Topic: Council OKs contract for more land at Community Park (Read 3312 times)

Nate Dogg · « **Reply #75 on:** August 04, 2009, 08:18:55 am »

Actually that number is a guestimate Katie, but not by me, it was thrown out by someone else at the last parks meeting. I personally think $150-200 is ridiculously high, but its probably not far off of what they may have to charge. Keep in mind Mesquite has a much greater base of youth and adults playing sports, therefore they can spread the fees out keeping them down further than perhaps Forney may be able to.

Gonzo · « **Reply #76 on:** August 04, 2009, 10:46:11 am »

I want to be clear with everyone that the guesstimate Nate is throwing out is incredibly premature. It hasn't been discussed in depth, the numbers are not all together, nobody has proposed anything.

If anything, I specifically said at the last Parks and Rec Board meeting that NO numbers should be thrown out to the public, even as estimates, because we don't have near enough info to be in the ballpark. I knew this kind of hand-wrangling would happen if numbers were thrown out there and sure enough it is.

The 35 cents is the only for sure number because the law says it. Everyone agrees the election will call for a number SIGNIFICANTLY below that number. What that number is? NOBODY should be throwing it out there.

And OS, on the scare tactic you are combining 2 people's statements to come up with that. That isn't fair to either of us.

Nate Dogg · « **Reply #77 on:** August 04, 2009, 10:56:37 am »

Oh I know its too early to tell, but I didn't want her thinking I just pulled that number out of thin air.

Sequential Posts Automatically Merged: August 04, 2009, 11:07:32 am

Look, simply put whatever the numbers come out to be, it will be up to the voters to decide whether they want to pay via property tax shared among all the FISD area outside of city limits, or whether those same folks with kids in youth sports should shoulder that weight via usage fees. Obviously the numbers are needed to help make that decision, so we'll just wait.

Josh · « **Reply #78 on:** August 04, 2009, 11:29:35 am »

Quote from: Gonzo on August 04, 2009, 10:46:11 am

The 35 cents is the only for sure number because the law says it. Everyone agrees the election will call for a number SIGNIFICANTLY below that number. What that number is? NOBODY should be throwing it out there.

I'm curious to see how the measure is worded on the ballot. Special purpose districts are usually authorized by the voters for an unlimited amount of bonds or for bonds not to exceed X million dollars. Voting on a specific tax rate would be...different. If that's the way the measure is going to be worded, I need to start reading up on how that does/does not limit the board from setting the tax rate to another amount in the future. I'll be surprised if that's the way it's worded, though, because that's a very different approach. Of course, Forney has been on the cutting edge of things like the pass-thru tolls with TxDOT, etc., so they may be on to something new here...

Gonzo · « **Reply #79 on:** August 04, 2009, 11:47:17 am »

I have a PM along the same lines, Jen.

I don't know the answer right now to what exactly will be on the ballot, whether it is a tax rate, the formation of a board with xxx authority, the makeup of that board, etc. Some of those questions could be answered by the Assistant City Manager in Forney, because she was very involved with this project or by Richard Curry, the Parks Director. The specific wording is obviously very important and will go A LONG way towards determining pass/fail.

18 is # 1 · « **Reply #80 on:** August 04, 2009, 12:20:23 pm »

The park adds value to all homes in the area. Many potential buyers will need a place for their families to recreate and a great park will heavily weigh in our favor.

yesitsme · « **Reply #81 on:** August 04, 2009, 02:59:25 pm »

" a place to ... recreate" ?? -- hahaha.. (I know what you meant.)

outspoken · « **Reply #82 on:** August 04, 2009, 04:14:28 pm »

Quote from: JustGina on August 04, 2009, 08:01:13 am

OS, you mentioned in a post on this thread that youth sports are getting too expensive. I just wanted to point out that Girls Softball signup fees are $20 and $30 for fall ball (based on your age group). We're definitely not trying to sit on a pile of money.

JG . . . the fees that I'm remembering were not for the Mesa Softball signups . . . more along the lines of football, cheer. . . and I'm pretty sure that I saw on a thread here that some of that stuff gets to be over $100. I would try to find that thread again. . . but there are way too many threads to sort through now because it was over a year ago.

katiev · « **Reply #83 on:** August 04, 2009, 04:57:43 pm »

It is more expensive for football and cheer. That's for sure! Our select team charges $150 for football players, however we provide them with a helmet, shoulder pads, practice jersey, mouth pieces, chin straps, game pants and pads, and 2 game jerseys. The helmet and shoulder pads alone are $115.00! We actually come out short for each player, but try to make it up with fundraisers and sponsors.

We keep our fees low so we don't price kids out of playing and hope we can make it up.

outspoken · « **Reply #84 on:** August 04, 2009, 05:15:52 pm »

Quote from: Gonzo on August 04, 2009, 10:46:11 am

And OS, on the scare tactic you are combining 2 people's statements to come up with that. That isn't fair to either of us.

I'm not being unfair. Both of ya'll talked about usage fees . . . . I didn't take part of what you said and part of what Nate said and paint a totally different picture. I did not take a quote from you and quote from Nate and splice it together to come up with something.

You were the one wanting to save this thread so that when people start to gripe about the usage fees (if this parks district did not pass) you could show this thread to them. . . . . and then Nate starts throwing out guessestimates for usage fees. . . . so how do you expect that should be interpreted

I think that it it is extremely unfair for Forney to be doing what they are doing. . . .this is something that should have had a county/community meeting about and all the different ways this could have been approached. . . i.e. taxes/usage fees, etc. Instead they hired a lobbyist to go to bat for the City of Forney in Austin.

Josh has gone over in detail about the dangers of SPDs . . . and once you get them they are hard to undo. And guess what it is not the citizens of Forney who have to live with the disaster. . . . it's the non-citizens. . . .and for what . . . . a park that the citizens of Forney voted for!

The park has been open for 6 months (give or take a month). . . . and now the City of Forney realizes they cannot afford it

. Did anybody do a budget. . . . if your numbers said you could afford the community park back when you proposed the bond package . .. what has changed since then? The large communities outside the city limits were here before the park. . . .surely people knew that "those people" would use them.

The phrase "build it and they will come" . . . in this case should be changed to "build it and we will figure out how to pay for it later. . . oh yeah . . . let's lobby for a parks district". It would not even surprise me if I learned that while Forney was proposing their bond package . . . they had this idea of a Parks District in their mind. But I guess it is much easier to get a SPD when something is already on the ground. And you can get all offended about that statement if you want to. . . . . I'm still trying to get over Nate's comment that if I don't like the taxes I can move. . . . . and might I add taxes being requested to pay for something I did not get a chance to vote for!

It is quite apparent to me that Forney wants to "run with the big dogs" . . . . but does not have the tax base. . . . but yeah government has created SPDs . . . . so what does it matter.

Let's have non-citizens pay for our decisions.

Sequential Posts Automatically Merged: August 04, 2009, 05:24:59 pm

Quote from: katiev on August 04, 2009, 04:57:43 pm

It is more expensive for football and cheer. That's for sure! Our select team charges $150 for football players, however we provide them with a helmet, shoulder pads, practice jersey, mouth pieces, chin straps, game pants and pads, and 2 game jerseys. The helmet and shoulder pads alone are $115.00! We actually come out short for each player, but try to make it up with fundraisers and sponsors.

We keep our fees low so we don't price kids out of playing and hope we can make it up.

JG and Katiev. . . when I stated my opinion that sports for kids has gotten WAY TOO EXPENSIVE . . . I did not mean to imply that any organization is padding their pocket or trying to make money off of kids.

I still stand by my opinion though . . . . but then again a lot of things have gotten expensive.

18 is # 1 · « **Reply #85 on:** August 04, 2009, 05:27:45 pm »

Quote from: yesitsme on August 04, 2009, 02:59:25 pm

" a place to ... recreate" ?? -- hahaha.. (I know what you meant.)

rec⋅re⋅ate
/ˈrɛkriˌeɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [rek-ree-eyt] Show IPA verb, -at⋅ed, -at⋅ing.

outspoken · « **Reply #86 on:** August 04, 2009, 05:35:39 pm »

Quote from: 18 is # 1 on August 04, 2009, 12:20:23 pm

The park adds value to all homes in the area. Many potential buyers will need a place for their families to recreate and a great park will heavily weigh in our favor.

I disagree. . . . what part of "town" you live in adds value to your home. ,

Sequential Posts Automatically Merged: August 04, 2009, 05:39:34 pm

I have just got to say . . . I'm totally surprised Lil Devil's has not made a single post in this thread.

travis_rancher · « **Reply #87 on:** August 04, 2009, 06:04:48 pm »

Howdy folks! Longtime lurker. Thank you to Josh for this information outlet for our community.

I am not against another bond in order to drum up more funds for the beautiful park. I would more than likely vote YES for one if worded correctly.

With that, I am strongly opposed to this bill. I have read and studied the entire bill multiple times. I am disappointed that my State Representative voted yes for this and will be notifying them as well. Based upon what I have read in the House Bill, I am voting a huge and resounding NO. Unless they amend the current bill prior to placing it on a ballot my mind is made up. And, I will let every neighbor that I know to make sure they vote in the same manner.

This bill was created by folks in city hall that can not be held accountable by the people that it impacts. Folks in the Parks District can't vote the people out of office that dreamed this up. I believe that is the first major flaw. There are multiple ways that I believe it should be amended. First, is to include everyone in FISD boundaries. This is actually what they should've done in the first place when they first thought about the park, but, you know what they say about hind sight.

TR

yesitsme · « **Reply #88 on:** August 05, 2009, 12:47:09 am »

Quote from: 18 is # 1 on August 04, 2009, 05:27:45 pm

Quote from: yesitsme on August 04, 2009, 02:59:25 pm
" a place to ... recreate" ?? -- hahaha.. (I know what you meant.)
rec⋅re⋅ate
/ˈrɛkriˌeɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [rek-ree-eyt] Show IPA verb, -at⋅ed, -at⋅ing.

Yes, 18; I know what you meant and you used this word correctly - as a verb; "to take recreation",
BUT - In MY mind I was thinking it was funny as "a place for families to 're-create' (as in to make new) ..... it just popped into my head that way, and I thought it was funny.
It wasn't funny-(especially NOW) ------- never mind! Please ignore.

Osota · « **Reply #89 on:** August 05, 2009, 06:14:08 am »

YIM, fess up, you were thinkin pro and not re.

Twenty Peaceful Minutes

Author Topic: Council OKs contract for more land at Community Park (Read 3312 times)

Nate Dogg

Re: Council OKs contract for more land at Community Park

Gonzo

Re: Council OKs contract for more land at Community Park

Nate Dogg

Re: Council OKs contract for more land at Community Park

Josh

Re: Council OKs contract for more land at Community Park

Gonzo

Re: Council OKs contract for more land at Community Park

18 is # 1

Re: Council OKs contract for more land at Community Park

yesitsme

Re: Council OKs contract for more land at Community Park

outspoken

Re: Council OKs contract for more land at Community Park

katiev

Re: Council OKs contract for more land at Community Park

outspoken

Re: Council OKs contract for more land at Community Park

18 is # 1

Re: Council OKs contract for more land at Community Park

outspoken

Re: Council OKs contract for more land at Community Park

travis_rancher

Re: Council OKs contract for more land at Community Park

yesitsme

Re: Council OKs contract for more land at Community Park

Osota

Re: Council OKs contract for more land at Community Park