For the Record
Somebody's lying. No great surprise, I'll grant you, but nothing more clearly demonstrates the utter inability of some people to tell the truth than the conversations circulating regarding last evening's city council meeting.
I was there. In fact, the audience was filled with progressives. The only civilian in attendance whose progressive credentials are lacking departed the meeting before any actual business was conducted. Perhaps Tim Young Productions can persuade their client to make the tapes available to the public. I know they will verify the following report.
City Council took up an ordinance to increase sewer tap-in fees by about 40% last evening, passing the ordinance on first reading.
Beforehand, Mr. John Miller pled the case that these fees, particularly with the increase, serve as an impediment to fostering the type of housing this city so desperately needs in its core area. New Albany's Community Housing operation offers this city the best opportunity in sight for economic development, cash inflows, jobs, and safe and fair housing. The locally contributed money triggers an additional nine times that in federal grant money to rehabilitate some of the 3,000 substandard homes in New Albany. Moreover, that $15 million then become available to leverage several multiples of additional funding for the same types of projects.
Seeking recognition during the public comment portion of the meeting, I asked the council to consider that one of the ways it could promote infill development, which I presume they prefer to sprawl, would be to calculate the rate increase in such a way that it would allow for preferential waivers, discounts, subsidies, etc. for developments that meet the objectives of the city's five-year plan. Acknowledging the need for the sewer utility to operate on a firm financial footing, I suggested the council should amend the ordinance to raise the tap-in fee by an amount sufficient to cover such subsidies.
Mr. John Rosenbarger, who wears many hats, including planning and redevelopment, made a compelling case that such waivers can, should, and are used regularly to promote desirable development. In fact, he suggested that those very waivers can also be leveraged as a local contribution that can be matched by federal and other grant funds.
At no time did anyone in the room oppose the idea of raising the tap-in fee to meet the obligations of the sewer utility. I REPEAT. NO ONE AT ANY TIME RAISED ANY OBJECTION TO THE BOOST IN TAP-IN FEES.
Anyone who tells you otherwise...is a liar. Anyone who facilitates the same is aiding and abetting the spread of disinformation.
We'll lay it out in numbers next week. If the current ordinance is sufficient to meet the obligations of the sewer utility, then a slight boost in the fee would give the sewer board or the council the ability to give a hand to deserving projects that meet specific criteria. NACH's project is clearly one of those, but setting that aside for a moment, we ask: Can no one on the council envision a circumstance where the city might want to ENCOURAGE development by waiving the fee or establishing a fee structure that won't be such a gross impediment to (really a theft from) preferred projects? If they can see it, then why not pass an ordinance that makes it possible in the future without harming the financial stability of the utility?
I was there. In fact, the audience was filled with progressives. The only civilian in attendance whose progressive credentials are lacking departed the meeting before any actual business was conducted. Perhaps Tim Young Productions can persuade their client to make the tapes available to the public. I know they will verify the following report.
City Council took up an ordinance to increase sewer tap-in fees by about 40% last evening, passing the ordinance on first reading.
Beforehand, Mr. John Miller pled the case that these fees, particularly with the increase, serve as an impediment to fostering the type of housing this city so desperately needs in its core area. New Albany's Community Housing operation offers this city the best opportunity in sight for economic development, cash inflows, jobs, and safe and fair housing. The locally contributed money triggers an additional nine times that in federal grant money to rehabilitate some of the 3,000 substandard homes in New Albany. Moreover, that $15 million then become available to leverage several multiples of additional funding for the same types of projects.
Seeking recognition during the public comment portion of the meeting, I asked the council to consider that one of the ways it could promote infill development, which I presume they prefer to sprawl, would be to calculate the rate increase in such a way that it would allow for preferential waivers, discounts, subsidies, etc. for developments that meet the objectives of the city's five-year plan. Acknowledging the need for the sewer utility to operate on a firm financial footing, I suggested the council should amend the ordinance to raise the tap-in fee by an amount sufficient to cover such subsidies.
Mr. John Rosenbarger, who wears many hats, including planning and redevelopment, made a compelling case that such waivers can, should, and are used regularly to promote desirable development. In fact, he suggested that those very waivers can also be leveraged as a local contribution that can be matched by federal and other grant funds.
At no time did anyone in the room oppose the idea of raising the tap-in fee to meet the obligations of the sewer utility. I REPEAT. NO ONE AT ANY TIME RAISED ANY OBJECTION TO THE BOOST IN TAP-IN FEES.
Anyone who tells you otherwise...is a liar. Anyone who facilitates the same is aiding and abetting the spread of disinformation.
We'll lay it out in numbers next week. If the current ordinance is sufficient to meet the obligations of the sewer utility, then a slight boost in the fee would give the sewer board or the council the ability to give a hand to deserving projects that meet specific criteria. NACH's project is clearly one of those, but setting that aside for a moment, we ask: Can no one on the council envision a circumstance where the city might want to ENCOURAGE development by waiving the fee or establishing a fee structure that won't be such a gross impediment to (really a theft from) preferred projects? If they can see it, then why not pass an ordinance that makes it possible in the future without harming the financial stability of the utility?
posted by All4Word at 11:23 AM
1 Comments:
At last nights meeting CM Seabook stated that even churches do not get an exemption from tap-in fees, I agree with that statement as most churches have abudent resources. If a church is in a building mode it isn't because they don't have enough money for the project.
Where as in the case of Habbitat or CHODO, the folks purchasing those houses could stand a little help on getting in the door. After all they will be paying taxes, sewer fees and garbage collection fees for the rest of there lives!
I find it hard to understand how the two CM that serve on sewer board say they have no means or authority to give concessions, when it seems the whole city council finds it easy to give anyone a tax break (money lost to the general fund)that comes a cryin'.
I belive fair is fair, and in some sense they are right, everyone needs to pull their load, but sometimes you just got to bend a little like the mighty oak in the wind!
Other than that, two city council meetings not lasting into the wee hours and for the most part held with a civil tounge, we just might be progressing!
Post a Comment
<< Home