Whatever happened to city council's "Non-Reverting Fund for Economic Development Organizations"?

Jeeebus, it's been almost five years since the time I asked for this information.

Ordinance G-08-45: Ordinance Establishing Funding for Various Economic Development Organizations.

I mentioned this ordinance last week, and must concede I was completely wrong about the date of its enactment. The bill was signed on December 22, 2008. What isn't clear is whether One Southern Indiana already has drained the fund dry to fluff the oligarchs at River Ridge. Thanks to Vicki Glotzbach and Matt Lorch for following up on last Thursday's council non-agenda discussion. I'll try to lift the text from the .pdf when there's time.

Nine years at $75K comes out to a whopping $675,000 for economic development. At the time this fund first was discussed by council, the conversation centered on its applicability to smaller grassroots organizations, few if any of which (in my memory) have stepped forward since with proposals, although the long defunct New Albany First once placed a bid and was rejected owing to the inclusion of a request to fund a staff person.

Meanwhile council approves funding annually for One Southern Indiana, and Develop New Albany gets a yearly tithe from somewhere (no one seems interested in talking about it). Does 1Si's and DNA's subsidies come from this pot, or is the full $75K still (theoretically) available for disbursement?

Inquiring minds and such.

---

§ 35.30 NONREVERTING FUND FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONS.

(A)(1) The Common Council does establish, with an initial commitment of $75,000, a non-reverting fund which will be made available to organizations that pursue economic development goals, plans, strategies and the like, to strengthen the economic foundation of our community.

(2) Disbursements from the non-reverting fund hereby established, shall be made on a case-by-case basis, upon the favorable determination by the Common Council that specific written proposals submitted by the economic development organization, to the Common Council, would be of general benefit and enhancement of the economic foundation and prospects of the entire community. Proposals for specific uses of funds shall be made in reasonable time to allow Common Council members to review and reflect upon the proposed use of such funding requests.

(B) The Common Council may upon review:

(1) Order the fiscal officer of New Albany to release the requested funds,

(2) Seek additional information from the applicant,

(3) Order the fiscal officer of New Albany to release a smaller amount of funds than the applicant requested,

(4) Reject the application.

(C) Or the Common Council, upon review of the applications, may place conditions or restrictions upon the use of whatever amount of funds it determines is reasonable to grant.

(D) The money disbursed from this fund is intended to benefit the entire community and to build a strong economic foundation for now and the future; therefore, use of funds which benefits, or tends to benefit, one political party or group at the expense of another political party or group shall not be permitted.

(E) The economic development organization proposing to use money from this fund shall, in its proposal, outline the general intent of the use of funds including a reasonable assessment of the impact this grant will make on the general economic welfare of the community, or the specific benefit the funding will provide if the project does not affect the entire community. If the project does not benefit the entire community, the proposal shall address why funding should be granted.

(F) When a proposal is approved, the organization winning approval, shall submit to the Common Council, a report of the benefits the organization and the community realized from the funding. Failure to submit such a report shall eliminate the group from future consideration of funding requests until a report of prior use has been completed.

(Ord. G-08-45, passed 12-18-2008)

Let's recall the council's role in the Story of the Steeple, starting way back in 2012.

Photo by Robert Landrum.

It wasn't enough to divert the paper's reality television fetishism from the top spot in its daily e-mail news tout, but the Second Baptist Church on Main Street has a new steeple.

In a "Cheers and Jeers" over the weekend, one of the paper's long-term sous chefs made note of the fundraising effort to make the steeple possible, and in the interest of historical accuracy when recalling this historic rehab, let's not forget that the city chipped in, too -- and it was mildly controversial at the time.

From the Red Devil Chronicle, July 19, 2013:

New Albany council OKs funds for church, by Daniel Suddeath

 ... When the money was appropriated in February, Councilmen Greg Phipps and Scott Blair voted against the measure. Blair said at the time he had reservations about whether matching funds could be raised to complete the initial phases of the project. Phipps cited his belief in separation of church and state matters as his reason for voting against the appropriation.

From NA Confidential, October 2, 2012:

1 - City council meeting tweeted as it happened, October 1

A-12-21 $ to restore 2nd Baptist Clock Tower. Discussion. Phipps voices church-state concerns; easements must be included. Gonder dislikes.

Steeple replacement and erection sailed through council at a time when it was imperative to fund various pablum-by-the-numbers Bicentennial galas so that four years later, Bob Caesar still can refuse to provide me specifics on expenditures incurred by his party-like-it's-1817 committee.

(Look for a FOIA request, coming soon; after all, I've waited almost a year)

As was obvious at the time, Councilman Phipps was right about the church/state separation issues inherent in the steeple discussion. In effect, council provided "challenge funding" (John Gonder's words) to one active congregation while withholding it from others, although in retrospect, the steeple's refurbishment may have been the sole Bicentennial gesture toward the city's African-American community -- most of whom do not attend Second Baptist Church.

Water, meet bridge and flow downstream.

All's well that ends ... well, the steeple does look lovely, and it's been immensely entertaining to watch as the city's propaganda arm carefully parsed praise for the project, given that personages high on Oz's Fundamentally Stinkier Enemies List carried the ball for the steeple, Irv Stumler and Jerry Finn prime among them.

Just a thought, but can we do something yet about the street grid that kills people?

"Ignore the rhetoric — majoring in history is not a career-killer."

Nor philosophy.

As Dunman notes, Lt. Gov. Hampton's ignorance, while lamentable, isn't the most relevant point. Rather, it's about the value of education as a whole, and whether funding of it and access to it matter.

Commentary: Ignore the rhetoric — majoring in history is not a career-killer, by Joe Dunman (Insider Louisville)

Kentucky Lt. Gov. Jenean Hampton recently caused controversy during an interview with the editorial board of the Eastern Progress, the student newspaper at Eastern Kentucky University.

While explaining Gov. Matt Bevin’s plan to force state schools to compete against each other for already dwindling funding, Hampton, unprompted, offered some advice to incoming students: “I’ll tell you, if I was a student, I would be looking for degrees where people are looking for employees, that’s what. I would not be studying history unless you have a job lined up. Unless there’s somebody looking for a history major.”

That sparked harsh responses from former history majors, current history professors, newspaper reporters, and political cartoonists. Rightly so, because while engineering and business majors like our Lt. Governor may not realize it, majoring in history is not a career-killer.

As the Bored O' Works dithers, Auditor Clark provides a Floyd County YMCA funding update.

But still no word from the Bored as to why these cars are allowed to park on the sidewalk. Perhaps they're all related to Warren?

Earlier today, it being a Bored O'Works Tuesday, we took a look back to the autumn of 2013, and Warren Naps' dazed incomprehension v.v. something Jeff Speck tweeted about just last night:

Each and every aspect of the built environment sends its own cue to drivers, and too many of those cues say "speed up."

Just like New Albany's one-way street grid, although we can't expect Naps or a board charged with safety to waste time thinking about mere trivialities when there are street pianos to subvert.

Digging deeper, Floyd County's specific 2013 funding crisis (as distinguished by snafus occurring for years before and since) was referenced:

Flashbacks in the Annals of NA Dysfunction: BOW and City Hall ignore speeding on Elm Street.

... In other news, it has been revealed that amid a budget crisis of their own making, Floyd County's bumbling governmental officials haven't yet appropriated the county's annual share of the Scribner Place YMCA payment. In fact, the city of New Albany has paid both its $137K bill AND picked up the tab for the county's $137K balance due.

Remember back when the county approved the yearly Y expenditure even as the city council's Gang of Four still sought to railroad it? We sure do: County backs Scribner Place, Gang of Four scrambling for new excuses (September 14, 2005).

I asked Floyd County Auditor Scott Clark for an update, which he speedily provided, in stark contrast to Team Gahan's secretive tendency to stonewall information requests.

The County appropriated and paid the 137k YMCA payment in 2015 and it was again included in the 2016 budget passed last October. It is appropriated in the Riverboat fund.

That's good to hear. Clark's probably still busy wading through the hieroglyphics of the city's animal shelter financing report, as delivered to him by carrier pigeon after four months aboard the slow dog sled through the Yukon.

In Rio, outcomes differ when spending on "projects for people."

Compare and contrast these two projects, and consider how their themes might apply in New Albany. There is much to chew on here, but what I'm getting from it is the less expensive neighborhood project compared to the more expensive showpiece.

Lots to learn ... if we're receptive to learning.

In Rio’s Biggest Favela, One Flashy Project Thrives While Another Fails; As Rio invests for the Olympics, only some of the city’s upgrades are built to last, by Julie Ruvolo (City Lab)

... State of Rio Governor Sérgio Cabral decided to spend the bulk of the PAC funding, about $105 million, on a gondola imported from France. (Some say Cabral was inspired by the international praise Medellín’s mayor received for installing aerial-tram service in the city’s most underserved neighborhoods.) In parallel, the city broke ground on the $1.5 million movie theater, built alongside a community service center and neighborhood daycare.

Both interventions were introduced as projects for the people. At the gondola’s inauguration in 2011, President Dilma Rousseff said the project was a show of respect for Alemão’s residents, and deserved the “justifiable envy” of everyone else. At the theater’s inauguration the same year, Mayor Eduardo Paes struck a similar note. “It’s important for people to know that poor areas also deserve high-quality services,” the mayor said. “This is what we will always provide. High-quality service for everyone.”

I visited both projects a year later. I rode up and down the gondola on a Friday afternoon, securing an entire car to myself most portions of the ride. Despite free tickets for locals—visitors pay as much as 5 reais, or $1.50—not many people were actually riding.

What’s more, there was a general sense of resentment at the huge sum of money that had been earmarked for favela upgrades and instead delivered a tourist attraction. “Close to half a billion reais,” David Amen, of the nonprofit Raizes em Moviemento, told me at the time. “How are you going to spend this money on social projects in Alemão without talking to the residents and letting them be heard?”

To my surprise, however, the movie theater was packed.

The feds, walkability and bike lanes: Why local and state traffic engineers should be trusted as far as you can toss their cars.

Contrary to perceptions, the greatest threat to pedestrian safety is not crime, but the very real danger of automobiles moving quickly. Yet most traffic engineers, often in the name of safety, continually redesign city streets to support higher-speed driving.
-- Jeff Speck

It seems that the Feds want to make several points perfectly clear. Click the link to read this gratifying testimony, in black and white.

Of course, this doesn't explain Jeff Gahan's failure to make use of the transformational walking and cycling measures offered him by Speck, and buttressed with cold, hard fact by John Gilderbloom.

But that's political cowardice, which isn't directly addressed by the FHA in its memo.

Feds to Traffic Engineers: Use Our Money to Build Protected Bike Lanes, by Angie Schmitt (Streetsblog)

The Federal Highway Administration wants to clear the air: Yes, state and local transportation agencies should use federal money to construct high-quality biking and walking infrastructure.

State and local DOTs deploy an array of excuses to avoid building designs like protected bike lanes. “It’s not in the manual” is a favorite. So is “the feds won’t fund that.”

Whether these excuses are cynical or sincere, FHWA wants you to know that they’re bogus.

Another city-county financial impasse: Animal shelter and control services.

The News and Tribune's most recent mention of the most recent instance of seemingly recurring city-county funding disparity (is this LP scratched, or is the ganja too strong?) came on June 15.

Fleshing out a funding dispute: New Albany, Floyd County still at odds over animal shelter money, by Chris Morris (N and T)

NEW ALBANY — In 1999, New Albany and Floyd County governments signed an interlocal agreement, forming the New Albany-Floyd County Animal Shelter. As part of the agreement, funding the shelter would be based on population. With that in place, and following the 2010 census, Floyd County is responsible for 51 percent of the shelter’s budget while the city is to pay 49 percent.

But Floyd County Auditor Scott Clark said it’s not that simple, and he points to 2014 to make his point ...

Uni-gov? Really? At any rate, a New Albany resident has asked about funding for the animal shelter and animal control.

I'm interested in knowing how you would attempt to resolve the financial situation/impasse between the City and the County in regard to the Animal Shelter and Animal Control Services. The County is in serious arrears, but they and the City are equally vested in the physical building, and County residents use the services, although not to the degree of City residents.

The Floyd County Animal Rescue League is also a signatory to the binding Interlocal Agreement. NAFC Animal Control and Shelter is governed by the 5-member volunteer Animal Control Authority, 2 appointed by the Mayor, 2 by the County Commissioners, and 1 by the Rescue League.

The situation is complicated and both sides appear to be dug in. Your thoughts?

It certainly does seem complicated, and I'm researching it. In the interim, I'd love to hear YOUR thoughts on the matter. As an independent candidate for mayor, I don't feel bound by political tradition, only compelled to consider what works. Help me learn more, please: baylorformayor@gmail.com

Ordinance G-08-45: Ordinance Establishing Funding for Various Economic Development Organizations.

I mentioned this ordinance last week, and must concede I was completely wrong about the date of its enactment. The bill was signed on December 22, 2008. What isn't clear is whether One Southern Indiana already has drained it dry to fluff the oligarchs at River Ridge. Thanks to Vicki Glotzbach and Matt Lorch for following up on last Thursday's council non-agenda discussion. I'll try to lift the text from the .pdf when there's time.

Last night amid council serenity.

The city council met last evening and spent a great deal of time talking about paving. There will be no omnibus paving bond; rather, the asphalt will be funded via the usual artful shifting around of EDIT, Riverboat and Rainy Day monies to come up with something like $2 million.

What struck me was the almost collegial tone in Dan Coffey's absence. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Coffey, his presence sucks the air from a room. Without him present, each of the remaining eight council members had more to say.  No voices were raised. A council meeting convened, and a discussion broke out. It seldom happened during the Gang of Four days.

The other shocking aspect of council meetings so far in 2013 has been the utter disappearance of the obstructionist cadre in the audience. After decades of menacingly brandishing lighter fluid and Bics at the merest insinuation of authorizing a twenty-spot for White-Out, the current council has spent close to a gazillion dollars so far this year, with perhaps one fatigued appearance by Professor Erika.  

Things are quiet. It is weird. Is it the quiet before a return to copperheadedness, or signs that the dysfunction is eroding?

Because someone needs to do it, Terry Boyd explores "U of L, the public school with no sense of civic responsibility."

By now, you may have guessed that I have a bit of a love-hate relationship with Insider Louisville. Some of the pieces are entirely appropriate and well-executed, while others are amateurish to the point of consternation.

On the other hand, I'm sure the same is said of NA Confidential. Maybe I'm a sucker, too. But make no mistake: Terry Boyd's calling out of the University of Louisville is the sort of thing that gives on-line journalism a good name.

Brilliant. Thank you. It's a must-read.

Terry Boyd: U of L, the public school with no sense of civic responsibility

... The mayor’s civic instincts were good, but in the end, his political instincts were way off.

Greg Fischer the politician should have known that U of L officials would never go for anything that benefited the community at large. They rarely have.

There’s more than enough precedent ...

NewAlbanist: "Dr. Cannon Offers a Considered Opinion on Bond Issue."

At the NewAlbanist, Randy links to a letter in That 'Bama Paper, meaning we don't have to.

The letter offers respectful points for pondering, including this one: "Streets, sidewalks, drainage and sewage, the homeless, the poor, police and fire protection, education, etc., are ongoing problems in our city, the solutions to which are far more essential than another recreational enterprise."

I'm sure the Gahan administration has plans in hand to address these "other" quality of life issues. For a lot of us, a spoonful of reassurance that these issues are not being back-burnered would go a very long way in helping the bond medicine go down.

Dr. Cannon Offers a Considered Opinion on Bond Issue

I’ve been blessed over my time in New Albany to have had numerous lengthy conversations with Dr. Dan Cannon. I’m happy to see him speaking out about the bond issue just approved by New Albany’s city council. While I don’t necessarily subscribe to everything said below, I do consider it as a useful contribution to the discussion. This letter to the News and Tribune adds appreciably to that part of the discussion going on in the community (as opposed to that going on exclusively on the Third Floor of the City-County Building). Before we allow the independent redevelopment body to proceed, there need to be many more such discussions.

ON THE AVENUES: On quality of life and newfound loot.

ON THE AVENUES: On quality of life and newfound loot.

A weekly web column by Roger A. Baylor.

Since infancy, mankind has displayed an irrepressible proclivity to seek intoxication.

Humans simply will not be deterred. We’ve fermented grapes and grains, chewed strange buds, torched wild weeds and gleaned all sorts of useful scientific knowledge from the theory and practice of evading, if only for a little while, the intrinsic angst of the cosmic cycle of life and death, by means of ingesting substances that alter our consciousness.

Oddly, also from the very start, we’ve balanced our blood alcohol counts with vivid cautionary accounts, beginning with the oral tradition, and only later through emerging written languages. Consequently, the Western literary canon is filled with stories about sodden inebriates doomed to oblivion – a place where we’re all headed, anyway, but stick with me for a moment.

It seems almost as if the “officially” accepted rules of fiction permit only random moments of intelligence, heroism or Falstaffian levity in drinkers, while in the main, they’re not permitted to be humorous or sympathetic without extensive qualification. They’re commonly cast not as people, but as walking, talking and sometimes gurgling morality plays.

Imbibers are car-crashing, fight-starting, self-immolating accidents waiting to happen, and those who are well adjusted and functional seldom fit snugly into any serious narrative. At best, they are allowed to wax and wane in deference to tragicomedy, a device primarily deployed as foreshadowing in advance of their subsequent denouement as self-destructive, innocence-shattering villains.

To summarize, not unlike the fate of the Consul on Mezcal in Malcolm Lowry’s “Under the Volcano,” their tales always end badly, and as a professional drinker of many years standing, with a gold-plated union card and squealing liver to prove it, I find the repetition thoroughly tiresome.

Not that I am willing to argue against the varied and exhaustively documented costs of alcoholism. Rather, while negative considerations are genuine, I contend they are not to be confused with the myriad and conducive joys of social drinking, both educationally and recreationally.

And, quite frankly, also for medicinal reasons.

For instance, consider the city of New Albany. There are times when this place seems so bizarrely unreal that only fiction lubricated with alcoholic beverages can properly capture the sensation.

As in: Lately.

---

If the newspaper had a sense of humor (rest assured, it doesn’t), the banner headline would have read something like this: “End of rainbow discovered near Hauss Square as history comes to dead stop.”

A full two centuries down the line, New Albany abruptly rose from a slumber of Rip Van Winkle dimensions to find itself slouching, perhaps hungover, at a juncture long anticipated, sometimes predicted, generally dismissed, and often doubted by the very civic leaders who now have determined that we really do have all the money we need.

Imagine it!

Suddenly, after all those wasted years of miserly and penurious parsimony, forever lashed by the imminent tightening of ropes (heck, we couldn’t even afford actual belts), now petty cash is as common as litter on city streets bearing names but no trash receptacles. Verily, either Switzerland or Dubai lies within easy reach, maybe even Singapore, and all we need do to attain the brass ring is float a bond, build some parks, and kick back to watch our children win athletic scholarships and leave town, never to return.

---

After last Thursday’s council meeting, when a resolution was approved to speed New Albany toward nirvana or a $19+ million bond issue for parks and recreation (whichever comes first), I was chatting with Councilman Scott Blair about prospective two-way street conversions. His very first question was to ask if any of us knew how much it would cost, because he’s a cost benefit analysis kind of guy.

CM Blair also counts himself firmly among those who advance parks and recreation as “no brainer” quality-of-life issues, and while I personally don’t entirely disagree with this point of view, it seems to me that “quality of life” as a consideration surely must embrace other aspects of the human experience beyond organized recreational facilities.

Even interpreted narrowly, as a concept pertaining solely to recreation, quality of life certainly includes an ability to use the entire city as potential playground, in the sense of walking, riding bicycles or eating a sandwich on a streetside bench … alas, with no garbage can nearby. Hence, the under-valued importance of the municipal street grid itself, because just as the skin is your body’s largest organ, a city’s streets tie every single one of its other facets together into a whole.

That’s why I found it noteworthy that CM Blair, a skilled and respected banker, immediately pounced on the notion of two-way street conversions as a prime candidate for rigorous cost-benefit analysis (and indeed, numerous studies have been conducted, here and elsewhere), while accepting virtually without question the aquatics center-as-quality-of-life truism.

With virtually all in attendance advancing the notion of recreational facilities as sole determining factor governing whether “our children” become taxpayers or axe murderers, and largely refusing to countenance arguments of a more subtle nature suggesting otherwise, exactly how do we reduce such an equation to dollars and cents and cost-benefit – apart from guesstimates of attendance and user fees worth somewhat less than the PowerPoint they’re printed on?

It isn’t my intention to “bully” CM Blair, who’s quite capable of advancing his viewpoint and has done so with me on several occasions. We talk just fine, Daniel. Rather, it’s to explicate yet again (sadly) this default tendency of power brokers to lapse into stupor at the very suggestion that prioritizing basic everyday infrastructures of living, from transport to design to neighborhood structure, might address “quality-of-life” issues far more fundamentally and comprehensively than parks and recreation facilities created (and financed) in isolated, self-perpetuating vacuums.

Two hundred years after the Scribners rowed ashore to take a leak and get some good ol’ homebrew cooking, the Gahan administration evidently has found the pot of gold buried beneath the manhole covers out back in the street department’s parts shed. Not only that, there’s a council mercifully absent Li’l Stevie and King Larry, and with an alien occupying the body formerly known as Dan Coffey’s, and what this adds up to is a majority seemingly in favor of spending the uncovered loot as quickly as possible.

So be it. I’m for borrowing every last cent if it means making this city a better place, and one that requires less personal alcohol consumption to make life tolerable (but please, keep drinking Progressive Pints, because daddy likes to get paid).

All I’m asking is for a closer look at “quality of life” and what it entails, and with less rolling of eyes, particularly as the concept pertains to the majority of residents who neither do the backstroke nor swat horsehide. Make this whole damned city a recreational area, guys -- and then we’re getting somewhere.

Now if you’ll slide that bottle across the table, we can get back to nationalizing the railroad.

Morrison: "Understand how the East End Bridge or the downtown bridge is going to be financed? You likely don’t."

Go the Insider Louisville, read the entirety of Curt's chronicle of a fiasco, and resort to strong drink.

---

Shocker: Plan calls for building East End bridge,THEN figuring out how to pay for it

By CURTIS MORRISON | Published: FEBRUARY 27, 2013

“So, how much is that baby gonna’ run us?” Don’t worry about … it’s public funding magic.

(Editor’s note: Terry Boyd also contributed to this post.)

If you think you know everything there is to know about the $2.6 billion bridges projects – either the East End bridge project or the downtown bridge – you don’t.

In fact, we’d go so far to bet you don’t know the half of it. (Which is not an accident.)

If you think you understand how the East End Bridge or the downtown bridge is going to be financed, you likely don’t.

If you think you understand the tolling mechanism, think again.

To tell you everything never reported in the conventional media would take a book.

So, for this post, we’re going to focus on the East End Bridge, which is being built by Indiana.

Through the magic of something called “availability payments,” the East End Bridge (Indiana’s project) is on a schedule to be essentially built before the process to finance it even begins.

Seriously.

NAC Guest Columnist Randy Smith: "Don’t Rush to Build Outdoor Swimming Pool."

For analysis of the 'Bune's editorial take: see Before the meeting, let's think about differing qualities of life. Thanks to Randy for writing.

---

Don’t Rush to Build Outdoor Swimming Pool

As a person of a decidedly communitarian bent, I’m usually one of “them people” who are first to call for public funding of projects and facilities that both benefit the public at large and whose costs can best be borne by the taxpayers as a whole. That is, usually I’m for it.

But I’m filled with dread at the thought that we’ll wake up some Tuesday or Friday morning and discover that the New Albany City Council and Mayor Jeff Gahan have put this community into debt to build an outdoor swimming pool.

The administration estimates that an outdoor water recreation facility will cost in the neighborhood of $9 million. Mayor Gahan has already asked the Horseshoe Foundation of Floyd County to divert a portion of their charitable giving to help foot the costs of a swimming pool.

It appears that the city wants to float a bond of about $20 million to build an outdoor pool facility, multiple fields for the local Little League affiliate, and a soccer complex at the inner-city Binford Park.

But do the people of New Albany need, or even want, a new outdoor pool? As we blow through the second decade of the 21st Century, is building a swimming pool a legitimate and equitable use of tax money?

One might say that if the nearby casino wants to pay for it (an unlikely prospect, but who knows?), then the city should immediately accept the money and build an outdoor swimming pool. I contend that even if a benefactor were to cover some or all of the costs, New Albany would be better served to spend that money on something other than an outdoor pool.

Those who might say this is a premature voice in opposition just don’t know how New Albany government works. Rather than persuade us, the mayor is relying on a long-past and little-contested campaign as his mandate to build a pool to replace the Camille Wright facility. I hardly think the voters saw Mr. Gahan’s election campaign as a referendum on whether we should go $20 million in debt for recreation projects, or even as a vote to sever the city parks from the joint city-county system.

And nothing says that the city council will do any more than the bare legal minimum before authorizing the issuance of municipal bonds to fund what may well be an obsolete project from day one.

Both Clarksville and Jeffersonville have outstanding outdoor aquatic centers. With the amount of money being proposed for a new pool in New Albany, the city could provide free admission at and free transportation to either of those facilities for every likely user of a new city pool—with no additional annual operating or capital costs, to boot.

A “spray park” along the riverfront or even multiple such parks scattered strategically around the city would be a better use of tax dollars. Let’s face it. In this day and age, an outdoor swimming pool is an albatross and I believe it’s a wasteful public expenditure.

It’s time to start a long public conversation about this to build a consensus on whether we need or even want a new outdoor pool in New Albany. Unless we have that, and unless people let their representatives know that they don’t want a new pool, my nightmare may become a costly reality. And for goodness sake, there’s no need to rush this decision. I don’t think a bond referendum would stand a chance of passing public muster, but a council that listens only to its own counsel might believe otherwise.

Note: I put a lot of skin into the game supporting the public investment in the YMCA and New Albany-owned indoor aquatic center. My wife and I fought for it politically and also made a significant (for us, at least) financial contribution toward its construction.

In a nutshell, that's exactly right.

Not again.

Trust and transparency from the commissars -- I mean, commissioners.

On today's newspaper, Floyd County's secretive board of commissioners emerges from its knobby bunker to reply to a minor sliver of implied criticism in a recent (and exceedingly droll) editorial. To no one's surprise at all, the Bush/Freiberger/Seabrook troika would very much like to throw the city under the bus, thank you -- but it isn't about politics at all, of course

Commissioners respond to newspaper’s editorial

... Among the items in this plan is the future operation of Sam Peden Community Park. The editorial board raised the question of trust with the question: “How much do you trust the county to maintain the city’s most sizable park?” ...

... Regarding this issue of trust which the editorial board raised about the county’s commitment to Sam Peden Community Park, it is interesting to hear that the city administration was already working on the plan dissolving the joint park system while members of the respective elected bodies of the city, county and members of the parks board were working toward finalizing and voting on a new agreement.

Meanwhile, the city council is going to approve a budget, build a new clock tower and grease the wobbly financial wheels of CM CeeSaw's coffee-table, white-bread Bicentennial celebration.

New Albany budget vote tonight: $20M budget up about $1.2M from last year

 ... Caesar said the commission will send out letters to local businesses asking them to purchase the book or carry editions to sell. He expects the business community will respond and there won’t be a problem selling the books.

Can't wait to be asked, Bob.

Mom, apple pie, Chevrolet ... and NA-FC Parks Department?

I've never harbored any doubt that Roger Jeffers, the parks department superintendent, does a good job. I've heard nothing but praise for him. For all I know, he quite possibly is the finest local administrator of them all.

So, given the tenor of his comments ever since the mayor's parks secession project was announced, pardon my insouciance in asking: Was Roger Jeffers ever elected to anything?

And: Do residents of Floyd County (of which, at last glance, New Albany remained a part) answer to Jeffers, or does he answer to us?

Look, of course it's tough. You take a job, and then things change without warning. It's also called life, and sometimes politics, and it's something that happens to working people all the time. When it does, they adapt ... or get swept away.

But when Jeffers switches from hired hand mode to aspirant Gallup pollster, it's rather embarrassing: "The citizens are not happy," opines the super, and yes, the ones bothering to call him probably are. Me? I'm perfectly happy. Need I phone the Rajah to provide the other side of the story?

It might be easier for him to dismount the high horse and realize that Generalizations typically are Hell. It might also be the case that if citizens genuinely are unhappy -- as oh so many city residents have been during county's government's merrily irresponsible period of chronic parks underfunding -- this discontent will indeed be manifested at the polls when voting time comes.

To repeat: Parks are damned important, and for numerous reasons, but there are as many different ways to have, use and operate them as there are governmental entities. The NA-FC parks board's current theme of "Just the Way We Are" is one such strategy. It is neither the only way, nor a religious commandment set in balsa. Can someone representing the parks-business-as-always side of the aisle please conjure a persuasive argument? My eyelids are drooping, already.

They cannot plausibly deny that there are other organizational models. As for the "duplication of financing" arguments, we already have a profound example of non-duplication: The county's decade-long decision to not pay its share. No duplication there. All we seemingly have left is the argument from gloom and doom: If we cannot continue doing something the way we always have, there will be floods, pestilence and cross-dressers descending upon us.

As Nero Wolfe once observed, "Pfui."

Bluegill provides the closer:

Jeffers: "That makes me not want to work for either side to tell you the truth." Me: "OK."

In the newspaper (remember to lower the volume so you don't have to listen to the automatically generated sales dentist): Floyd County moving ahead with parks plan; Jeffers doubtful city can handle transition in two months, by Daniel Suddeath.

Amid universal nods of resignation, the 'Bune editorial board botches parks secession opinion.

Apart from Keith Olbermann and Charles P. Pierce, it's generally a bad idea to entrust political commentary to career sportwriters. That said, let's lower ourselves into the abyss of the newspaper editorial board's opinion on the evolving NA-FC parks split. Their text appears in normal formatting, and my replies as quotes.

---

OUR OPINION: Plenty of problems to share for parks split

New Albany Mayor Jeff Gahan’s justification for wanting to form a separate New Albany parks system is legitimate.

Over an eight year period, Floyd County shortchanged the New Albany-Floyd County Parks Department by about $4 million. This summer, the Floyd County Commissioners declined to vote on forming a cumulative capital fund to aid in expenses with the park, though city taxpayers have been footing the additional levy for years.

The reasons for not living up to their end of the bargain have changed numerous times for Floyd County officials. We’ve been told the money had to be used for murder trials, the county didn’t realize the taxes weren’t going to the parks department and even that the state cut the levy rate.

Those aren’t exactly the practices of an entity most would consider partnering with for any matter that has financial implications.

No, they’re not, are they? The ‘Bune’s editorial board clearly understands the magnitude of the county’s serial “deadbeat dad” approach to governance. But you just know it can't last …

However, the parks situation is much larger than a simple yes or no vote. Jobs, property and future collaboration with the county must be considered by the city before moving ahead with the divide of the parks system. The New Albany council voted 6-3 to do just that Thursday night, but finalizing the move will require one more vote.

Ah, I see. It is “much larger.” What does this mean, and why is it true? Yes, jobs, properties and “future collaborations” (Really? You wanna go out with that guy again after he dined and dashed before the check came due and made you go Dutch Treat?) are considerations, to be sure; as I noted last week, these also were presumed factors in seeking to avid the split of an entire Central European country, and Czechs and Slovaks somehow managed to work them out.

Frankly, Gahan hasn’t been forthcoming with the NA-FC Parks Board about his intentions, at least not in an official capacity. Gahan was one of the few city or county officials who skipped at least one of the joint meetings hosted by the parks board to try to mediate past woes between the entities. Also, no one from the Gahan administration addressed the parks board about the split prior to the measures being placed on the New Albany City Council’s agenda Thursday.

On one hand, county officials never came before the city to announce they wouldn’t be adequately funding the parks department. But the county’s mistake should be a lesson, not a reason to keep the parks board in the dark about what may transpire.

Two things here. First, what is it about the parks in general, and the parks board in particular, that cloaks them in a perpetual above-the-fray holiness, more so than other local administrative entities? Personally I believe parks are very important, but I can see numerous potential models of governance. Since when did this one become sacrosanct, unimpeachable and shielded from scrutiny? In addition, why does Mayor Gahan have a greater responsibility to be loquacious than county government? Gahan gets scalded for non-transparence, but the county’s years of similar mute funding behavior is merely a lesson. What of the parks board’s own non-transparence in conducting its affairs, as when it sought to engineer a state legislature-mandated tax hoarding without notifying the county or the city? Why wasn't that considered non-transparent?

The parks board oversees several employees, some of whom have served this community for 40 years. Gahan owed an explanation to those volunteer board members — whether they agreed with his choice or not — so they could, in turn, inform parks employees.

Subsequent news items suggest he has done so.

If he believes in the split, he should stand up for it and look parks board members in the eye. Not to mention it’s October, and if there’s going to be a city parks system in place by Jan. 1, there’s a tremendous amount of preparation and planning that will be needed.

Again, why is it that Gahan alone bears the solemn quasi-Old Testament obligation to look parks board members "in the eye"? Were these board members appointed by “god” herself? Why this disproportionate requirement of Gahan, while serial fiscal negligence on the part of county government gets little more than an affectionate butt slap -- hey, cool, you'll do better next eight year stretch, right?

What is the rush? Why not release a plan, get people on board and proceed in 2014. There seem to be too many questions that need answers before the split occurs.

Now I’m confused. The parks split is acceptable, and there are compelling reasons for it? If so, given that the editorial board can see that county government is culpable even if the board shrinks from learning its own lessons from the experience, why tolerate another year of county under-funding guesswork? Why not act swiftly? 

Here are some other questions to consider:

• What would such a divide really mean for the residents of New Albany? Sam Peden Community Park is the city’s largest and most frequented outdoor recreational facility. But the land is owned by the county, so if the split ultimately happens, it will solely be in charge of the park’s upkeep.

After what has taken place in the past, how much do you trust the county to maintain the city’s most sizable park? Floyd County Commissioners President Steve Bush said recently he would not be in favor of selling any of the park land for commercial use, but he’s only one vote.

What if the county decides one day to develop Community Park? New Albany would have very few options to stop the greenspace from being covered with asphalt and residential or commercial buildings if that were to transpire.

New Albanians are grateful the newspaper's editorial board seems to grasp that when it comes to the future of Community Park, county government can be trusted only as far as I can throw a keg filled with 12% beer. Naturally, the board cites this legitimate mistrust of county government’s ultimate aims as evidence that city residents should live in fear of the bully. Uh, right.

• Also, in a time where taxpayers are calling for condensed government, how will Floyd County and New Albany be affected when footing two parks departments?

New Albany taxpayers have already shouldered the biggest part of the parks funding load, but that won’t change when the split happens. Unless New Albany plans to secede from Floyd County, city taxpayers will still be paying for the bulk of parks operations. New Albany residents will be paying for city parks on their own, as well as taxes that will likely help foot a new and separate county recreation system.

The showdown over this issue has spilled over into other arenas as well. The city and county are now in the midst of a legal battle over planning control of the fringe area, and New Albany declined to merge its 911 dispatch operation with Floyd County. The county is the second-smallest county in the state in terms of land area, so shouldn’t we be coming together to cut out duplicated services and costs?

The Alabama-based N and T parent company eliminated duplication in 2011, didn't it, and look where THAT got us. But I digress. These bellicose taxpayers presumably are the very same ones who’d be among the first to demand that all parties involved pay their fair share into the parks just like the taxpayers themselves have been doing all along. Would taxpayers genuinely interested in fairness be willing to forgive and forget the county’s serial underpayment of parks monies? Or do we merely fluff taxpayers in a sort of ritualistic abnegation without exploring the nuances of what they're demanding this week? Sadly, nowadays, yes, but it’s also worth noting that if one is to follow this incredibly tired “duplicated services and costs” to its logical conclusion, we’d have only one government nationwide, obtaining the very best rates for bulk purchasing and distribution … wait, sorry; that’s the socialist bogeyman, isn’t it?

At some point, the city and the county are going to have to cooperate for the good of the residents.

When all is considered, New Albany may have a better chance of garnering a new outdoor pool and a Little League facility on its own. But such a big move as splitting a parks department shouldn’t be rushed into a special meeting with little notice.

Parks are one of the assets companies review before deciding to locate to a community. Just thinking about a warm sunny day in a park with family and friends stirs positive emotions in our minds and souls.

But this whole issue has been anything but warm and fuzzy. It shows incompetence by the county and lack of respect by the Gahan administration for the employees and board members who have served the parks system.

So, why isn't the editorial board asking the single most obvious question posed by this discussion: How do we compel county government to cooperate? To make this point again: If the newspaper is interested in clarity, mustn’t it explain why a simple, subjective and highly debatable “lack of respect” from Jeff Gahan is to be considered commensurate with a county government so objectively “incompetent” as to fail to honor its side of a money deal not merely for the brief tenure of Gahan’s term, but for a period of years? How are these failures equal, editorial board? And what on earth do warm fuzzies have to do with any of it?

— The News and Tribune editorial board is comprised of Publisher Bill Hanson, Editor Shea Van Hoy and Assistant Editors Chris Morris and Amy Huffman-Branham.

Perhaps it is, but since the managing editor freely acknowledges that 3/4 of this quartet rarely venture out of HQ in Jeffersonville, I believe we know who wrote it, don't we? And that explains a lot, doesn't it?

Nash on the split: "For the past several years the leaders of Floyd County have not done the right thing."

New Albany's city council voted last night, and in spite of One Southern Indiana's last-minute interference ploy on behalf of itself, the result was approval for a resolution and two readings of an ordinance to secede from the combined city-county parks department. Bob Caesar voted against the resolution and for the ordinance, and the smart money has him executing the rarest of all council maneuvers, the King Larry Gambit, by abstaining when the third reading comes due next time.

Prior to the meeting, Matt Nash traced the sources of the city's discontent in another fine newspaper column.

NASH: How should we fund our parks?

... If any of the elected officials in Floyd County say that they were unaware of funding inadequacies in the parks department until this year, they are either lying or just don’t care. A simple search will find request dating back several years from park’s officials. Ms. Fendley has been a member of the county council for nearly six years serving from 2005-2008 and again from 2011 to the present and for part of that time she was vice president of that board. How have they been coming up with the amount that was budgeted over the last few years? Did they just pick an arbitrary number out of thin air?

Matt's conclusion, an eloquent condemnation of the prevailing McAllister/Heavrin mentality of non-governance in the county is required reading.

I am a resident of New Albany and Floyd County. I believe that a vibrant park system with great facilities adds to the lives of all citizens. It is time that the leaders of Floyd County began to understand this fact. For far too long the priorities of our elected officials have revolved around the murder trial of a single individual and the incarceration of criminals in our county. It is time that the taxpaying citizens of New Albany and Floyd County begin to reap the benefits from the tax dollars we pay.

Bile and acrimony on tap as city parks secession bid appears on city council agenda.

Suddeath's piece is uncommonly long for the newspaper (1,400 words), and that's good, because this issue isn't simple.

Speaking only for myself, this entire parks issue, from alleged highland/lowland togetherness to serial city/county funding disparities, and not excluding the park board's secretive 007 Agent Clere legislative taxation mission to Burma (or Indianapolis), testifies to the insanity of two decades of the Heavrin/McAllister Power Trip Show, when the budgetary marrow must be gnawed lest any county politician ever be compelled to speak honestly about the necessity of increased revenue.

Thus we come to the Shirley Baird school of governance (yikes): Reluctantly concede the extent of county government’s abject and cynical failure to equally fund parks within the city limits, but conclude that all should be smilingly forgiven in a joyous circle jerk of doubtful future unity; we need only “trust” the same conniving entities who have pulled away the football countless times before, relax, kick back, and enjoy the anticipation of the next time (and there’ll be a next time), when we must laboriously formulate a whole new convoluted Band-Aid of a fiscal plan to celebrate county government’s fresh new resolve to do what it was supposed to do all along, but did not, because it never was held accountable for the previous time.

The devil's in the details, so ...

Vote to split parks slated for tonight in New Albany; Parks board decries Gahan’s choice, says community will suffer from divide, by Daniel Suddeath (News and Tribune)

NEW ALBANY — Since 1994, New Albany and Floyd County have been partners in parks and recreation service. But that could all change after tonight.

A special New Albany City Council meeting has been slated for 7:15 this evening so that two measures can be considered. The first is a resolution calling for the re-establishment of the New Albany Parks Department, and the legislation will require only one vote by the council.

The second measure is an ordinance calling for the abolishment of the current New Albany-Floyd County Parks Department agreement, and it will require three readings by the council.