• I would rather see the money go to cleaning and repairing the current parks. Otherwise we just end up with another rundown eyesore. If the economy improves and the grant is there great, if the grant is gone then we didn't need it. If you can't afford something til payday and then its gone then you really didn't need it. Also why are all the playgrounds in town built out in the sun so that they are useless in the summer?

    September 11, 2010 at 10:52 a.m.
  • Something like this might be appropriate for Victoria. Apparently Gonzales was able to accomplish this.

    September 9, 2010 at 2:51 p.m.
  • JeffWilliams

    sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I was supporting your position with a carification.

    Secondly, I also have read the statue concerning the pass through financing.

    as you set oput the statute says "The state then reimburses a portion of the project cost to the community over time by paying a fee for each vehicle that drives on the new highway"

    Can we spell "Toll" road

    September 9, 2010 at 8:49 a.m.
  • Hey John E. Swanson lets shut down the station by your house!

    September 8, 2010 at 9:29 p.m.
  • This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

    September 8, 2010 at 7:29 p.m.
  • id rather see that money used to improve the current park system

    September 8, 2010 at 6:57 p.m.
  • A little more info per the TXDOT website:

    Pass-Through Financing Program

    Pass-through financing is a tool the state created to stretch already limited tax highway dollars and to allow local communities to fund upfront costs for constructing a state highway project. The state then reimburses a portion of the project cost to the community over time by paying a fee for each vehicle that drives on the new highway. Projects must be on the state highway system to be eligible to be developed under this program.

    September 8, 2010 at 6:27 p.m.
  • onestar,

    I am not sure if your post is opposing what I stated, very briefly, or supporting it. The last discussions I heard was that the state was going to reimburse the city based on traffic counts (Pass Through Financing) of the section of highway that is improved. In the last 2-3 weeks I heard that the contracts had not been executed as of yet so maybe things are changing. In my view of this the City (taxpayers) are providing the financing in addtion to some of the non-reimbursed costs. Do you see things differently?

    September 8, 2010 at 5:13 p.m.
  • Jeffwilliams

    " local dollars are funding it to be re-imbursed by the state"

    at no place in the budget does this 463 project say anything about repayment by the state.

    Construction cost: $22,660,000
    Bond issue cost: 320,000
    Sub-total: $22,980,000
    Bond interest cost: 7,803,125
    Total Cost: $30,783,125
    Funding Sources – for over-all cost:
    TXDOT–Austin 17,561,000
    TXDOT-Yoakum 2,000,000
    Victoria County 3,300,000
    City of Victoria (net) 7,922,125
    Total Funding: $30,783,125

    Operating Budget Impact:
    This project is will not impact the City’s operating budget because the City and County of Victoria are partnering with Texas Department of Transportation (Pass-Through Financing Program) in order to create economic development opportunities, reduce traffic safety issues, and improve transportation around the City and County of Victoria. Once the project is completed, Texas Department of Transportation will assume all maintenance cost of the project. The City and County will help Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT) by financing the $14.3M bond issue. This financial arrangement will not affect the City’s current or future budgets.
    Funding Source – for construction and bond issue cost:
    1. Certificate of Obligation Bonds (16 yr maturity) - $14,280,000
    2. TXDOT – Yoakum Office Contribution - $2,000,000
    3. Sales Tax Development Corporation (4B) - $2,753,073
    4. GO and CO bond proceeds - $3,696,927
    5. General Fund - $250,000

    Guess who is passing the CO and GO bond issues

    September 8, 2010 at 4:55 p.m.
  • The splash pad is a complete waste of tax dollars both local and state. The state is facing an $11 to $17 BILLION dollar budgeting shortfall, let's keep the $500K in the state general fund for essential services and use the $500K in local funds for essential services. Remember, the state cannot afford to fund the 463 overpass construction so local dollars are funding it to be re-imbursed by the state.

    Another huge issue that does not seem to get much mention is the funding for police personnel is being CUT by $168K below the current year budget. The current year projected expenditures are going to be around $600K BELOW budget for police personnel (dollars allocated but not spent). The crime rate incidents in Victoria show one of the highest increases (as a percentage) in growth from 2007 to 2009 in the state. We can't seem to attract the personnel we need (at least $600K worth of salaries not being paid in the current year) and for the new year we are going to reduce the budgeted expenditures for police personnel and at the same time fund another park and create additional maintenance costs.

    To echo comments on the Ethel Lee Tracy park. A family member was in town last weekend and took their two young daughters to this park. Once they arrived there and observed the condition of the park, the drug stuff and the people that were hanging out there they immediately left. Cut funding for police officers and build another park does not make any sense to me. Maybe we are "legacy" building.

    September 8, 2010 at 4:05 p.m.
  • Wacko Jacko - Cracko Spacko - Clean House.

    September 8, 2010 at 2:36 p.m.
  • This story is Propoganda. It may seem like a sweet "feel good" story about the community do "good" things for a change.....but's just Propoganda for the big government crowd led by out of touch elitests. The "story" should be a story of Higher Costs and Return on Investment.....

    DO A STORY THAT SHOWS AND PROVES THAT TO US. End the elitest fluff stories...all it means is someone is WASTING MORE TAX MONEY.

    September 8, 2010 at 2:24 p.m.
  • onestar,

    I did see your post. I should have addressed my second post to illuminatus instead of being generic.

    Point for all------------>we don't always get the COMPLETE data from the City guys, and that is unfortunate. When we do finally get all the pieces of the puzzle, it makes some of the Council look sneaky and deceptive. As soon as they figure out that some folks are keeping track, maybe they will cease with the double speak and funky math.

    I doubt it, though.

    September 8, 2010 at 1:33 p.m.
  • edithAnn

    I posted the budget figures below showing the Splash pad thing was costing one million not $500,000.00.

    Thats $500,000.00 form the city and long term $55,000.00 annual to keep it up

    September 8, 2010 at 12:25 p.m.
  • ishka--

    City Council and Mayoral elections are in May, not November.

    September 8, 2010 at 11:30 a.m.
  • Folks , The solution is simple. In November when you go to vote, if he or she is an incumbent, VOTE AGAINST HIM or HER. from local to national !!!

    September 8, 2010 at 10:39 a.m.
  • Where is the transparency? These clowns need to listen to the people. Far to long has this city council made incorrect decisions behind our back (closed door sessions). They need to be accounted for. Hagan is right. We are about to see the worst times of our lives with a double dip recession. This is not the time to make a water park. I can't believe we have a $160 Million dollar budget and our city roads are the worst they have ever been. Maybe we need to look at the salaries of the city staff as a starting place for budget cuts in the future. I Hope Mr. Hagan or Mr. Ocker have plans to run for Mayor, so that we can stop this corrupt city council once and for all.

    September 8, 2010 at 10:09 a.m.
  • Time for Polasek to be kicked off the council. Native American Indians were correct when the said "that white man speaks out of both sides of his mouth" especially when given a dog bone of authority.

    September 8, 2010 at 9:43 a.m.
  • onestar--?

    September 8, 2010 at 8:37 a.m.
  • EdithAnn

    see below

    September 8, 2010 at 8:29 a.m.
  • We as citizens have to cut back on spending in hard times, but they just increase our taxes. Need to cut a lot of salaries in the city managment.

    September 8, 2010 at 8:20 a.m.
  • If the Youth Sports Complex ran about $12 Million, do any of you really think a splash park, parking lot and restrooms can be had for half a million?

    It's a nice idea, just not a smart idea at this time.

    September 8, 2010 at 8:11 a.m.
  • Dear Gang

    For all those who really believe what the city puts out here's the truth from their budget and I do mean "THEIR" budget

    37. Lone Tree Community Park Project

    110 acre Community Park on the east side of Victoria Splashpad, pavilion, restroom, play equipment, practice football field, practice soccer and ballfields.

    Construction cost: $1,000,000

    Operating Budget Impact:
    This project is expected to have an effect on the operating budget. The park budget would probably be increased by approximately $55,000 for personnel cost and maintenance expense upon completion.
    Funding Source:
    1. General Fund - $500,000
    2. TX Wildlife Grant - $500,000

    During this recession I think this would be a good place to cut the budget

    September 8, 2010 at 7:53 a.m.
  • The state is "helping" fund $500k for the water pad. This wording is what makes everything change. Why don't you make up the difference? Show us how committed you are to get this project here. Or did you just want to put your name on that project? Polasek Water Park. Yea, that's what I figured.

    September 8, 2010 at 6:28 a.m.
  • John E. Swanson.....ya lets cut back the fire department we never need that service

    September 8, 2010 at 6:09 a.m.
  • Just what is a splash pad? And why do we need one?

    September 8, 2010 at 5:09 a.m.
  • what is the total costs on the splash pad / parking lot / restrooms ?

    September 8, 2010 at 1:41 a.m.
  • Illuminatus,

    It seems our city council has gotten into the bad habit of thinking everything is a 'now or never' proposition, and most of it is not. I tired of that being the excuse for why we are always trying to beat the clock. "We have to do it now." No, not always.

    Geeze, have you already forgotten that not too long ago we had to do something with Buhler's land or else the world was going to come to an end? Well, guess what? It's already tomorrow in Australia. The world didn't end.

    And it you truly believe that any project that this city accepts a grant for--a 100% funded project--is not going to cost us additional money, then you are living, well, I don't know where you are living.

    September 7, 2010 at 9:12 p.m.
  • EdithAnn,

    Why do you believe the time is not right for this grant? Is this a 100% grant for the project? If not, how much are local funds? Does the math work for the local investment?

    September 7, 2010 at 8:47 p.m.
  • Because as we all know, Councilman Polasek, this is the only grant that will ever be offered. Baloney!

    I get so tired of hearing that we must act because "if the city rejects the grant now, that might be money it will not get again."

    That's poppycock! Grants come and grants go. You make a decision that is best for the community and when the time is right, you apply for another grant.

    September 7, 2010 at 8:37 p.m.