May 29, 2013 at 10:46 am #5225
I wanted to thank Skip, Anne and Pete Kolf for all of your efforts getting this ball rolling. You guys are awesome! Despite the obstructions at every turn, you showed up and showed out!May 29, 2013 at 11:05 am #5224
This is an issue that I do not understand well. Hoping someone can help me out. I understand the bonds and what the city is trying to do in order to pay for the Church, but what I dont know is: If the city is not allowed to float the bonds to pay for the Church, what would happen then? Would we find a new city hall? or stay in the Church and have to pay for it another way? any info would be appreciated.May 29, 2013 at 11:29 am #5226
DHmiss, I have copied part of the document that required signature and notarization. I believe it will explain the essence of the complaint. The hearing is June 7th and will hopefully be well attended by resident taxpayers of Diamondhead.
1. This obligation was made by an interim – non elected city council. At present, by way of the primary election, the mayor, council members from Ward 1, Ward 2 and Ward 3 will not be serving in their present capacity after July 1, 2013. The new City Council will be sworn in July 1, 2013. It would be unfair to burden a properly elected City Council with the decision of this temporary governing body.
2. The size, structure, design and configuration is not conducive to the needs of the newly formed city of Diamondhead. Less than 20% of the building is presently occupied. The building was designed for worship as a church. Conversion to a government facility will entail considerable further expense.
3. Questions concerning the present bond holders of the building have surfaced concerning the propriety of one member of the interim city council being compensated by this transaction. I request the court to investigate the transaction and publicize all beneficiaries resulting from this contract prior to approval of this PROMISSARY NOTE.May 29, 2013 at 11:33 am #5227
Thank you sue! very informative:)May 30, 2013 at 11:12 am #5235
There are plenty of spaces available in one of the shopping centers or strips near Nautilus Two which can be rented until the smoke clears. A short term lease with a option to extend would be something that shouldn’t be to expensive and would give the city admin time to look around and make a wise decision down the road.May 30, 2013 at 11:16 am #5236
The rents in the shopping center are one of the reasons some merchants have moved out. At least the church has space for public hearings and meetings.May 30, 2013 at 11:20 am #5237
Cheaper than $1.6M plus another $600K to refurbish wouldn’t you think? We don’t need that large of building for now unless you want to pay for it with more mil rate and higher taxes. Do remember your first house or apartment or did you buy house you couldn’t afford so you could grow into??????May 30, 2013 at 11:23 am #5238
No, never bought a house to grow into. Church property has a lot to offer. Yes it is too big currently. But there is no other property that is available ( to my limited knowledge) that offers plenty of admin space, plenty of parking, and plenty of space for public meetings.May 30, 2013 at 11:26 am #5239
I agree on the shopping center being so high. I was talking to the cleaners a few months ago, and they use to have the laundry mat over there. But when the new owner in Alanta I believe, took over the rent almost doubled.May 30, 2013 at 11:26 am #5240
Tom, you are right. If any space is needed it should be a decision made by the new administration. I just had the same conversation with a friend Monday regarding renting something small till the smoke clears.May 30, 2013 at 11:35 am #5241
I am sure that with the amount of open spaces in the strip centers, the owners of both would make a deal. It would still be wise to not spend 2.2 million of the taxpayers money this soon. Even if the rent is 120000.00 a year, it would be a swinging deal for the taxpayers until the new admin is seated and can get a handle on what amount of space is needed.May 30, 2013 at 11:38 am #5242
How come no ones talking about the city manager anymore ?May 30, 2013 at 11:43 am #5243
Thanks Sue for the confirmation. I remember what I was told by some of the folks that have lived here for many years that DH ran fine without any local government except county and POA rules before. I don’t think we need to buy anything until we have a functional budget and public supported mandate.May 30, 2013 at 12:18 pm #5244
@glasswiz, I think everyone is just looking forward to his contract being up. I heard its October 2013. I would like to know if that is factual.May 30, 2013 at 12:23 pm #5245
Tom, I agree and hope that the new admin will welcome resident input before charging forward with any huge expenditures that affect our taxes. Fingers crossed, lol
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.