Thank you Randy for responding. I do know there is nothing concrete at this point. Not even the tax is concrete. There seems to be designs already in progress, yet no location? I did hear a radio interview that seemed to suggest several concrete decisions were made.
Understood, EXPENSIVE. Still, this went from a 5 yr tax to a proposed 20 yr tax.
What about conducting this in phases?
I am glad u observe use of the walking paths. So, just about every community has one. Was that the reasoning?
Wasn't the Raymond center constructed in phases, and is it true that the center was never fully completed? I might be incorrect on that.
I say if the town in going to build a new public recreation center, then it should be build fully and completely in one phase. Take advantage of the boom and get it done. Build baby build?
As Randy mentioned, the new center would be able to attract tourism dollars to Williston, even once the boom is long gone by means of youth AND adult basketball, hockey, volleyball, etc tournaments. I would love to see indoor tennis courts attached to the new center, but I'm just selfish.
The last time I was in the Raymond center was probably 10 years ago, back in the glory days of WeBe Pizza, and it was out dated back then.
What a great opportunity.
__________________
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." -Dr. Johnson
Thank you Randy for responding. I do know there is nothing concrete at this point. Not even the tax is concrete. There seems to be designs already in progress, yet no location? I did hear a radio interview that seemed to suggest several concrete decisions were made.
designs yes, but location can be morphed into the design, or the design can be morphed into the location. I don't think any concrete decisions would have been made without gathering more input, but it definitely is wise to keep a finger on the pulse of the project. The main thing to me is that a major infrastructure project has been identified, and a guaranteed amount of the tax monies is safely dedicated to the project.
Understood, EXPENSIVE. Still, this went from a 5 yr tax to a proposed 20 yr tax.
I have not heard anything about that, but then again, I have not been following it closely. It has been a busy summer, but things are slowing down now for us and changing gears, so I can go back to being the drama king (no way am I a queen) my kids constantly keep accusing me of being and can see how many people I can tick off this winter.
What about conducting this in phases?
Theoretically, it is a good idea; in reality, maybe not. There was another phase for the Raymond Center that was never completed. I tend to prefer the idea of just getting on it and gittin' 'er done...
I am glad u observe use of the walking paths. So, just about every community has one. Was that the reasoning?
Ouch...ammo for you, huh? What I was actually thinking is that the evidence shows that the greatest number of people in communities similar to Williston also think it is good. We need to provide for those recreational activities. I definitely wasn't thinking that just because they have bike paths and walking trails in Central Park we gotta get one too.
Thank you Randy for responding. I do know there is nothing concrete at this point. Not even the tax is concrete. There seems to be designs already in progress, yet no location? I did hear a radio interview that seemed to suggest several concrete decisions were made.
Understood, EXPENSIVE. Still, this went from a 5 yr tax to a proposed 20 yr tax.
What about conducting this in phases?
I am glad u observe use of the walking paths. So, just about every community has one. Was that the reasoning?
__________________
Our ELECTED officials are our employees. These individuals asked for this job. We must govern our employees.
I have viewed the proposed plans for the NEW Recreation Center. I understand the college wants to be involved. This building will be quite extensive if the sales tax is passed.
In a nutshell, Yes! That is a plus, not a negative.
I reflect on the agreement between two entities over the indoor pool. This was one situation that had many difficult issues. In the end there could be only one chief.
It actually worked quite well for many, many, years. I was a member of the Williston Park Board for 12 years. Ultimately, it was simpler to have only one chief, but we did work together successfully for many years.
The new building, will have MAJOR support by the college. Mandatory fees imposed upon students for a Community Center. College property, college employees, college funded utilities..I do question if there will be room for public use of the amenities.
I tend to agree with some of your contentions here, but the final location of the facility and many other issues, have yet to be determined. The elected Park Board, and the various committees of interested citizens will determine that with public input. This subject is a entirely different discussion and debate.
A projected 20 year tax.
Major infrastructure is not cheap. Has to be funded somehow, but there are many options and a tax is only part of an integrated effort to fund such projects.
Ideals of drawing families to our community. I would love to draw families here. Housing?
Once the oil boom has tapered and stabilized, this could be one of the cornerstones which might also bring people from the outlying communities and tourists who will benefit from cheap and modern motel rooms which are going to be a windfall resulting from the current situation. A premier facility might well be the catalyst for Ma and Pa to bring little Johnny and Janey to Williston to shop (I hope), stay the nite (I hope) and sample the wares of the modern and updated eating facilities (I hope).
I do not feel we need to compare ourselves to other cities or what they have. We are unique. What seems great there may not be what is great here. We will always find a city that has something bigger and better. Our goals should be to create what our fine city needs. NEED is a key word. We have a recreation center. We have property. We have parks. What do we NEED to do - to repair, clean, maintain, upgrade and make these areas our unique spot?
We need a vision, but we do also need oversight of those who handle our money. However, we elect those people to handle it and management of overall operations such as you mention are the bailiwick of the Park Board and the micromanagement of those projects is the fiefdom of the Director of Parks and Recreation. Major infrastructure projects of the scope of a new Recreation Center would need to be watched closer, and would naturally encourage more comprehensive involvement of the commmunity at large, than something along the lines of new playground equipment in a pocket park somewhere.
We have walking paths that go miles around. The use of these paths is actually minimal. (Drive my car to a path to take a walk. I just walk around town in that case.) I have rode my bike there. I learned to wear sunglasses and pinch my lips shut while riding. The BUGS! Not worth it for ME. I did not observe more than 3 of us using these expensive paths. I have driven by and rarely see a person on them. Did we construct them because other cities have them or was there a great need?
I beg to differ on this one. The portion of the paths that borders my property on the east side of town sees constant use. A steady stream of walkers, joggers, and bike riders, passes by every day. We built them because we need them, and with advertising and discussion we might yet stimulate more usage. You will seldom if ever find a community of similar size not having these paths.
Our city should customize to what our city needs. What is our best fit. If a handful of individuals are in favor of using one item, it has no value or merit for the community as a whole. I take a poll, a dozen people express interest in a climbing wall, so I build one. Do I count on the those twelve people to support me in my venture?
Well, if you do the homework, you will find that they are extremely popular, and they fill a need. The people we elect are the ones who are responsible for doing the homework, and their mission is to provide opportunities for recreation, and activities to promote health and wellness. In my opinion, if the park district spent $80K for a climbing wall and it got good and hearty usage for 5 to 7 years, you could justify it because during its lifetime it helped to fulfill the mandate of the mission statement. Then, if it is not justifiable to maintain it, then take it out. Nothing is permanently permanent.
I understand many of the opinions, we all have one. I just feel we should not worry about the neighbor has but what is our actual need.
...and we need to worry about making Williston all that it can be, for those who care about it.
It is awesome that Sue has taken the time to write and respond. More people should weigh in...you guys that are lurking in the background..aren't you tired of being sissies....?
I have viewed the proposed plans for the NEW Recreation Center. I understand the college wants to be involved. This building will be quite extensive if the sales tax is passed.
I reflect on the agreement between two entities over the indoor pool. This was one situation that had many difficult issues. In the end there could be only one chief.
The new building, will have MAJOR support by the college. Mandatory fees imposed upon students for a Community Center. College property, college employees, college funded utilities..I do question if there will be room for public use of the amenities.
A projected 20 year tax.
Ideals of drawing families to our community. I would love to draw families here. Housing?
I do not feel we need to compare ourselves to other cities or what they have. We are unique. What seems great there may not be what is great here. We will always find a city that has something bigger and better. Our goals should be to create what our fine city needs. NEED is a key word. We have a recreation center. We have property. We have parks. What do we NEED to do - to repair, clean, maintain, upgrade and make these areas our unique spot?
We have walking paths that go miles around. The use of these paths is actually minimal. (Drive my car to a path to take a walk. I just walk around town in that case.) I have rode my bike there. I learned to wear sunglasses and pinch my lips shut while riding. The BUGS! Not worth it for ME. I did not observe more than 3 of us using these expensive paths. I have driven by and rarely see a person on them. Did we construct them because other cities have them or was there a great need?
Our city should customize to what our city needs. What is our best fit. If a handful of individuals are in favor of using one item, it has no value or merit for the community as a whole. I take a poll, a dozen people express interest in a climbing wall, so I build one. Do I count on the those twelve people to support me in my venture?
I understand many of the opinions, we all have one. I just feel we should not worry about the neighbor has but what is our actual need.
__________________
Our ELECTED officials are our employees. These individuals asked for this job. We must govern our employees.
Listen carefully....are you listening? Yep, that is the sound of me trying to unobtrusively remove my carefully planted foot from deep within my mouth. I just got copied on an email from Darin K letting me know about the scheduled Open House planned for tomorrow nite.
I am looking forward to seeing the ideas that will be presented.
I wait...with bated breath....for some details to come out of the committee studying the proposed one cent tax, and how it will be worded.
I think that the Park Board has take a good first step in acknowledging that the first attempt was flawed. The concept of splitting the tax is a good beginning as we would then have a "dedicated' amount which would be untouchable for other expenses, or operations.
While I am still ambivalent about a new Rec Center as opposed to completing the originally planned expansion phases of the Raymond Center, at least the tax would guarantee that some of the much needed replacement infrastructure is addressed.
Whatever the final infrastructure chosen, and whether or not it is an indoor or outdoor pool, a completely new facility, a new sheet of ice that will serve the college hockey team, or some other immense project that will benefit the community for years to come...no worries; these are the sorts of decisions that the elected board will have to determine, and is a primary reason for their collective existence as a board.
I do hope, however, that both the Park Board and the committee studying the tax, keep all the "little people" informed with regular releases of info and updates to the Herald, on this site, or others, because ultimately, we will have the power to determine the outcomes. I believe there is a lot of misunderstanding surrounding the 1 cent tax proposal, and there is clearly a danger of failure due to that lack.
-- Edited by rwaitman on Monday 29th of August 2011 08:08:49 AM
I still want to know the legal stance on visiting this subject prior to one yr. I want to know what law did they base this on?
Now, I have also read more on a community center with the high dollar price tag. Of course, this would require more than a 5 yr tax. To obtain a bond for this, the tax must be secured for longer - am I correct?
The mills dropped by the park - does the city have plans to absorb them? This is a real question. If so, I would not save a dime, I would be voting myself into higher taxation. The values placed on most every item in this community are at levels that prohibit a decent standard of living.
Our city was awarded a windfall of $20 million from our abundant tax dollars taken by the state. What are the plans with that cash?
I also question how the P & R will hold to the ideals they currently hold if they do manage to obtain a tax. The city is currently taxing us 1%. We voted yes for that. It was 75% to infrastructure and property tax relief. NONE has gone to property tax. 25% to a jobs creation fund. We did not vote to change that fund. It now goes to tidy up business fronts and has assisted with rent for new business. We also award money out of state for other community events. If you read the actual item we voted on, it does not state we should be awarding money out of state. I, found it to be in the eye of the beholder. My point, when the funds are not required for the stated intent, then what? We no longer needed job creation, we still would like property tax relief. How do we hold their feet to the fire to make them do as they say? Who is going to be the eye of the beholder with these funds?
It was not writen to a point on the ballot to make me ever vote yes. The other arms of Government will absorb those available mills. We will save nothing. We can work together to make the parks we have look better and concentrate on more pressing issues our community needs without tax creation.
__________________
Our ELECTED officials are our employees. These individuals asked for this job. We must govern our employees.
November is not that far off.....I really would like to see people making noise, discussing, debating, and talking about the impending vote, to actually develop reasonable positions. Every piece of information we post on this board is read by someone, somewhere. It might stimulate additional discussion and free-thinking by the various committees and Boards that are trying to help us all move forward.
Do not underscore the value of our ramblings and brainstorming, as your idea might become someone else's idea, and in the end, who cares where the credit goes if it gets done?
Good Question Sue....anyone care to opine?....I kinda remember someone else asking about that, and also remember someone explaining it...sorta....
Now is the time to find out a specific black and white answer to that....I would like to know too, as it is one more "t" that needs to be crossed, or "i" to be dotted....
-- Edited by rwaitman on Sunday 29th of May 2011 09:59:08 AM
Understood that it is back. I did not expect it to go away. I do question the amount of time between the votes. The law that is being applied which allows this to be placed on the ballot prior to 1 yr.?? Does anyone know which law is cited that permits the vote to move forward in less than the normal 1 yr. requirement? I do understand if this were classified as a special election for a bond..we could place it on the ballot sooner. Sales Tax does not run into this class.
__________________
Our ELECTED officials are our employees. These individuals asked for this job. We must govern our employees.
It's back!!. Now is the time to start talking about it, and now is the time to start studying your own personal position...and now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their...ahem community, and the time for the quick red fox to jump over the lazy dog.....
whoopss...sorry thought I had entered a time warp and was back in junior high school trying to learn how to type....my bad....
;o)
Seriously, let's all work together to answer the questions, any and all of them, clearly and transparently.....
I don't know if I necessarily agree with any taxing entity having a bunch of extra funds laying around waiting for someone to decide what to do with it. I could be convinced likewise, but at this point my feelings tell me that if that happens, I have given them too much of my hard earned money.
Once our park district has brought the existing facilities to where they and the community feel good about them again, the park district can then begin the process of asking the community for the money needed for whatever they intend to build. I don't like the idea of voting "yes" on the next one cent without first having a master plan in place detailing every inch of whatever it is the money is being used for. This was the sentiment of many who voted "no". I would like to think a new recreation center with an indoor and outdoor pool would kill 3 birds with one stone.
I understand checks and balances, but I also understand earmarks. And as long as funds are earmarked, it doesn't seem necessary in my mind to require a seperate group of people to make decisions the park board will be making already.
So from what I can see, we agree that any money over and above the districts current budget should be earmarked for specific projects. But if the money is earmarked for specific projects, does there still need to be a seperate committee?
Immediate thought comes to mind, is that oil booms come and go, and many of us here in Williston have lived through several of them, and the engine that drives the economy (at least ours) could come to a grinding halt on something as simple as legislative change in DC.
Major infrastructure projects like a new outdoor pool/indoor pool/rec center concept, which, by the way is a pretty good idea, might take two or more years to flesh out, and if we wait, that money might well go by the wayside. If it is protected, why can we not start gathering it sooner rather later? I only see the initial need to "protect" the funds, or earmark 'em or whatever.
I strongly believe major projects like these you mention, need broad-based community support, much more than just the smaller scope as viewed by those running day to day operations. The trees might get lost in the forest, or is it vice versa?
I don't know if I necessarily agree with any taxing entity having a bunch of extra funds laying around waiting for someone to decide what to do with it. I could be convinced likewise, but at this point my feelings tell me that if that happens, I have given them too much of my hard earned money.
Once our park district has brought the existing facilities to where they and the community feel good about them again, the park district can then begin the process of asking the community for the money needed for whatever they intend to build. I don't like the idea of voting "yes" on the next one cent without first having a master plan in place detailing every inch of whatever it is the money is being used for. This was the sentiment of many who voted "no". I would like to think a new recreation center with an indoor and outdoor pool would kill 3 birds with one stone.
I understand checks and balances, but I also understand earmarks. And as long as funds are earmarked, it doesn't seem necessary in my mind to require a seperate group of people to make decisions the park board will be making already.
So from what I can see, we agree that any money over and above the districts current budget should be earmarked for specific projects. But if the money is earmarked for specific projects, does there still need to be a seperate committee?
__________________
Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. – Philippians 2:3-4
I agree with Steve. Kudos for the Park District to have the vision and ability to think outside the box.
I said this from day one.
My spin is that in day to day operations, and normal productive activities, the system is effective, in the sense that there is a process that is followed. The elected Board is the final determination of how those operations proceed, and decisions are generally partisan, with the "party-in-charge" generally controlling the check book. Purchases of Park Equipment under a cap are discretionary by the Director of Parks and Recreation, and only purchases over that cap are subject to the bidding process. That can usually be manipulated to facilitate the immediate needs and desires of the Board. If a budget item, such a a new fence around the baseball field, or a new sheet of ice, or whatever it might be, is inserted into the budget, and approved, the Special Interest Group (SIG) which is responsible for the election of their various candidates is going to be pacified and those opposed are not and if you, Joe Citizen, don't like the outcome, then you get on stick and vote 'em out.
That is how the political system works. No worries.
In the case of the 1 cent (ahem...I mean 1%) tax, there is a larger issue, and that is the fact that a very large amount of money, possibly upwards of 10 million dollars over five years is an additional windfall. I am of the opinion that this money, rather than being available for dipping into by any individual Board, be untouchable until there is a locked-in infrastructure project to complete, whether it be a new outdoor pool, an extension and refurbishing of the Raymond Center, a new rec center, or some other similar project.
The Raymond Center was not built by just the Park Board, it was a community based effort. In my picture,any large, new infrastructure project should be based on consensus of the citizens at large rather than a board of 5 elected commisioners who have a lot on their plate already just managing the budget of a growing and vibrant community, so my suggestion has been to create a new bipartisan or neutral committee including members of the community at large to have primary control in determining the project or projects to be selected.
...starting to ramble....somebody else's turn now....
I would have had this during a general election when there are plenty of other things for the voters to think about. Not when it's the only glaring issue on the ballot. Might not have made a bit of difference, but at least it would eliminate the possibility of it doing so.
After all of what I have said so far I also have to say this...
I give the guys at the park district and the board all the credit in the world for doing something extremely important and practically unprecidented. They got the citizens of Williston very involved in their community. Perhaps a wake up call if you will. That in and of itself is a major accomplishment. Very well done, gentlemen...and I use that term loosely.
__________________
Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. – Philippians 2:3-4
No one's ripping this one up? C'mon!? There's gotta be a flaw or 10 in here somewhere. Help me out.
__________________
Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. – Philippians 2:3-4
The general concensus I get when talking to those who voted "no" was that they could have voted "yes" to a .5 cent tax as long as the excess funds (those above the current budget) were allocated specifically and laid out to the general public.
Well, the answer then (at least to draw 31 plus more "yes votes) lies in the wording of the measure on the ballot. The concern from the park district was that a .5 cent tax would not give them the funds they would need to survive should the economy revert back to what it was back in the early 1990's.
In my opinion, a .5 is still very feasable as long as the wording on the ballot provides that in an emergency situation, that being one of which the sales tax drops below what is needed to function, the park district reserves the right to re-allocate only the number of mills needed to get the budget back to functioning levels until the revenues from sales brings them back to the needed levels at which point those mills would then be dropped.
This measure would be for a 3 year period. During this period several things MUST happen. First, the extra revenues from sales must be budgeted as upgrades only. Mr. Krueger has explained to me a small list of needs which I know are much greater. Believe me, an extra million dollars a year would get gobbled up easily by the amount of upgrades they have. The second thing that MUST be done is a detailed plan by the park district done in collaboration with both the city and the college (provided all are on board with working together) on a new recreation facility must be completed and shared with the community.
After 2 years, providing the park district has done a great job with the upgrades and has proven the .5 cent given by the people was not in vain, and provided a very good job is done with the new recreation facility plans, the park district can then confidently ask for a full cent. Without having a crystal ball and being able to see what the budget may look like 4 years down the road I would assume 1.7 million would be enough money for general upkeep (since the upgrades are complete). Thus the majority of the one cent tax (anything beyond the necessary 1.7 million) could be allocated towards the new recreation facility.
There are several reasons why the college and the city are needed for this new facility. Number one, the new facility cannot be bonded by a sales tax. The city would need to be involved in this process. Also, the park district would need the cities backing in case of a financial emergency. The college is the most ideal place to put this new facility for several reasons. Number one, there are signigicant tax breaks. Number two, college students make great employees. Work study can become part of that equation. Number three, the park district doesn't have to bear the entire burdon of the maintenance costs.
I'm sure there are plenty more reasons but those are the top ones I can think of.
Anyways, there ya have it. I honestly believe in baby steps in this process. Get the updates done first and prove to the voters there is a good plan in place to get the park district facilities exactly where the citizens want them to be.
OK...everyone's turn to rip this one apart. On your marks, get set, GO!!!
__________________
Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. – Philippians 2:3-4
Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. – Philippians 2:3-4
Several people have suggested that an exit poll after last week's sales tax vote was completed, would have been in order. Obviously, that did not happen, but I think now is as good a time as any to re-visit and consider a new approach; both barrels (with civility of course), full bore, pedal to the metal, blunt and straightforward talk about how to get to where we want to be.
Besides the obvious ones, I would like to see opinions and then have discussion on people's ideas. I really don't think this is dead in the water. It is simply treading.
