Council Agenda 7-03-2012
Printed From: MiddletownUSA.com
Category: Middletown City Government
Forum Name: City Manager
Forum Description: Discuss the city manager administration including all city departments.
URL: http://www.middletownusa.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4643
Printed Date: Apr 29 2024 at 8:31am
Topic: Council Agenda 7-03-2012
Posted By: Vivian Moon
Subject: Council Agenda 7-03-2012
Date Posted: Jul 02 2012 at 4:37pm
|
, I. BUSINESS MEETING – 1. MOMENT OF MEDITATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC HEARING – Street Lighting Improvements on 4. CITIZEN COMMENTS 5. CITY MANAGER REPORTS 6. CONSENT AGENDA. . . Matters listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion and one vote of consent. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is desired, that item will be removed and considered separately. (a) Approve City Council Minutes: (b) Receive and File Board and Commission Minutes: Board of Zoning Appeals- MidPointe Library System Board of Trustees-April 17, 2012 & Planning Commission- Historic Commission- Park Board-June 4, 2012 Middletown Public Housing Agency – (c) Receive and file Oaths of Offices: Edmund Wayne Birch, Matthew Eisenbraun, Shirley Jones (d) Approve Board and Commission Appointment: Ronnie Choudhary-MidPointe Library System Board of Trustees (e) Confirm Personnel Transaction: Appointment: Dispatcher – Casie Hall (f) Proclamation: July 13-15 – MidUSA 7. MOTION AGENDA (a) Authorize a contract with AST Environmental, Inc. for soil remediation at (b) Authorize a contract with Central Insulation Systems, Inc. for asbestos abatement at (c) 1. Resolution No. R2012-16, a resolution declaring it necessary to levy a tax in excess of the ten mill limitation for the purpose to supplement the General Fund for the purpose of making appropriations for providing or maintaining senior citizens services and/or facilities as set forth in the Ohio Revised Code Section 5705.19(Y) and determining to proceed to submit the question of levying such tax to the electors of the City of Middletown, Ohio, at the election on November 6, 2012, in accordance with Section 5705.19(Y) of the Ohio Revised Code. (Second 2. Ordinance No. O2012-23, an ordinance establishing a procedure for and authorizing an agreement between the City and Commerce Corner, LLC and COM-HLL Corp. of certain real property and declaring an emergency. 3. Resolution No. R2012-17, a resolution authorizing the City Manager to participate in the Moving Ohio Forward Grant Program. (Second 4. Ordinance No. O2012-24, an ordinance authorizing a Memorandum of Understanding with the Butler County Land Reutilization Corporation for the cooperative acquisition and banking of non productive real property in Middletown. (Second 5. Ordinance No. O2012-25, an ordinance establishing a procedure for and authorizing a contract with 6. Resolution No. R2012-18, a resolution to make adjustments to appropriations for current expenses and other expenditures of the City of Middletown, Counties of Butler and Warren, State of Ohio, for the period ending December 31, 2012 and declaring an emergency. (East End & Downtown Fund) 7. Resolution No. R2012-19, a resolution declaring the intent of the Middletown City Council to support uniform provisions in City tax ordinances. (First |
Replies:
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Jul 02 2012 at 6:07pm
|
According to a report in this week’s City
Council workbook, the City does not have the money to maintain their property
on S. Main Street, the former Rose Furniture building, but we have $1.1 MILLION
unallocated in the General Fund RIGHT NOW!!! ------------- “Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012 |
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Jul 02 2012 at 6:15pm
According to the minutes of the HISTORIC COMMISSION meeting included in the workbook, the Commission has decided NOT to cite the City into their Kangaroo Court even though the leaking roof in this historic structure is causing severe damage to the structure. (They say that the City “not have the resources to restore the building” right now.) I wonder how quickly we would get railroaded if, say, I or Spiderjohn or VietVet owned the building??? I wonder if they would accept "not having
the resources" as a valid excuse???
------------- “Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012 |
Mike_Presta wrote:Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Jul 02 2012 at 7:37pm
|
Is the millage listed in the ordinance pertaining to the Senior Center levy the same as requested, or is the city adding to that request? Will all proceeds from this issue go to the Senior Center, or is the city piggy-backing a share on top of the request? Just asking........
|
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Jul 02 2012 at 7:48pm
|
Mike P...
"I wonder how quickly we would get railroaded if, say, I or Spiderjohn or VietVet owned the building???" "I wonder if they would accept "not having the resources" as a valid excuse???" You, the Spider and the Vet are too intelligent to purchase a building that has no potential future sale, is in a poor location, needs more rehab costs than can be recouped through resale, has no apparent use and probably would be better knocked down. Apparently the city wanted to play the fool and purchase it for ......what? A valid excuse for no resources? I'm sure we would be ok Mike. After all, the city thinks of us as friends, particularly with our history of comments on this forum. 
|
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Jul 03 2012 at 7:30am
As with the Public Safety tax, money like this seems to get "tucked away into one of our other accounts" and is never seen again until some pet project for the "right" people needs a big wad of dough, when it gets "re-un-allocated". ------------- “Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012 |
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Jul 03 2012 at 7:32am
Also, the City seems to think that we taxpayers have UNLIMITED resources!!!  ------------- “Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012 |
Posted By: ground swat
Date Posted: Jul 03 2012 at 8:17pm
| Let's do it but we really don't know how much it cost! Middletowns new motto. Of course it's not new, this leadership is a JOKE! |
Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Jul 04 2012 at 10:37am
|
Lighting on South Main Street. Is this project a want or a need? Last night we were told several times that South Main Street needed the new light fixtures for safety reasons to illuminate the side walk area in front of their homes. They now have cobra style street lights like many other older areas of town. The problem isn’t with the cobra light fixture the problem is the large mature trees in front of these properties that block the spead of light from the cobra fixtures onto the sidewalk. If in fact it is a safty issue then the residents need to cut down the large trees that are blocking the light from the sidewalk. Ms Mulligan also stated that some areas of the South Main Street Historic District had vacant property with overgrown hedges and grass that blocked their veiw while walking in the evenng. If this is an area of concern she needs to call Mr. Adkins office and have the City clean up the vacant property. I believe all homes that are located in a historic district receive a special tax credits every year so that would help off set some of the cost. I don’t remember what the original agreement was with the city but in all fairness the 70-80 homes in the historic district should be responsible for the entire cost of this new lighting project. Because some of these homes are very large and some are very small the cost should have been calculated by frontage, number of light fixtures and footage of conduit per property. The new fixture will cost 4 times more per year to operate therefore in all fairness the tax payers should not be responsible for any of this nstallation cost. Duke Energy.....$130,000 Conduit.................$137,204 TOTAL $267,204 It is my opinion that this entire project needs to go back to the drawing board. |
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Jul 04 2012 at 3:17pm
|
Last night we were told several times that South Main Street needed the new light fixtures for safety reasons to illuminate the side walk area in front of their homes.
THE CURRENT LIGHT FIXTURES ARE SUFFICIENT. AS SUGGESTED, AS PART OF PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, AND AS WOULD BE EXPECTED BY ANY HOMEOWNER IN ANY PART OF TOWN, CUT DOWN THE SHRUBBERY THAT IS BLOCKING THE LIGHT AND IMPROVE THE SAFETY ISSUE MENTIONED. NEW LIGHTS ARE NOT THE ANSWER TO MORE LIGHT IF TREES AND BUSHES ARE BLOCKING SAID LIGHT. THIS IS A PATHETIC ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR THE NEWER, FANCIER, MORE COSTLY LIGHTS. INSTALLATION OF SEARCH LIGHTS WILL NOT HELP WITH SAFETY LIGHTING IF THE TREES AND BUSHES ARE IN THE WAY. MERCY. Ms Mulligan also stated that some areas of the South Main Street Historic District had vacant property with overgrown hedges and grass that blocked their veiw while walking in the evenng WHO IN THE HELL DOES MS MULLIGAN THINK SHE IS? "BLOCKING THEIR VIEW WHILE WALKING IN THE EVENING"? HOW TRITE. WHAT A SELF-ABSORBED INDIVIDUAL THIS WOMAN MUST BE. LADY, YOUR DAM AREA IS NO MORE SPECIAL THAN THE AREAS THE REST OF US ARE LIVING IN. GET OFF OF YOUR HIGH HORSE AND REALIZE YOU ARE NO MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE REST OF US. GOD, I HATE SELF-IMMERSED PEOPLE.
|
Posted By: LMAO
Date Posted: Jul 04 2012 at 5:33pm
The issue with the lights on Main Street is IMO is nothing more then what our good ole Mayor and Kohler wants.They talk about they have 60% of people that want them.Well why not poll the whole city not just the ones on Main Street?I mean IF it happens the WHOLE cityis going to be paying for them.I posted not to long ago,Me,Myself and I went down on Main Street and talked to 10 residents.Out of the 10 I believe it was 2 that was okay with it.The others said that they dont have the money cos they was living on a fixed income.IMO,the 60% they say they have is hog washed.I like to say a big thank you to Mrs.Scott Jones cos she seems to be the only one on Council that wants to know where the money is going to come from to fund something that only a few is going to benefit from it.Ms Mulligan I like to ask the same Question Mr.Vet asked.Who the hell are you? Are you married to one of the Mulligan Boys?Why should "US" peons pay for your fancy A$$ Lights?I like to know or see the "SO called bushes or shrubbery that is blocking the sidewalk?"Let the city send a letter to the owner to take care of it, if not send there "BOYS" after them.You say that you and others have been told 30 years now you will get your fancy A$$ lights,well guess what,you want them pay for them.How dare you and the rest of the Mulligan Klan ask us Penos to pay for them.Also you mentioned that your "GROUP" paid for the Fountain in the park,If someone looked deep enough I'd bet the city helped in someway.Do you pay for the water that goes in the fountain?I say no,but I have been known to be wrong a time or two.Also,you say there are abanded houses on Main Street? Only one I know of is the Sorg Mansion.Again I might be wrong.Again,just Echoing what Vet said,What makes your neighborhood better then the one I live in?Is it special cos the "MAYOR" lives there,or cos Kohler lives there?
|
Posted By: greygoose
Date Posted: Jul 04 2012 at 7:53pm
|
Well said LMAO.... I too liked the questions that Mrs. Scott Jones was asking. The more I see of this proposed project, the more unattractive it becomes. It appears to be a pet project and the city has so many other, more pressing, issues.
Wow.... it seem strange making such a statement.
On the other hand.... I'm about to rent a backhoe & operator and put in a bid to install the conduit. Is it just me or does that cost seem "way high" to others as well. GG ------------- "If you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got" |
Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Jul 04 2012 at 8:50pm
|
GreyGoose |
Posted By: greygoose
Date Posted: Jul 04 2012 at 9:01pm
|
That would explain the higher costs...... not interested! ------------- "If you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got" |
Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Jul 04 2012 at 9:28pm
|
hey goose--you are beginning to understand our frustration I attended the early part of last night's meeting Sat with a very sharp local in a spot where I could read the video screen we both agreed on the following: There was only one sensible option of the five listed Option #2, in which the property owners assume all of the increased costs Why any other option would even be considered was the mystery, and Council actually seems headed ttowards picking up the added costs, or at least all costs above a 15% increase(though this could lose at voting time with both Mulligans abstaining--so how will the rabbit come out of the hat on this issue? predictions?). 45 SIDEWALK lights to replace 13 STREET lights? So--we will be paying 4x the utility cost + possibly a portion of the conduit expense, primarily to light an 8-block area of SIDEWALK? I thought that SAFETY was the primary issue? TRAFFIC safety! So--just where will these fine citizens be walking after dark? There are absolutely NO businesses open in that area within walking distance, and I see very few people walking that area at any time of day or night. The Mayor's wife made one interesting point concerning other areas with similar lighting, and I wish that Council would take her up on her offer to share the additional cost of powering that type of lighting strictly between residents using that type of lighting. On the other hand, the Mayor's mother seemed to expect the rest of the community to pick up the tab past the 15% cost increase(to then be assessed to the residents)--23% paid by ALL of us. SO--what say we ALL vote on this issue to get a 60% passage rate, since we ALL would share the increased costs with little to no benefit(since we would seldom to never be walking that area after dark). Why this lunacy was even discussed for over an hour was beyond me. The Chamber and Middletown Business Watch were forced to make their presentations within the 3-minute limit of Council Comments(notice that both speakers completed their messages within their alotted time). That endeavor has drawn the attention and high praise from the state Attorney General's office + multiple visits from various state law enforcement entities. Called a "role mode;" for all communities within the state. Yet only one Councilmember even mentioned them during their comment session(thank you Joe Mulligan!), when they usually babble to the camera on their self-interests. Senior Center? Good presentation by an excellent new leader in Ms.Munafo Only issue being that the Seniors asked for $650,000per annum, and the millage generates $781,000 ...hmmmm.....where does the $131,000 per annum go? MMF? Downtown Middletown Inc? And no one bothered to research that or even ask about it. This Council and Admin have to go imo
|
Posted By: acclaro
Date Posted: Jul 04 2012 at 10:33pm
|
It is a travesty and a miscarriage of judgment to have the Sr. Citizen Levy on the ballot---it is bail-out for their inept leadership and over-extension of acquisition and debt. No, this is not simply the difference of what they want and the 130,000 difference the city will get, it is money totally unjustified to bail out the over payment to Fenwick and the Archdiocese. There is absolutely no jutification for this levy to pass. All that will be in Middletown left hanging around post August, are lifers, hungering down to be crried out of their houses when they hi 85-90. Not a pretty sight, and I encourage all to vote no on the levy. 99% of those I hae spoken intend to do so. Please join us in bringing this and the sham public safety levy down.
------------- 'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.' - Winston Churchill |
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Jul 04 2012 at 10:54pm
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/727.38 - |
Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Jul 04 2012 at 11:06pm
|
let me make myself perfectly clear(lol): I have no issue with the S Main St residents installing ornamental sidewalk lighting along selected streets. Kinda cool--I like the concept Just pay the price and quit yer begging-- costs went up(estimate was low maybe?) welcome to the world--pay the price Y'all are getting your selected streets "repaired" for free btw: Pretty lucky imo bill the electric directly through the homes- hire a private contractor to do the entire job--hopefully for much less why should this be everyone else' issue or a city issue? I know a few S Main residents who spoke in favor of this project. They are top citizens who love their homes and neighborhood. They have worked tirelessly to restore their properties to current state We should embrace this attitude and concept, however embrace it with the affected residents' cashola. Atty Gen Landen was giving Council an easy exit all night long with his first and simplest option of cancelling the job completely, and only re-surfacing the road(eventually). Council seemed too involved in their own grandstanding to notice imo. If going forward, this project should extend all the way down to 14th and Barnitz Stadfium. Make the journey attractive and obvious if you want positive image to our many out-of-town area resident hs football visitors. Can we do something complete/fully? Though I doubt the 60% acceptance threshold could have been maintained. Maybe under those circumstances could/should the city be involved? |
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Jul 04 2012 at 11:12pm
|
The only true, ethical, legal choices that City Council has regarding these DECORATIVE, historically INaccurate sidewalk lamps are as follows: 1. Delete the phony lamp posts
and proceed with the project street work. 2. Delay the project to allow
the proponents an opportunity to push through a new petition using the new cost
figures. 3. Proceed with the project and assess the total cost to the property owners “in the same proportion as the original assessment”. It is bad enough that the rest of the
taxpayers will have to be paying the electricity and maintenance costs for
these decorative lights from now until the end of time. There is no way that the rest of the
taxpayers should be forced to participate in breaking the law (City Ordinance
1210) by paying a portion of the cost (beyond that of the “assessment” for
City-owned property involved) for these decorative lamps. ------------- “Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012 |
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Jul 04 2012 at 11:22pm
|
There is a Duke power pole at one of the rear corners of our home's lot. Duke will put a "safety light" on this pole that comes on every evening and goes off at dawn. The monthly charge from Duke on our electric bill would be about $10 per month. Shouldn't the rest of our city's taxpayers be absorbing this monthly charge??? It would hardly be noticeable spread over 21,000 households!!! I would be willing to "decorate" the pole in an "olde tyme" motif. (I doubt that Duke would let me hang them on the pole, but I would be happy to stack a few junk auto hoods nearby, and spray paint the pole "Pendelton purple" as high as I can reach.) ------------- “Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012 |
Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Jul 05 2012 at 6:57am
|
Why this lunacy was even discussed for over an hour was beyond me. The Chamber and Middletown Business Watch were forced to make their presentations within the 3-minute limit of Council Comments (notice that both speakers completed their messages within their allotted time). That endeavor has drawn the attention and high praise from the state Attorney General's office + multiple visits from various state law enforcement entities. Called a "role mode;" for all communities within the state. Yet only one Council member even mentioned them during their comment session (thank you Joe Mulligan!), when they usually babble to the camera on their self-interests.
|
Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Jul 05 2012 at 7:45am
|
exactly, Ms.V more convoluted logic from the bunker in fantasy land instead of DEALING with the crime issue, banding together to take it on, we choose to DENY that it exists? has this EVER been a successful approach with anything? It certainly isn't working in this critical situation we make it go away by FIXING the situation soon there will be no retail/service representation in the west end of our city. Yet MAYBE this is the REAL intent of Council/Admin/DMI/MMF so that they can reserve the whole area of new publicly-subidized entities owned/operated by themselves and their enabler cronies. |
Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Jul 05 2012 at 8:31am
|
Spider |
Posted By: Bill
Date Posted: Jul 05 2012 at 8:48am
| admitting a crime problem is not part of the "good news" brigade and also detracts from our spin of "Bright Past Brighter Future". |
Posted By: LMAO
Date Posted: Jul 05 2012 at 1:33pm
You now see why alot of people in this town are pissed off.Some on Council needs to stop voting on things that only benefit a few but the rest of us have to pay for.They need to quit shuffleing money around to different accounts.I put it as "Rob Peter to Pay Paul." The issue with charging landlords to register there properties is just another way of are fine leaders to use that monies on something other then what its for.How hard is it to get on the countys website to see who owns the property?If the landlord happens to be a out of state landlord spend a lil bit more money for a register letter to inform them the problem and they have so many days to fix it or they will be citied.Why punish the ones that keep up there properties cos of a few bad ones?Again,just another way for are so call leaders to bend us over,
 I dont know how true it is,but I was told what there going to try to add on is that everytime you get a new renter in YOUR house they cant move in till the city inspects it. |
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Jul 06 2012 at 6:34am
So, let me see if I've got this straight:
Is THAT about the size of it??? Hmm... And I guess that if any of the ancient utility laterals collapse during the prosecution of this work (as is likely to happen when dealing with such old utilities) and thereby run up a large amount of extra work, the City will just "assess" those costs to the rest of the City's taxpayers as well???
------------- “Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012 |
Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Jul 06 2012 at 8:31am
|
Yep Mike But…but…but who will pay the bill if the accident happens?.
|
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Feb 16 2013 at 4:46pm
|
Well, here we go again!!! The same
small group feels entitled to have their “wants” catered to for their
enjoyment, but with the rest of the citizenry footing the bill. Consider the following from page 101/127 of
the 2/19/2012 City Council workbook: “After
consideration by the Main Street Historical Society and City Council, staff recommends approval of an
assessment amount equaling 15% more than the original estimated assessment which
totals approximately $222,000. This will be combined with additional funding provided
by the Historical
Society ($11,100) to create a budget
of $233,100 to be spent on decorative lighting. The street light spacing will be adjusted to
maximize the number of light fixtures provided within this budgeted amount once
current pricing from Duke Energy is obtained.” The “Main Street Historical Society”,
in effect, gets to levy a tax on the rest of Middletown’s citizens to pay for
the electricity for their decorative lights every month from now until the end
of time!!! And of course there is the
matter of the ancient sewer laterals that will be encountered during
construction, which will necessarily lead to a significant amount of legitimate
claims for “extra” construction costs by the contractors. Any guesses who will be stuck for these??? The sad part is that there is such an
obvious solution: anyone who so desires
can install decorative lampposts and gas or electric lights right on their own
property, but just a few feet away on the other side of the sidewalk!!! They can do this at their own expense, with
the monthly utility costs run through their own meters to their own accounts. They can achieve the SAME RESULTS and leave
the rest of us (who will receive no benefits) out of it!!! So WHY do they insist on having the rest of us pay for it??? ------------- “Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012 |
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Feb 16 2013 at 5:01pm
|
Oh, and let's not forget this: There is absolutely NO RECORD of this area (or any other area of the city) having had a public gas street light system at any time in Middletown's history!!! (There have been some private gas lamp posts privately installed as I have suggested above.) Think that I'm wrong??? Show me!!! How about it, Middletown Historical Society??? With your $11,000 "investment", you are trying to RE-WRITE Middletown's history, not "preserve" it!!!
------------- “Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012 |
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Feb 16 2013 at 8:56pm
|
Where are the gas lights???
Where are the gas lights???
Downtown in the “horse
and wagon” days. Does anyone see any gas lamps???
Sorg residence (from
Flicker) See any PUBLIC street gas lamp posts???
The John Philip Sousa
Band on Main Street in 1898 (Middletown Library) See any Gas lamp posts???
Very earliest picture of
the Sorg mansion that I could find (even before the turrets were added) with a
Middletown Fire Department horse-drawn wagon in the forefront. Does anyone see any gas street lamps???
------------- “Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012 |
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Feb 16 2013 at 9:21pm
|
And finally:  Here is a photo of the Jacoby Building, circa 1890. (It sits on the present location of the HISTORIC Pendelton Art Center! Can anyone see any Gas street lamp posts??? Now ... I'll sit by quietly and wait for someone to post historically accurate pictures showing all of the public gas street lamps lining the streets of Middletown. If no one can do so, then the people on South Main Street are NOT trying to "preserve", "restore", or "replicate" history. They are trying to redecorate their properties to their own tastes and standards at PUBLIC EXPENSE, with the City government and the Historic Society being willing accomplices in perpetrating this fraud. ------------- “Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012 |
Posted By: LMAO
Date Posted: Feb 16 2013 at 11:23pm
|
Like to know how many of the "SNOBS" of South Main Street helped out cleaning the "Historical Sorg Opera House?"My guess would be none. Seems like if they try to force these lights upon us knowing how most people feel about it,is there "LEGAL" action we can take against the city?As it has been said before,Put it to a vote and lets see what happens. I know it cost money to put something on the ballot so why dont the "SNOBS" put up that 11,000.00 to help out the cost? Kind of reminds me of when the whole "SUNCHOKE" was voted on.Are "SPINELESS ONES" didnt care one bit that it was being built by a Retiremeant Home,a Elementary School and a neighborhood. They just cared about kissing AK Steels A$$.  |
Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Feb 18 2013 at 10:03am
|
Mike Presta - “After consideration by the Main Street Historical Society and City Council, staff recommends approval of an assessment amount equaling 15% more than the original estimated assessment which totals approximately $222,000. This will be combined with additional funding provided by the Historical Society ($11,100) to create a budget of $233,100 to be spent on decorative lighting. The street light spacing will be adjusted to maximize the number of light fixtures provided within this budgeted amount once current pricing from Duke Energy is obtained.” |
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Feb 18 2013 at 2:17pm
|
Vivian: I don't know the answer to your question. All I know is what I read in the workbook, which I quoted exactly in my post. You'll have to ask Robert E. Nicolls, Senior Engineer for the City, who prepared the staff report for that section of the workbook from which the quote was taken (page 101 of 127). Sorry that I couldn't be of more help. ------------- “Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012 |
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Feb 18 2013 at 2:23pm
|
It really perplexes me that last year they kept referring to this as "period lighting". I have searched through hundreds (perhaps even thousands) of photos and cannot find any examples of such lighting in Middlletown. Will any Council member have the courage to ask exactly which "period" this lighting is from???
------------- “Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012 |
Posted By: over the hill
Date Posted: Feb 18 2013 at 2:25pm
| Well, according to some one I spoke with earlier today, An "unofficial" straw poll done with some of the council members,it appears this thing IS going to pass. Council members are not interested in what the rest of us want. So, I guess all we can do is remember this ,along with the rest of councils decisions in the past,AND VOTE ACCORDINGLY IN NOVEMBER!!! |
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Feb 18 2013 at 2:43pm
|
Regardless of whether or not there is a "Main Street Historical Society" or if that was a mis-statement referring to the "Middletown Historical Society", I believe that here in Middletown we cannot lend much credence to such organizations. After all, didn't such a group vote to grant a "certificate of appropriateness" to PAC to hang a bunch of junk auto hoods on a building right next to some similar phony gaas street lamps a year or so ago??? How can "historians" such as that be considered anything but a laughingstock???
------------- “Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012 |