Topic: Parks Board Meeting Tonight at 7:00 in New Location (Read 2355 times)

outspoken · « **Reply #75 on:** August 21, 2009, 02:41:57 pm »

Quote from: elektech on August 21, 2009, 02:34:57 pm

Has a decision been reached on eligibility requirements for the board members, if the district is approved? In other words, will residents of the City of Forney be allowed to serve on the board for the parks district? What would the "mix" or ratio be of in-city residents to out-of-city residents?

according to the bill . . . A director must be a citizen of the United States and must reside in the district. A director may not be an officer or employee of the county or the city. A director may not serve more than four consecutive years.

doubleE · « **Reply #76 on:** August 21, 2009, 02:46:26 pm »

Quote from: outspoken on August 21, 2009, 02:41:57 pm

Quote from: elektech on August 21, 2009, 02:34:57 pm
Has a decision been reached on eligibility requirements for the board members, if the district is approved? In other words, will residents of the City of Forney be allowed to serve on the board for the parks district? What would the "mix" or ratio be of in-city residents to out-of-city residents?
according to the bill . . . A director must be a citizen of the United States and must reside in the district. A director may not be an officer or employee of the county or the city. A director may not serve more than four consecutive years.

And to clarify, the district boundaries are those of the Forney ISD inclusive or exclusive of the boundaries of the City of Forney?

outspoken · « **Reply #77 on:** August 21, 2009, 02:50:06 pm »

Quote from: elektech on August 21, 2009, 02:46:26 pm

Quote from: outspoken on August 21, 2009, 02:41:57 pm
Quote from: elektech on August 21, 2009, 02:34:57 pm
Has a decision been reached on eligibility requirements for the board members, if the district is approved? In other words, will residents of the City of Forney be allowed to serve on the board for the parks district? What would the "mix" or ratio be of in-city residents to out-of-city residents?
according to the bill . . . A director must be a citizen of the United States and must reside in the district. A director may not be an officer or employee of the county or the city. A director may not serve more than four consecutive years.

And to clarify, the district boundaries are those of the Forney ISD inclusive or exclusive of the boundaries of the City of Forney?

The boundaries are not to include city limits.

I would like to be a little more descriptive. . . this is the wording from the bill

SECTION 2. The Kaufman County Parks Improvement District initially includes all territory contained in Forney Independent School District that is not included in the boundaries of the City of Forney as it exists on the effective date of this Act.

It sounds like it could be expanded at a later date . . . not sure though

Trust me . . . when I say . . . that the City will have a lot of influence as to who gets put on that board.

doubleE · « **Reply #78 on:** August 21, 2009, 02:57:57 pm »

My final two questions, and thank you for answering questions that are answered in the bill. However, some will not read the bill or just give up on trying to.

(1) What is the expected life-time of the district? In other words, is the idea for this district to exist in perpetuity or is there a pre-set finite life for this district?

(2) What happens if/when a community that is inside the proposed special parks district is annexed by a neighboring municipality? In other words, what happens if Windmill Farms were annexed by the City of Forney or Travis Ranch were annexed by the City of Forney, City of Heath, or City of Dallas (Heaven forbid that one)? Do those communities no longer have to pay the taxes?

Gonzo · « **Reply #79 on:** August 21, 2009, 03:01:29 pm »

The district is composed of those WITHIN the FISD limits, but OUTSIDE of City of Forney limits.

There is no "expected" lifetime of the district. The district can be abolished, but there is not set duration.

2 is an interesting question, elektech. I have some opinions, but I am not enough of a certified legal mind to anwer 'em. I will try and find you answers though.

doubleE · « **Reply #80 on:** August 21, 2009, 03:03:32 pm »

Quote from: Gonzo on August 21, 2009, 03:01:29 pm

The district is composed of those WITHIN the FISD limits, but OUTSIDE of City of Forney limits.

There is no "expected" lifetime of the district. The district can be abolished, but there is not set duration.

2 is an interesting question, elektech. I have some opinions, but I am not enough of a certified legal mind to anwer 'em. I will try and find you answers though.

Thank you Gonzo.

I will now "Zip it!",

believe it or not.

outspoken · « **Reply #81 on:** August 21, 2009, 03:17:37 pm »

Quote from: Gonzo on August 21, 2009, 03:01:29 pm

The district is composed of those WITHIN the FISD limits, but OUTSIDE of City of Forney limits.

There is no "expected" lifetime of the district. The district can be abolished, but there is not set duration.
2 is an interesting question, elektech. I have some opinions, but I am not enough of a certified legal mind to anwer 'em. I will try and find you answers though.

And that is not easy to do.

Sec. 3873.251. DISSOLUTION. (a) the commissioners court by order may dissolve the district. The order may be adopted:
(1) on the commissioners court's own motion; or
(2) after the filing of a written petition signed by a number of the registered voters who reside in the district equal to at least 10 percent of the votes received in the district in the most recent gubernatorial general election.
(b) The commissioners court shall give notice of a hearing on the petition and hold a hearing in the manner prescribed by Sections 3873.052 and 3873.053 for a petition for confirming the creation of the district.
(c) The commissioners court shall grant the petition and order the dissolution of the district if the court finds that the petition meets the requirements of this section and that the dissolution is in the best interest of the county.
(d) on dissolution of the district, the property and other assets, the debts and other liabilities, and the obligations of the district that are not related to city property become those of the county. The property and other assets, the debts and other liabilities, and the obligations of the district that are related to city property become those of the city.

A snowball has a better chance in hell . . . than this district ever being dissolved.

Nate Dogg · « **Reply #82 on:** August 21, 2009, 03:19:00 pm »

And what if the city didn't put forth the money for a lobbyist and do all of this? Would you put $75,000 out for it? Yes, the intent of the city is to have some of that money trickling into the city parks department because it would help finish the park sooner, and provide money for more maintenance and such for their department. That I don't think is any big secret, but it does open up a whole new area for the parks department to serve our community, not just the city citizens.

I know you got screwed by the developer, ONE single person who was out for his own greed. The city is NOT like that, they are a group(s) of people looking out for the the best of the community and attempting to put something into play that will be great for everyone involved. Unfortunately many of you are lumping the city in as "out to get you" like the developer who completely screwed you. The developer gets to leave and never be seen again, the city, parks board, and the proposed parks district board doesn't have that option. If you are concerned about having your say in the matter, get on the committee for the district and put your name in the hat and be involved in the districts formation and on the board.

outspoken · « **Reply #83 on:** August 21, 2009, 03:32:15 pm »

Quote from: Nate Dogg on August 21, 2009, 03:19:00 pm

And what if the city didn't put forth the money for a lobbyist and do all of this? Would you put $75,000 out for it? Yes, the intent of the city is to have some of that money trickling into the city parks department because it would help finish the park sooner, and provide money for more maintenance and such for their department. That I don't think is any big secret, but it does open up a whole new area for the parks department to serve our community, not just the city citizens.

I know you got screwed by the developer, ONE single person who was out for his own greed. The city is NOT like that, they are a group(s) of people looking out for the the best of the community and attempting to put something into play that will be great for everyone involved. Unfortunately many of you are lumping the city in as "out to get you" like the developer who completely screwed you. The developer gets to leave and never be seen again, the city, parks board, and the proposed parks district board doesn't have that option. If you are concerned about having your say in the matter, get on the committee for the district and put your name in the hat and be involved in the districts formation and on the board.

I would be cleaning my house and doing other fun stuff . . . instead of reading a HB back and forth . . . and countering all of the City spin that is going around.

They are looking out for the best interest of the City of Forney. . . . you are so naive. . . . we are not their community. . . . they sent that lobbyist to look out for the City of Forney . . . . not Kaufman County.

ROFL . . . put our name in the hat. . . . what a joke . . . they will select three pro Forney parks and two pro parks outside the city limits. . . . that is how they do it. . . People in WMF have been schooled on this special district board/HOA board appointment crap.

Gonzo speaks of how jaded I am . . . . but the reality is that I am living in a special district (not one but two!). . . . I know the crap that goes on with them.

Sequential Posts Automatically Merged: August 21, 2009, 02:44:39 pm

Quote from: doubleE on August 21, 2009, 02:57:57 pm

(2) What happens if/when a community that is inside the proposed special parks district is annexed by a neighboring municipality? In other words, what happens if Windmill Farms were annexed by the City of Forney or Travis Ranch were annexed by the City of Forney, City of Heath, or City of Dallas (Heaven forbid that one)? Do those communities no longer have to pay the taxes?

I'm no legal expert . . . but common sense would say . . .if the district is not dissolved then you still pay the tax. And I'm thinking that in order for that district to be dissolved in regards to annexation debts/assets are going to have to be divided. . . . and that would be interesting . . . . and I doubt that any city is going to want to take on extra debt. . . they don't currently want to take on the debt of our existing water districts/MUDs

Sequential Posts Automatically Merged: August 21, 2009, 03:58:24 pm

Quote from: Nate Dogg on August 21, 2009, 03:19:00 pm

And what if the city didn't put forth the money for a lobbyist and do all of this? Would you put $75,000 out for it? Yes, the intent of the city is to have some of that money trickling into the city parks department because it would help finish the park sooner, and provide money for more maintenance and such for their department. That I don't think is any big secret, but it does open up a whole new area for the parks department to serve our community, not just the city citizens.

I know you got screwed by the developer, ONE single person who was out for his own greed. The city is NOT like that, they are a group(s) of people looking out for the the best of the community and attempting to put something into play that will be great for everyone involved. Unfortunately many of you are lumping the city in as "out to get you" like the developer who completely screwed you. The developer gets to leave and never be seen again, the city, parks board, and the proposed parks district board doesn't have that option. If you are concerned about having your say in the matter, get on the committee for the district and put your name in the hat and be involved in the districts formation and on the board.

One more thing. . . . non-residents have no recourse against those committees, people, etc. . . . i.e. we don't get to vote them out if we dislike their decisions. . . . so no I don't think they care about those that are outside the city limits. . . because if they did . . . . they would have approached this whole thing differently. . . . like they do you city folks . . . . they have nice little focus-group meetings (will with the exception of the Historic Overlay Zone . . man they almost screwed the citizens on that one). . . like the one for downtown revitalization . . . . what did they do for us . . . sent a lobbyist to Austin . . . oh yeah . . they are looking out for my best interest

luvcassie · « **Reply #84 on:** August 21, 2009, 04:19:46 pm »

Quote

They are looking out for the best interest of the City of Forney. . . . you are so naive. . . . we are not their community. . . . they sent that lobbyist to look out for the City of Forney . . . . not Kaufman County.

ROFL . . . put our name in the hat. . . . what a joke . . . they will select three pro Forney parks and two pro parks outside the city limits. . . . that is how they do it. . . People in WMF have been schooled on this special district board/HOA board appointment crap.

1st Statement-I don't think believing in your city leaders is being naive. Yes I am sure there are some city members that are not looking out for the community, but there are several the I know that truly want Forney "inside and out of city limits" to be a great place to live. Nate and Gonzo are two people I personally know that are truly wanting Forney to be a great community. I prefer not to have the attitude of "they are out to get me" I prefer to have an attitude of "if I don't like it, then take action to change it".

2nd Statement-Of course the Parks District is going to pick people that are "Pro District" would anyone against honestly even try to get on the board? Would you support something you were against?

I see everyone's point in these arguments. This is just going to be a situation of " I agree to disagree".

outspoken · « **Reply #85 on:** August 21, 2009, 04:45:43 pm »

Quote from: luvcassie on August 21, 2009, 04:19:46 pm

Quote
They are looking out for the best interest of the City of Forney. . . . you are so naive. . . . we are not their community. . . . they sent that lobbyist to look out for the City of Forney . . . . not Kaufman County.

ROFL . . . put our name in the hat. . . . what a joke . . . they will select three pro Forney parks and two pro parks outside the city limits. . . . that is how they do it. . . People in WMF have been schooled on this special district board/HOA board appointment crap.

1st Statement-I don't think believing in your city leaders is being naive. Yes I am sure there are some city members that are not looking out for the community, but there are several the I know that truly want Forney "inside and out of city limits" to be a great place to live. Nate and Gonzo are two people I personally know that are truly wanting Forney to be a great community. I prefer not to have the attitude of "they are out to get me" I prefer to have an attitude of "if I don't like it, then take action to change it".

2nd Statement-Of course the Parks District is going to pick people that are "Pro District" would anyone against honestly even try to get on the board? Would you support something you were against?

I see everyone's point in these arguments. This is just going to be a situation of " I agree to disagree".

I dont' feel that I have an attitude of "they are out to get me" . . . I'm being realistic here . . . I am living through special districts . . . they are a mess. . . also I think it is prudent to look at things realistically . . . these are not people that I had a chance to vote for. . . they were voted to a committee/office that is within the City of Forney . . . . not the outlaying communities

The City of Forney did nothing but force an issue . . . plain and simple.

Some of the stuff that is being said by those that are pro for this matter is not very open. . . the first thing . . . how realistic is it that there will be development outside the city limits . . . that is not right to go telling people that could happen . . . people iknow good well that it will be very slim of that happening (but it would make it so much more bearable if it was true

). . . . . 2nd . . Gonzo says this thing can be dissolved, but he did not tell people that it would be near impossible to dissolve it.

There is a lot being said . . . This is not about Forney. . . this is about community. . . . and that is just not true . . . . it is all about the park in Forney . . . and it always has been.

It is easy to say "I agree to disagree" . . . you are not being asked to fund the district.

How would you, Nate, and Gonzo feel about being included in the district. . . .it is going to be a low rate?

Plus I didn't say anything about "Pro District" . . . I said pro Forney parks and pro parks outside the city limit. . . . should this board ever come into existence. . . . it will be very pro Forney parks. . . . . so the City Parks Board needs to quit "marketing" that there will be development outside the city limits.

And ya'll thought Lil Devils and Heather could go on and on and on on political matters

Heather · « **Reply #86 on:** August 21, 2009, 09:04:06 pm »

What simply irks me the most is it apparently was always known from the get go that they were going to build this park with the full intentions of going after people who live outside the city limits. If that is the case, we should have been given the chance to vote whether or not we even wanted said park. But instead they snuck it in under the "inside the city voters" and then figured.. meh.. once its here... we can just try to force them to pay. And tell them how they dont care about the community and how they are letting the children down if they dont agree to this tax. A tax that no one will tell us what it will be until AFTER we vote for it to happen. It could be low or it could be high.

Do I think the City has our best interests at heart. Absolutely not. If they did they would have come clean about this from the begining and what their intentions were. They did not. IMO they acted with deception.

luvcassie · « **Reply #87 on:** August 23, 2009, 02:26:34 am »

Quote

lus I didn't say anything about "Pro District" . . . I said pro Forney parks and pro parks outside the city limit. . . . should this board ever come into existence. . . . it will be very pro Forney parks. . . . . so the City Parks Board needs to quit "marketing" that there will be development outside the city limits.

Do you know 100% that there will not be a development outside of the city limits? At some point, you have to believe in the people that represent you. That is why you can vote on issues. You have to trust at some point. I understand being realistic but if people were alway realistic and not willing to step out of that, things would never happen and never improve.

However, as far as the tax, I see your point on that and I understand your feelings on that. I just wish people of Forney could have more faith in our city leaders.

outspoken · « **Reply #88 on:** August 23, 2009, 05:17:09 pm »

Quote from: luvcassie on August 23, 2009, 02:26:34 am

Quote
lus I didn't say anything about "Pro District" . . . I said pro Forney parks and pro parks outside the city limit. . . . should this board ever come into existence. . . . it will be very pro Forney parks. . . . . so the City Parks Board needs to quit "marketing" that there will be development outside the city limits.

Do you know 100% that there will not be a development outside of the city limits?

Why would the City of Forney hire a lobbyist to go to Austin to get HB 4789 passed to develop outside the city? And to quote your husband from the thread - Council OKs contract for more land at Community Park "and the money needed to do phase 2 of the park (and any future parts such as the new 43 acres) will have to come from the parks district. I'm all for it, and I can't wait until the details are released to everyone." Why would the City of Forney want to start anything outside the city limits before finishing their plan?

Also common sense tells you there will not be enough money to do both . . . . one or the other will be done first. . . and I just don't see Forney spending the money on a lobbyist to first develop parks outside the city limits. In order for development to happen outside the city limits . . . more land is going to have to be bought . . . and bought from whom. . . . the argument will be . . . let's go ahead and develop land that is already set aside for parks in the City of Forney . . . instead of buying more land. . . . let's develop what there is first. Another argument for not developing outside the city limits . . . where is a central location . . . the people in TR would not be happy if it was developed within WMF . . . and the same the other way around. . . what about the people in this "district" south/north of WMF and TR. . . same thing . . . so then the argument grows even stronger. . . Forney can be the central location . . . we can have all the improvement in one nice, neat little spot. I'm sure there could even be more arguments.

Here is the deal . . . the City of Forney sent a lobbyist and the lobbyist told the lawmakers:

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The City of Forney built, owns, operates, and maintains six public parks, including two which have recently been improved significantly. In 2006, voters in Forney approved a $14 million bond package to build a 127-acre community park which opened in March. In the last two fiscal years alone, the City of Forney has committed over $16 million to recreational facility development.

Just outside the city limits of Forney, a large population lives in four large special utility districts. This population makes up the vast majority of the people who use the City of Forney parks. Current estimates show that over 70 percent of the park users live outside the city limits of Forney. This causes an inequitable burden for Forney taxpayers. The overwhelming majority of city park users are non-city resident, while Forney taxpayers' shoulder 100 percent of the cost of parks operations, maintenance, and capital.

H.B. 4789 sets forth language for the creation of the Kaufman County Parks Improvement District and for the imposition of a property tax.

Just exactly how did they come up with

"vast majority"

"70% of park users live outside the city limits of Forney"

"overwhelming majority of city park users are non-city resident"

just exactly how do they know who is using the park and where they live. No one called this house doing a survey on park usage. . . did they have someone at the park entrance asking for addresses?

I don't use the park. . . and I'm sure that there are people that live outside the city limits that do use the park . . . fine let them pay for it . . . lol . . . let that "vast majority" pay "usage fees" . . . oh wait . . . . according to Nate that would be an unfair burden for those families with kids . . . because that number is not as great. . . . but wait. . . Gonzo says the 70% is from: http://twentypeacefulminutes.com/forums/forney-discussion-news/parks-board-meeting-tonight-at-700-in-new-location/30/?action=post;quote=68317;num_replies=87;a1bdcafc=740793be4e1133e093fbd31b877ed1b1
Quote from: Josh on August 20, 2009, 04:15:19 pm
Quote from: Gonzo on August 20, 2009, 11:12:10 am
70% of participants in Forney Youth Leagues live outside the City Limits of Forney

I'm trying to stay out of this at this point, but I do want to clarify something. A LOT of numbers, figures and stats are being thrown out there. Thank you, Gonzo, for specifying how this 70% figure was arrived at - you're only the 2nd person I've noticed state it that way, instead of just saying something like "a majority of the people using the park live outside city limits".
There's a big difference between a majority of the people using the park living outside city limits and saying that 70% of the Forney youth league participants live outside city limits. The majority/70% figure is based on participants in Forney youth leagues - it doesn't count people who use the park outside of organized youth leagues.

So it doesn't count people using the trails. It doesn't count people using the pavilions (which are available for reservations and are only free for residents of the city of Forney, if you live outside of city limits, you have to pay to reserve them). It doesn't count people taking their kids to play on the playgrounds, or to use the splash park or basketball courts.

In other words, it doesn't count a lot of the uses that people who live right around the park probably use the park for. I'm not saying this is intentional - this figure was obviously the easiest figure to obtain, and actually surveying/counting/sampling the overall number would be much harder.

I do realize that it would be difficult to obtain an accurate count of all those users, but considering the money that was spent on a lobbyist, I'm disappointed that only one number's being released, and it's the number that, by its very nature, makes the strongest case for the supporters of this measure.

Also, please remember that saying 70% of participaints in Forney Youth Leagues live outside of city limits does not mean that those 70% live within the parks district. It would be difficult for the city to obtain an accurate percentage of the kids who are outside of city limits but within the parks district that are participating in youth leagues that use the park because of situations like the addresses in Travis Ranch that are outside of city limits AND outside of the FISD boundaries. You can't just use addresses - you'd have to check the property tax rolls on each and every address on the youth league registrations to see if that address was inside or outside of both city limits and FISD's boundaries.

I'd imagine a big chunk of participants in youth leagues in Forney come from Heartland - so they'd be included in the 70% from outside of city limits. However, Heartland is located within Crandall ISD, so they won't be part of the parks district. That difference right there could drop the number of people in youth sports using the park down to 50%, but, again, we'll probably never know.

Oh, and one last thing I thought of - I'm guessing that this percentage does not account for families that have more than 1 child in youth sports using the park. I could be wrong, but as you can tell, there's so many variables to this calculation that I'm pretty sure the "70%" we keep hearing could be recalculated to agree with either side of the argument for/against the park district.

I'm just curious to see what the mailers say when they start coming out - when I talk to a lawyer friend of mine next week, I need to remember to ask what the laws/legal liability is for misstating statistics in campaign literature. I doubt there's many, given some of the crazier things we've all seen in national elections, but I'm curious to see what role fact checking could play in this campaign and if it would even make a difference.

So yes. . . I feel confident in saying I know 100% that nothing will be developed outside the city limits. The whole argument of "being able to develop outside the city limits" is nothing more than an illusion/smoke screen. First we needed to vote yes. . . because usage fees would be so high . . . now we need to vote yes . . . because they will be able to develop outside the city limit. . . . will be able . . . . and actually developing outside the city limits . . . . are two different things. This has never been about developing outside city limits.

At some point, you have to believe in the people that represent you.

Just exactly who represents me . . . . who on the City Council of Forney represents me. . . no one. . . . I did not elect them . . . they don't represent me. Let me tell you who does represent me. . . . Josh . . . yes Josh . . . . he is on the water district board that I live in (I got to vote for him) And as far as I know . . . they did not consult with Josh about this matter. . . . Josh, if you were consulted . . . please let us know.

That is why you can vote on issues. You have to trust at some point. I understand being realistic but if people were alway realistic and not willing to step out of that, things would never happen and never improve.

That is not a true and accurate statement. Just because you want something . . . do you just step out . . . or do you look at the budget first and then decide if you can afford it. Did the City of Forney look at my total tax rate. . . did they look at the total tax rate of anybody that is in this district? Did they look to see what the economic landscape is like? Did they look to see if I could afford to have such a high tax rate. . . no . . . they looked at the city's budget, the city's goals . . and said . . . we need more money . . . and here is how we are going to get it. That is what is wrong with America . . . . people don't think prudently, realistically . . . and sure cannot tell themselves no on "wants". . . . go gosh. . . I could really camp here on that one. . . but I won't.
However, as far as the tax, I see your point on that and I understand your feelings on that. I just wish people of Forney could have more faith in our city leaders.

I'm not a person of Forney. . . and as unpopular as it may be . . . when people ask me where I live . . . I tell them, I live in Windmill Farms. . if they ask where Windmill Farms is . . . I say between Forney and Terrell. So why should I have faith in "your" city leaders.

BigCfromtheRanch · « **Reply #89 on:** August 24, 2009, 09:34:59 am »

Right on, OS.

Twenty Peaceful Minutes

Author Topic: Parks Board Meeting Tonight at 7:00 in New Location (Read 2355 times)

outspoken

Re: Parks Board Meeting Tonight at 7:00 in New Location

doubleE

Re: Parks Board Meeting Tonight at 7:00 in New Location

outspoken

Re: Parks Board Meeting Tonight at 7:00 in New Location

doubleE

Re: Parks Board Meeting Tonight at 7:00 in New Location

Gonzo

Re: Parks Board Meeting Tonight at 7:00 in New Location

doubleE

Re: Parks Board Meeting Tonight at 7:00 in New Location

outspoken

Re: Parks Board Meeting Tonight at 7:00 in New Location

Nate Dogg

Re: Parks Board Meeting Tonight at 7:00 in New Location

outspoken

Re: Parks Board Meeting Tonight at 7:00 in New Location

luvcassie

Re: Parks Board Meeting Tonight at 7:00 in New Location

outspoken

Re: Parks Board Meeting Tonight at 7:00 in New Location

Heather

Re: Parks Board Meeting Tonight at 7:00 in New Location

luvcassie

Re: Parks Board Meeting Tonight at 7:00 in New Location

outspoken

Re: Parks Board Meeting Tonight at 7:00 in New Location

BigCfromtheRanch

Re: Parks Board Meeting Tonight at 7:00 in New Location