August 31, 2013 at 7:20 am #5843
The city of Diamondhead has presented its 2013-214 budget. Questions and comments are welcome here.August 31, 2013 at 9:29 am #5842
At the Budget Hearing (Aug. 28) the City Clerk told me that the Budget Summary was posted online in the “News & Notes” section of the City website. So I went to the website……
CHECK THIS OUT: WHY DOES A CITIZEN NEED A PASSWORD TO SEE THIS INFO?
Budget Public Hearing – FY2014 Budget Summary
View the FY2014 Budget Summary (revised 08.28.13)
View article >>September 1, 2013 at 3:49 am #5844
I tried to download it also and all I got was the same thing. Username and password. That’s the POA for you, whoops I met city, but I believe the two are the same evil!!!September 3, 2013 at 8:24 am #5845
This is indeed a perplexing set of circumstances.
What is astounding is that there are hardly any comments about this situation.
Where are the inhabitants of this community?
I realize that Alfonso, Kolf and a few others are active participants in trying to bring some order to this complex situation between the city administration and the POA. However without an active bunch of people held together in an organization such as the Taxpayers Association very little can be expected to be accomplished.
At the last meeting I observed a rather passive attitude from the attendees. And even more disturbing was that there were several people there who took an antagonistic attitude.
Excepts for the efforts of Mr. Alfonso and Peter Kolf I do not expect much to happen.September 3, 2013 at 9:42 am #5846
City Council Tonight, Sept. 3, 6pm (47p. packet available online)
a. Prohibition of Deadly Weapons In & Around City-Owned or City-Occupied Facilities.
b. Letter to Hancock County re DH Water & Sewer District appointments.
c. Recommendation of Planning & Zoning to Deny Variance for Goody’s Sign.
d. Municipal Compliance Questionnaire for the State Auditor.
AGENDA; 47p. PACKET online:
http://www.diamondhead.ms.gov/Agenda%20%20Minutes/09.03.13%20Packet.pdf#page=20&zoom=auto,0,729September 4, 2013 at 2:27 pm #5847
It is my understanding that because of some unresolved legalities the church expenditures should not be included in the budget at this time. The matter of the financial bonds seem to be a sticking point with respect to the whole transaction of the church acquisition. I do not have the financial expertise to evaluate the impact of these vehicles. It does seem to me that all information about these investments should be out in the open. Why not? I do not have a clue.
However I would suspect that if any council members were involved in any way with these bonds they would be in a precarious situation if they voted for a church purchase if they somehow gained some financial advantage from the transaction. It would be prudent to abstain from such a vote if that situation exist.September 4, 2013 at 2:35 pm #5848
I could not attend the meeting on Tuesday. Why bother?
These meetings display a lack of rapport between the administrators and the audience that gives me the impression that I really do not belong there. The council members exude an aura of authority that seems to give a hint of hostility. So if you go to one of these occasions and you expect to feel like you are part of a community exploring the mood and will of the populace you will be disappointed.
On top of these observations one needs to realize that by and large the residents are apathetic and not fully engaged to the problems we all face. And then when eventually someone makes a passionate complaint, it is usually some trivial matter that only contributes some confusion and detracts from any chance that a unified approach to meaningful problems will evolve.
Now I fully realize that by excluding myself from these proceeds I am left open to financial punishments by a runaway administrations. If it gets bad enough I suppose a substantial number will pick up the banner and try to correct a bad situation. If not I will just have to stoically accept the penalty I will receive.September 5, 2013 at 3:51 am #5849
Maybe someone can answer a question. To my understanding, if the city is using thr sheriff, then why do thry need to buy extra cars?September 5, 2013 at 9:08 am #5850
Exactly what I was thinking when I saw that new car mentioned.September 5, 2013 at 11:45 am #5851
Y’all talking about the shiny new Blue Ford SUV cruising around town? Head scratcher or back scratcher, hmmm.September 5, 2013 at 1:56 pm #5852
Unless I am wrong, the POA tactics have bled over to the city: SPEND – SPEND – SPENDSeptember 7, 2013 at 8:51 am #5880
MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT, THE CITY AND THE POA ARE ONE ENTITY. THEREFORE THE POA CANN0T WIN THE LAWSUIT THE ACLU HAS FILED AGAINST IT. CONSEQUENTLY ELTON KYGER MUST NOT WASTE OUR MONEY FIGHTING THIS LOSING BATTLE. (LAWYERS HAVE A FIESTA HERE IN DIAMONDHEAD ADDRESSING SIMPLE AND COMMON SENSE ISSUES AT A HUGE COST.)October 15, 2013 at 11:01 am #6066
Diamondhead City Council Formal Meeting, Tuesday, Oct. 15, 2013; 6pm
Purchase of camera equipment for new police cars. Audit engagement letter. Fixed assets/inventory policy.
Letter of resignation of City Clerk. (See pp. 5-6, 12-13, of Packet — details from Exec. Session minutes of 9/24 & 10/1.)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.