no plan or infrastructure in place to support enhanced walkability and ease of bicycling, and without useful public transit, we're demanding that people drive their cars to recreate.

Lighter, quicker and cheaper. Need it apply only to low-calorie beer?

Light, Quick And Cheap: The Big Shift In Urban Planning, by Micheline Maynard (Forbes)

Now, as cities across the United States try to rejuvenate themselves, there is a new mantra: lighter, quicker, cheaper.

It’s at the heart of an overlooked kind of urban development called place making, focused not so much on architecture or public works, as making sure spaces actually work for city residents. (Grammar note: practitioners call it “placemaking” without a space) ...

 ... The idea of less money to make big changes is actually providing a variety of new opportunities, built on making smaller changes, and involving residents and community groups, and to creativity ...  “you move away from design to what you can do in it ... you try to build a whole destination” ...

Here's where the "getting folks to it" thinking comes into play (my italics).

(Project for Public Spaces founder Fred) Kent says that as a city assembles its network of public places, there’s less emphasis on using cars to reach them. “If there’s one thing, you’re going to drive to it,” he says. “If there are 10 of them, all of a sudden, you’re connecting them, and it’s a whole point of not needing your car.”

But of course, there's always a catch: Government interacting differently. Two ways, not one. Plans that aren't top secret. Sunshine and transparency and not fearing the outside world.

But for place making to flourish, Silberberg says municipal governments have to interact differently with developers and people in the community. In the white paper, the researchers discuss the new circle of interaction between city agencies and those creating projects, which is necessarily chaotic ... many urban renewal efforts in the late 20th century were about making cities look more orderly. Now, in the 21st century, “Those are the cities we don’t want to live in,” (Susan Silberberg) says.

Hence the perennial New Albanian dilemma: Thinking disorderly by design, not from unreconstructed habit and tribal politics.

I reckon that we'll keep pushing. Perhaps some day, they'll cease pushing back and begin listening.

Development is as Development does: maybe they can swim to school.

A quick review of recent history:

First, we agreed to pay $9 million in a sweetheart, unbid architect/developer deal for an aquatic center of the sort that, per easily found comparables, other communities are regularly building for millions less.

Then, we agreed to pay another $9 million or so for a probably mostly we think maybe indoor recreation site before anyone had ever actually seen concrete plans for it. What is to actually be built is still not clear.

Now, we're suggesting that an already planned and much needed transportation project may have to be delayed or cancelled in order to pay for the probably mostly we think maybe site.

One would think that someone in Duggins' position would have a perfectly rational explanation as to why building what, according to potential descriptions so far, will essentially be a second indoor volleyball facility in New Albany is more important than providing basic, functional infrastructure to multiple neighborhoods. But he doesn't have one, because there's not one.

I'm not sure how true it is as it's just one official's opinion, but it was recently suggested to me that, owing to Duggins' influence on the mayor, publicly challenging this type of wayward thinking would be "bloody". If that's the case, then perhaps a significant bloodletting is precisely what we need, as an environment in which the competition of ideas is discouraged is pretty much the opposite of what can rightfully be called development. That much I know is true. A director of development and his boss should know it, too.

New Albany councilwoman, residents question status of Slate Run Road project, by Daniel Suddeath (N &T) 

Funding set aside for a $4 million upgrade to Slate Run Road in New Albany could go toward other projects, making unclear the future of the road improvements.

The Charlestown Road TIF district was to fund the effort, but with other projects coming online that will use the same TIF dollars, city officials are taking a second look at their priorities -- upsetting some residents.

Aquatics: More on less.

First, a reposting of the $3.5 million aquatics center site plan from Marion, Ohio, shared here recently. One of the most noteworthy features isn't in the image but in the branded text: the architectural firm who helped make the low cost happen, Brandstetter Carroll Inc, has a Louisville office. It might be worth a phone call before handing the full set of keys to The Estopinal Group.

Second, it's also worth noting that not every community manages to build an aquatic center similar to New Albany's proposal for as little as $3.5 million. Some spend more, as shared below.

Joplin, MO

The Schifferdecker Family Aquatic Center in Joplin replaces an aging pool much like in New Albany. It maintains most of the features in New Albany's plan but also includes a full size 50 meter pool as some residents here have requested. It will be open within the next couple weeks.  
Total Cost: $5.3 million


Leitchfield, KY

The Leitchfield Aquatic Center plan is very similar to New Albany's in that it lacks a full 50 meter pool and focuses a bit more on the splashy elements. It's being placed on a previously undeveloped site so all supporting infrastructure like entrances, parking lots, and buildings will have to be built from scratch. New Albany's plan includes the use of some preexisting Camille Wright infrastructure, explained as a money saver. Leitchfield sold $4.9 million in bonds a few weeks ago to cover construction costs. $400,000 was added to the overall budget to cover a slightly higher than projected interest rate and to lower annual payments by $10,000 per year. Officials expect the center to open in 2014.  
Total cost: $5.3 million

Lacking a full size pool and reusing some preexisting infrastructure, New Albany's non-bid, Estopinal aquatics plan has been approved for a total cost of up to $9 million.

Water on the brains: Much less for far more will keep us swimming in it.

Since the serious prospect of a new municipal swimming pool or aquatic center was made public in New Albany, several people, though not elected officials or most media types, have issued numerous, relevant questions.

Roger did a fine job, for instance, of asking how or why an aquatics-based project fits with quality of life justifications, particularly when more pressing quality issues, some of which are much less expensive to address and more costly not to, stand mostly ignored.

Likewise, Sam Schad and his group asked why, with such a huge expenditure, we can't at least get increased utility from such a facility if we're going to build it anyway without the sort of considerations Roger suggests.

Somewhere in-between the two, I mused that whether the expenditure would be worth it or not would depend largely on what was ultimately and comprehensively delivered-- hardly a profound concept but one too readily dismissed by too many current decision makers. Given the vast amount of money then proposed and now doubly approved, I foolishly held out hope that council voices would rightfully point out that, for the price, we should be able to produce an aquatic center and a competitive lap pool and the reclamation of our two-way streets and perhaps some other potential initiatives.

Why did/do I think that? Because, apparently unlike some voluntarily voiceless council members, I bothered with a smidgeon of research into how comparable cities have handled comparable situations.

Marion, Ohio, is one such city. Its population of just under 37,000 is almost exactly the same as New Albany's. Marion, too, had an aging pool - a very common predicament nationwide - in a setting of roughly the same land space as Camille Wright: one that needed either substantial rehabilitation or replacement if the city decided to maintain a facility at all.

Conversation in Marion was somewhat similar to ours here as well.  Like New Albany, there were discussions of the overall usefulness of such a facility and whether or not it would cash flow. Totally unlike New Albany, there was even legitimate debate about proposed costs. Finally, Marion's city council online.com/uncategorized/2011/06/council-overrides-veto-of-aquatic-center/">overrode a cost driven mayoral veto to build an aquatic center, depicted below via text and images from online.com/">Marion Online and the aquatic center's Facebook page. It opened last summer, 2012, and has since online.com/news/2013/03/marion-aquatic-center-earns-state-award/">won a state award for recreation facilities.

"The new center will feature heated water, Lazy River, Floating Lilly Pads, Zero-depth entry, 25 foot Racing Slides, a 6 foot Family Slide, a Water Play set with a bucket that dumps 150 gallons of water, 25 meter 6 lane pool with a high dive and low dive and a separate baby pool."

 

It indeed appears to be a very nice facility that's been well received by the community. 

Here's the rub: That debate about cost that led to both a mayoral veto and a council override? It was a fight over whether to spend $2.4 million or $3.5 million. The council favored the 3.5 and won. 

All the above- much of it strikingly familiar - was built within the past couple of years for less than half of even the most conservative cost estimate provided by the administration and approved by the council for New Albany's impending center. Assuming we're not purposefully overspending for nefarious political purposes, New Albany could have something very similar and $4 - 5.5 million left over to address other quality of life needs without spending any more than what's already been approved.

Making that possible, though, requires a majority of council members who think beyond mayoral and Estopinal suggestions and consider such basic, comparative due diligence a part of their job. In terms of what our council has thus far publicly offered up relative to aquatic center merits, the one direct comparison offered here - easily gleaned from about 30 minutes of individual research - unfortunately represents more than our council members have collectively put forth over several months. 

The quantity and quality of discourse around numerous "park" projects has been so low and the prices so high that, if I didn't know some of the folks involved personally, I'd probably just assume they were receiving substantial kickbacks for such a dubious (lack of) effort. I don't believe that, but the lack of diligence has been egregious enough to make it a plausible explanation to fill an obvious void.

One would think (or at least I did) that the public embarrassment of a $750,000 downtown pocket park with less utility and flexibility than a $200,000 park could've offered and/or tens of thousands so casually given to a Bicentennial Commission who clearly told council members they had "no idea" how the money would be used before being granted funding should have been sufficient cause for a slightly more thoughtful approach in considering the aquatics expenditure. But, then, I already admitted to being foolishly optimistic.

If any of the council "yes" voters would like to explain exactly which portion of our proposed aquatic center justifies multiple, additional millions as compared to what we can plainly observe here, the floor is open. It's been open for months. Until any such rational, evidence-based explanation materializes, however, "rubber-stamp" criticisms will ring truer than usual for a group who, via the intelligence of its individual members, ought to know much better. 

As an overall experience, our current council group has in ways been even more frustrating than some of the lesser moments of the Kochert-led era that served as my introduction to New Albany politics. During that time, a distinct lack of intellectual capital coalesced with an abundance of insider bullying to render capacity so low as to substantially limit both expectations and actual potential. 

But that's not the case here. What we have now is an example of "won't" rather than "can't" in which acquiring council seats has somehow rendered usually talented people into an amorphous mass of counterproductive group decline. The sum is less than its parts. No one is consistently demonstrating their capacity for good questions, so we're settling for lousy, injudicious answers and losing badly.

So far, a bunch of really smart people have managed to haphazardly waste millions in public funding without so much as addressing some fundamental quality of life and prioritization issues. If such behavior continues unchecked by any number of council members quite capable of checking it, future councils and the city at large will have a much more difficult time responding to those issues as we try to dig ourselves out of holes already dug, some quite literally, at places like Bicentennial Park and the aquatics center. 

As a citizen and voter, I've always felt it important to extend at least some effort toward helping ensure that we elect as talented a group of leaders as possible. This council, however, with its inexplicable yet seemingly automatic brainpower off switch - apparently activated by the doors at city hall - is calling that premise into question. 

An unexamined "yes" is no better and sometimes worse than an ignorant "no" in that it actively reduces opportunities rather than just passively ignores them. In short, all this "no-brainer" malarkey when it comes to water features is costing us a lot of money that could easily be better spent but which we'll never get back. 

We've seen several frighteningly unthinking financial decisions from this council lately that, taken together, set quite a negative precedent that should be and, since no aquatics contracts have been let, can be immediately corrected before yet another boondoggle becomes a part of their permanent record.

CM Cappuccino shops for aquatically appropriate locker room signage.

Of planets and employers

Quality of life assumptions