McEuen plan 2011
An alert reader told me that our urban renewal thread of conversation has turned into a McEuen discussion, so I copied the errant posts and put them here. Feel free to respond to the issues about the park, or start your own topic on any thought you might have …it’s an Open Session.
Here are the McEuen comments from the urban renewal topic:
I just spoke to a friend who informed me that the McEuen Park project would not be paid for by tax money. She said her source of information came from the meeting last week. Did they really say that at the meeting?
Does anyone know if the $68.00 school levy amount on a $200,000 house is for the high or the low levy request. I could not determine this from my reading of the CdA Press.
Comment by citizen — January 11, 2011 @ 6:49 pm
#
citizen,
How did your friend say it would be paid for?
Comment by Bill — January 11, 2011 @ 7:01 pm
#
I neglected to ask her how she thought it was paid for. Next time I speak to her I will ask.
Does anyone have knowledge about my levy question?
Comment by citizen — January 11, 2011 @ 7:11 pm
#
Citizen,
I live in the county so I don’t know your assessed tax rate. So multiply your assessed property value less the homeowners exemption by approximately .000977 to get the current assessment for the SD supplemental levy. Multiply your assessed value less your homeowners exemption by .001503 to get your current taxes for SD 271 in its entirety. A $200,000 gross valuation would be $195.00 for the supplemental and $300.00 for the entire school tax bill. The school district is cooking the books and the PR. THIS IS BEFORE THE “NEW” LEVY.
Comment by Ancientemplar — January 11, 2011 @ 7:50 pm
#
Citizen, I attended the McEuen meeting and took notes the entire time. To my recollection, Doug Eastwood never said taxpayer money would not be used. He specifically said they had NO idea how much any of the options would cost and they would not address the cost issue until AFTER the public and the city council had approved the plan.
That said, there was a rumor running around before the meeting that someone at city hall said there would be no taxes used for the renovations. After seeing the elaborate and costly nature of many of the items, I can’t possibly believe that is true. And then there’s the added kicker: Maintenance of the high-priced items like the giant fountain, the kids’ splash pad (Doug Eastwood told me years ago they are costly to keep), the submerged freezing machines for the ice skating rink and an overhead canopy in tough winter weather? These are important costs to consider.
Comment by mary — January 11, 2011 @ 10:01 pm
#
Well Mary if according to Mr. Eastwood, the plan is to have council approve it then price it, I suspect they will budget for it over a period of years and install features as it fits budget. If this assumption is correct, then the guessing begins with what will be approved first. First approved most likely will be the parking garage as it is hinged to the re build of front street. But a final decision will have to be made up front about the boat launch as the front street remodel and garage approach from the west requires closed access to the launch area. Wouldn’t it be better for the city, in order to win public support, engage the public NOW about the timetable for the plan?
Also, I must admit that with my history of involvement with Idaho’s Open Meeting Law, I am wondering at what meeting were the decisions made on the process for revealing costs, as you report Mr. Eastwood said. Might be a good question for a Public Records Request for anyone so inclined.
Comment by Gary Ingram — January 12, 2011 @ 11:39 am
#
Was the boat launch federally or state funded? Does this not make it a federal or state boat launch? Anyway, how can the city do away with a federal or state boat launch?
Comment by concerned citizen — January 12, 2011 @ 6:59 pm
#
I called David Dahn, Boating Program Manager, Idaho State Parks & Recreation and was informed that the docks are part of a federal/state grant given to the city. The launch is city property. Removal of the docks will need some kind of agreement between the parties. I was told state and federal officials are “working” with Doug Eastwood to address the issues involved. Eastwood should be asked about this at the public meeting on January 6. I’ll contact Doug about this tomorrow.
Comment by Gary Ingram — January 12, 2011 @ 7:43 pm
Comment by mary — January 12, 2011 @ 8:33 pm
I have a hunch that all or part of the project will be funded by bonds issued by lcdc and HUD grants. Memories of Riverpark Square parking garage loom large in my mind. I would guess that most citizens do not realize that lcdc has bonding ability.
Where is the thought for traffic circulation?
Comment by Susie Snedaker — January 12, 2011 @ 9:10 pm
Imagine the user fees for any of the park features. Want to ice skate? Better bring some bling. You’ll need to bring your own gold rings to the carousel. You can also expect that any of the fountain water features will not allow any human contact. Mebbe they’ll encourage the tossing-in of Krugerrand’s for ‘good’ fortune, theirs, not yours.
Comment by Wallypog — January 13, 2011 @ 8:25 am
Where’s the pistol range?
Comment by Dan — January 13, 2011 @ 10:15 am
I want a ZOO, seriously.
Comment by Gary Ingram — January 13, 2011 @ 10:27 am
Seriously a Zoo? Zoo’s are the most horrible things on earth
Comment by Eric — January 14, 2011 @ 6:35 pm
I told you, we already have a zoo. It is in city hall. You can see the DODO, the government swine, an assortment of asses, many large mouth truthtwister, all which feed solely on greens. YOUR tax greens.
Comment by concerned citizen — January 14, 2011 @ 6:47 pm
“Everything has been voted on by the public because they voted for the elected officials,” said Mayor Sandi Bloem
Dan, Bill and Mary, I think this would make a great topic for discussion. The mayor TRULY believes that because she and the city council were “elected?” in that they can decide on ANYTHING she/they please?
There has to be something in the books saying something like “basic everyday function of the city” or “state of emergency”. But to MAKE the people pay for something this outrageous?
Comment by concerned citizen — January 15, 2011 @ 7:09 am
The Parks Master Plan budget of 2008 lists $1,875,000 for McEuen…just McEuen…for those who are wondering about costs. This apparently was based on the old plan.
Comment by beazmmr860 — January 17, 2011 @ 4:37 pm