Budget increase 37%

This topic contains 22 replies, has 604 voices, and was last updated by  Elena Weber 4 years, 4 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 23 total)
  • Author
  • #5742

    Elena Weber

    Do you realize that the church purchase added to the 2014 budget represents a 37% increase in expenses from the original draft presented at the budget work session? No mention of the church in the work session preparing for the council meeting on Aug 5th either. Did all council members and the mayor vote for this addition to the budget? If they did, has anything changed?



    Will this require a tax millage increase?


    Elena Weber

    Certainly will. The way they propose paying for it is thru the issuance of bonds in the amount o 1.6 million. The bonds will be paid for thru higher millage rates, resulting in higher property taxes for all of us in Diamondhead. There goes Tommy’s platform of no new taxes!!!



    The PUBLIC HEARING on FY2013/14 BUDGET will be held Wed., Aug. 28, 2013, 6pm, CITY HALL.

    Council Work Session, tomorrow, Aug. 15, 9am. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REORGANIZATION:
    Item 13: 2013-2087-Appointment of Additional People to the P & Z Commission Following Resignation of THOM SISLOW, DENISE CATONE, and JANE LEE. Item 13: 08.01.13 2013-2097- REVISING Organization of P & Z Commission.
    FULL AGENDA: http://www.diamondhead.ms.gov/Agenda%20%20Minutes/08.15.13%20W%20S.pdf


    Michael Schaefer


    It looks like the city is going ALL the new revenue they will receive in 2014. Just like the Feds spend everything one receives and then spend more!!!!


    Michael Schaefer

    The below sentence is a correction to the above comment I made.

    “Looks like the city is going to spend all the new revenue they project they will receive in 2014.”


    Michael Schaefer

    In the words of that famous commercial: “I want my money and need it now” I want to know when my money will come from reduced POA dues as indicated by the below statement:

    Posted 2012-05-18 4:14 PM (#3045 – in reply to #3021)
    Subject: RE: Diamondhead Streets Giveaway
    Posts: 119

    “The idea is that for each dollar of responsibility that the city assumes from the POA our dues will be reduced by that amount…”

    So Norm: “Where’s my money?” Cash only please.


    Please call the POA to ask them this question. Could it be possible that it is being used to build the new East Rec building? Also please note that I used a qualifier, “The idea is”.



    Reminder: BUDGET HEARING: City Hall; August 28, 2013; 6:00pm

    6.b. A Special Called Meeting will be held at 1 p.m. on Tues., Sept. 10, 2013 to Adopt the Budget & Accept the Millage.
    8. FY 2013/14 BUDGET and TAX LEVY – Richard Rose & Kristin Ventura.
    9. Public Comments.

    Full Agenda: http://www.diamondhead.ms.gov/Agenda%20%20Minutes/08.28.13%20Agenda%20Public%20Hearing%20Budget%20FY%202013.14.pdf


    It will be of interest to see if the “no new taxes” group wii adhere to their promises. If they don’t, we shall then know that we elected some empty suit politicians.



    Couldn’t attend the meeting, what happened?


    I think that I heard that our taxes are not going up and that they are planning on buying the church. It was a PowerPoint presentation with no discussion afterwards.



    In fact, Mr. Parker, two people spoke at the end of the presentation, Pete Kolf and myself. Pete Kolf, chairman of the Diamondhead Taxpayer Association, demanded that the church be taken out of the budget and threated litigation if the city proceeded in their attempt to bail out church bond holders under the guise of a so-called âlease-purchaseâ agreement. I informed the council that a business touted by Richard Rose as locating to Diamondhead was in fact seeking other venues. I also asked who were the bond holders that the city was bailing out with their new attempt to purchase the church. It should be pointed out that Chancery Court Judge Jennifer Schloegel found the city council in violation of two state statutes when they made their first attempt to buy the church. No one from the city offered an aswer, so you are somewhat correct, it wasn’t much of a discussion.



    Norm Are you sure that you were at that meeting?
    Maybe you left early and missed out on the very important comments by Alfanso and Kolf.
    And about that purchase of the church. I assume you were referring to that end run the council is planning with respect to the lease purchase agreement.
    Obviously you are not at all concerned about the bond holders that could be mixed up in this transaction.
    Actually your report of the meeting is so void of meaningful content that I think you need to be removed as the conveyor council activity.



    I think that a slap on the wrist will be totally ignored by this city council and mayor.
    They have clearly shown that nothing has changed with this new .administration. They have displayed an arrogant attitude with respect to transparency and I think it can be assumed that anything short of litigation will only result in a sneer from this group.
    If the members of the association are serious about this confrontation it should be brought up very soon as what needs to be expected from the membership in order for this to proceed.
    I have no idea what this new business you mention is all about.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 23 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.