While the city discusses options for their DT Trolley system, that was shelved since the Federal money ran dry (saving taxpayers about 140K a year) the mayor’s office is proposing going full steam ahead on an indoor pool.
But are they?
If you look at item #57, the appropriation to be put forth for an Indoor Pool, you will find a distinct difference between the MEMO and the ACTUAL appropriation ordinance document. In the memo, it says the money will go towards the PARKS & RECREATION Department AND;
This funding will be used to complete the funding of the indoor aquatics facility at Spellerberg Park.
But when you read the actual ordinance for the appropriation, NO mention of an indoor pool OR Spellerberg;
That the following fund is supplemented as listed below:
MOU/Division, Parks and Recreation
Funding Source, Sales/Use Tax Fund (unobligated fund balance)
Amount, $11,180,776
I find it a bit odd that they would just appropriate the money to a ‘general’ division without specifying what the money is for. Yes, in the memo it is mentioned, but not in the ordinance itself.
What does this mean? Not sure, it could mean that the Parks & Rec department has a lot of wiggle room with what they can do with the money, and secondly, it certainly doesn’t nail down the Spellerberg location, or does it? Without any resistance from the public or council.
Maybe that is the nature of this beast, without mentioning Spellerberg in the ordinance, it may give the power to the Parks board and director to go hog wild on picking a location and what can be spent and designed for Spellerberg, leaving the council almost completely out of the process, except for approving the funding. Once again, the council would be in the dark, and they would have done it to themselves.
Of course the city would be foolish to spend the appropriation on anything BUT an indoor pool (the voters want one). But the council truly needs to amend this ordinance so they have a final say in location and design of an indoor pool.
My other observation is why are we jumping the gun on this appropriation, especially when it is pretty vague and general? Why not stuff this $11 million in with the budget coming up? The concern is tying up this $11 million dollar in an advance appropriation before the council and mayor have had a chance to prepare the budget for next year.
That’s $11 million we could spend on a lot of different things we may actually NEED (like police officers or new sewer lines) versus things we may WANT.
Normal operating procedure at Carnegie and City Hall once again.