Preview of the next BOMA meeting.

After attending the work session and planning commission meeting last night, it appears that next Tuesday night will be the start to an incredible discussion that will take place in this city that will DRASTICALLY affect the future. It is about time, and I applaud the mayor for beginning to take the lead on some important issues. This is our opportunity as "concerned citizens" to take the lead on some very important issues. Today's post will outline the issues up for a vote at the meeting on Tuesday night at 7:00. I will include everything up for discussion in future months in my next post. Please check this board daily in order to keep appraised of the situations as they affect Spring Hill. There is currently no other voice in this city to keep you in touch with your policy makers.

Please read on and begin getting involved, both in discussion and meeting attendance.


First off, let me state that there is so much meat in this meeting, that I am going to break it all down on a daily basis to get more in depth on each day leading up to the meeting on Tuesday the 17th. Okay, here we go!

* Item number 3 on the meeting agenda is considering the second and final reading, Ordinance 05-51, establishing subdivision regulation amendments and changes.

This has been talked about in length by many of us involved in the concerned citizens of Spring Hill, it will in fact pass this coming week despite the efforts of Mr. Duda, Eliot, and Gallardo. The mayor might even weigh in opposed, but in the end it will most likely pass. My concerns have been well documented, and I would be happy to go over them again in the comments section, but for now you do not have to read me vent about the situation. I will take a certain enjoyment in this passing, but I will discuss that later.

* Item number 7 on the meeting agenda is really EXTREMELY interesting. It is a resolution brought before the board by Charles Raines. Consider Resolution 06-01, authorizing the City Attorney to file the necessary documents with the State to change the term of future Mayors to two years.

First of all, why in the world would we want to limit the term of the mayor without limiting the terms of aldermen as well? I am personally opposed to limiting the term of just one area of city government. Limit everyone's term or no one's term. Take your pick.

Second of all, how is mayor (or alderman for that matter) to ever have the time to get his feet wet and learn the ropes when he/she is up for re-election every 2 years? This makes absolutely no sense to me. This resolution will be voted down soundly, so no need to fret too much.

Here is the kicker....in this debate, the word accountability was brought up by Mr. Raines. This word is one that is VERY powerful in a debate because it has opened a can of worms that I do not think Mr. Raines intended to open. It is a can that we must continue to push to the forefront until the election in '07.

Anyway, I digress. It was decided that a referendum will appear on the next ballot tackling many of the issues involving public office. An agreement was come to by the board to look at length of terms as well as many other ideas and let the people decide the outcome. Now is the perfect time to place everything back on the table. This referendum should include a section on length of terms for both aldermen and mayor. There should be a section asking the people about the idea of a city plan/planner. There should be a section asking the citizens about reapportionment and representation. If the policy makers are truly going to be "accountable" we need to make them such.

I cannot explain to you in one short blog post how important these issues are to the long term growth and well being of this city.

* Item number 8 Consider Resolution 06-02 providing Health and Dental Insurance Coverage for retirees under the city retirement program.

First of all, let me state that I am very much in favor of a plan that places our city employees in good shape upon their retirement. This particular plan is entirely unacceptable to the future of our city. In this resolution, there are no numbers associated with anything. The aldermen are voting on an issue with absolutely no idea what this will cost long term. All that it does is provide for 100% coverage for the employee and his/her family upon retirement until death. It does not explain where the money comes from, how many will benefit, what the projections are for participation now or down the road, and on and on and on.

In my opinion, this is the number 1 issue causing the slowdown of major companies everywhere in the United States. I do not have a problem with providing insurance upon retirement, but wow! Cutting benefits at a future date is a pretty big PR nightmare and I think this will greatly hinder the future of Spring Hill. I would at least like to see a number given to the public about the dollars that we will be shelling out in the future to fund this plan.

I will discuss this in greater detail as I dig to get some facts, but for now take a minute and listen to this... Government benefits http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5146997

* Item number 9 Consider bringing the Planning Commission tree resolution to the Board of Mayor and Aldermen for consideration. City Attorney to provide the documents necessary to accomplish this action.

Here we go again. This is exactly why the BOMA has no business regulating the planning commission. The "tree resolution" simply requires that developers need to show on a map (can be a free to the public aerial photograph) where trees are located. Why in the world would the board want to limit the amount of information that the planning commission receives in order to make an opinion on a subject?

Here is why, and it is really quite simple. Charles Raines is a developer. He does not want to take on ANY extra cost in developing a project. He feels that the board is overstepping its bounds and should not be able to require any additional information from himself or his fellow developers. He wants the ability to buy a piece of land, wipe it clean, and build it back in any way he sees fit.

I am very much in favor of rights of property owners, but give me a break. If Charles Raines were ever to ask for my opinion on the matter, I would ask him to lighten up a little bit. There is more than enough money to be made in this city. He seems like a nice enough guy, but if there is not a conflict of interest here, I am not sure what a conflict of interest is???

That is really all for now. I will be posting very aggressively in the coming days, so please pay attention!