quote:

Originally posted by Supermike:

quote:

Originally posted by Councilman #2:
After all these years the county has been getting local roads/street money year after year for every mile of owned road by the county. This money is received specifically to repair and improve roads owned by the county. The county received property taxes from property owners year after year in the Salem-Noble road area and did not improve this road. Why didn't the county ever use this money to improve Salem Noble road?

...The county continues to own Salem Noble, continues to get street/roads money for it, continues to receive property taxes from the property owners there yet the city is called out for not doing anything? How does that make sense when the city does not own the road, does not receive local road/street money for it nor has it received the first property tax dollar in this area.

Please tell me again how the city created or contributed to the Salem Noble road problem and why it is the city's responsible to fix a road it does not own?

Ed, thanks for finally responding. Thanks for your input as well, Larry. I wish I could answer all of those questions, Ed, but I can not. I'm just a citizen who wants this road and intersection to be as safe as possible for my family and friends. So I'll leave you with these known facts and questions:

1) The JEFFERSONVILLE CITIZENS that YOU ANNEXED in the subdivisions of Raintree Ridge, Windy Pines, Whispering Oaks, and along Salem-Noble Road are now all in the CITY OF JEFFERSONVILLE and are paying taxes. While some of those properties (e.g. Raintree) are not exactly adjacent to Salem-Noble, they are a large source of it's usage. The road services the population.

2) I just moved up here to this end of the road (I used to live in the City limits on the segregated end of C-town Pike). I don't care about history - I care about NOW.

3) How can the City have residents living along Salem-Noble Road and yet NOT have annexed any responsibility for the road?!

4) Mike Moore has offered to work with you on this. YOU are my APPOINTED councilman (I didn't get to vote for or against you, remember?). Have you contacted Mike during this transition to see what can be done?

5) This road reconstruction is in KIPDA. But given the increased usage, has ANYONE looked to see what KIPDA had planned and whether the project can be advanced?

6) The Salem-Noble reconstruction is ALREADY being worked/planned by Jacobi, Toomz, and Lantz. Has anyone with the City (or county) contacted JTL to see if there were reconstruction plans for this intersection?

7) One of the biggest users of this intersection is Mister "P" trucking. Has anyone contacted the "River Ridge Commerce Center" to see about putting proper turning lanes on Hwy 62 at this location? Or is this one of those deals where they build it all up now and the taxpayers pay to add lights and turning lanes later?

8) There is a light at Bethany Road and Hwy 62. There is NO WAY that intersection gets more traffic than Salem-Noble and 62 does now. How did THAT light get installed? Who paid for it? Does anyone know?

9) Ed, don't you find it funny that property along Hwy 62 is in the "Jeffersonville limits" (River Ridge), and property along Salem Noble road is in the "Jeffersonville Limits", which means Jeff residents are travelling those roads, yet Jeffersonville claims NO RESPONSIBILITY for those roads?! Salem-Noble is the county's problem, 62 is the State's, right? Where does Jeffersonville come into play?


As noted, Ed, I'm not concerned about the past and what the county has been doing with their funding. Even if we were not in the "City of Jeffersonville" I would be pushing the county commissioners for a response to the same questions. And in fact, Mike Moore HAS responded. And he is offering to work with you on this. PLEASE CALL HIM!! I leave you with this:

quote:

The crash occurred Friday at about 5:49 a.m. A section of Ind. 62 was closed for hours, and traffic had to be rerouted through the old Indiana Army Ammunition Plant.

Police are now questioning how safe that section of road is for drivers.

“Due to the high amount of east and west traffic, this area should have a traffic control device for the safety of the drivers in the area,” according to the accident report prepared by investigating officer Harold Goodlett.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Moore, County Commissioner:
Ed,

Let's put the angry words aside and do something about the problem. My offer still stands to work jointly with the city to get this dangerous intersection fixed. Someone lost their life yesterday, let's put politics aside and get this resolved. For the safety of everyone who travels on Highway 62, I hope to hear from the City soon.

I believe if we work together, we can get this done.

Thanks, Mike
(502) 295-3738

quote:

Originally posted by Councilman #2:



The council never said the city was exempt from following its own ordinances and the council never agreed with not having sidewalks in front of the firehouses. I have mentioned numerous times how the city should lead by example and follow its own ordinances and an ordinance is already in the works for this very topic.

As you know the council and Mayor have different authorities and responsibilities. The mayor does the contracting of work, approving change orders and makes contruction changes not the council. I'm still disappointed about not having a sidewalk and not having a steel roof on the firehouses as planned. Regardless I continue to fight for and support more sidewalks in our city. At this point the council continues to look at and prioritize additional sidewalk construction.

quote:

Originally posted by Councilman #2:
The annexation boundry had to stop somewhere and it stopped just south of Salem-Noble. I just wanted to set the record straight that the county owns this road and gets money to fix it and that is why the city has not done anything and really can't do anything without the county's permission.

The bottom line is the county owns this road they need to take the lead on improving it. It would be very strange for the city to make plans for and to improve someone else's property. As I've said numerous times of course I would support the city helping the county to improve this road. I think the city council as a whole would support this road improvement. If the county does not want to take the lead on improving their road they can turn this road over to the city and it would then be the city's responsibility and then it would make sense for the city to take the lead on this project.

quote:

Originally posted by Supermike:

I guess this is where I get confused. Can you please explain HOW the City was able to annex properties on BOTH SIDES of Salem-Noble (Whispering Oaks I & II) without annexing any responsibility for the ONLY ROAD the residents of those properties must travel to reach them?!

I don't know about you, but that seems like a strategic cop-out to me. The city gets all the taxes for those homes and developments, but the County has to maintain the road. What part of that makes sense? It just confuses people and results in finger-pointing contests.

quote:

Originally posted by NOT SUPER BUT HONEST MIKE:

quote:

Originally posted by Councilman #2:



The council never said the city was exempt from following its own ordinances and the council never agreed with not having sidewalks in front of the firehouses. I have mentioned numerous times how the city should lead by example and follow its own ordinances and an ordinance is already in the works for this very topic.

As you know the council and Mayor have different authorities and responsibilities. The mayor does the contracting of work, approving change orders and makes contruction changes not the council. I'm still disappointed about not having a sidewalk and not having a steel roof on the firehouses as planned. Regardless I continue to fight for and support more sidewalks in our city. At this point the council continues to look at and prioritize additional sidewalk construction.

Ed, go online and look up the minutes of the November 19, 2007 council meeting. I asked the council about the walks in front of the firehouse. After my question is the following Quote:

"Councilperson Zastawny asked if the city is obligated to follow zoning regulations. City attorney Merkley said the city does not have to follow zoning regulations"

The council didn't say the city was exempt from zoning regs but the city attorney did at a council meeting.

quote:

Unless, of course, the original annexation was only to take in the territory that produced tax revenue and avoid territory that might need some attention from the city.