Pulaski county park annexation to Burnside draws fire

[E_]

http://m.somerset-kentucky.com/news/pul ... l?mode=jqm

[E_]

Sad, I think the amphitheater is a wonderful thing for the county

[bim]

Agree E, the potential seems to there but from reading the comments does not seem the locals want anything to do with it. Probably should not have tied it to alcohol as that gets a lot of folks riled up. The vision of that area of the lake filled with rafted up boats listening to the concert is a grand one. Would, however, create a freeway of boats running thru LFM on the way to and from events. Will just have to wait and see I guess.

[re3too]

Just exactly whom would this project benefit?

[E_]

Its brings in concerts and other activities for the youth as well as seniors etc. ( while the rest of us work)


It will also bring in more revenue to the area which allows better services etc. to the area.

[re3too]

Sorry E...I'm not buying it. What are you basing it on? We have heard those same arguments for years and they haven't seemed to work so well. What activities? What improvements? From a landside point of view, this will be a logistical nightmare. Not much better on the waterside, IMHO.

[E_]

How is it a nightmare? Would be about like RiverFront but floating

The company in question would pay to build the new concert facility, taking the county off the hook for the cost — but would leave it in place so that others could use it throughout the year.

“They’re wanting to use it once or twice a year, and they’re willing to pay rent,” said Kelley. “Once the infrastructure is there, we’d be able to rent it out to others. You could host Master Musicians Festival there. They could hold gospel singings there. ... We would be able to rent that venue out throughout the lake.”

This company isn’t the county’s only option. Kelley said that there have been talks with “a couple of people actually” about event venue plans.

Think of the county revenue generated. Now if they ELECTED officials misappropriate the funds that is the fault of the voters after a certain point.

For example:
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/2 ... /120129884

Concert goers file into the Tuscaloosa Amphitheater to see Uncle Kracker and Kenny Chesney, May 25, 2011. The Tuscaloosa Amphitheater made $300,411 in net concert profits for its 2011 inaugural season. Adding other sources of income — including box seats and sponsorships — the amphitheater generated $773,529 of revenue, minus $601,149 in expenditures, for a season profit of $172,380.

other info
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/somerse ... J4N6PIQ4FK
http://www.somerset-kentucky.com/news/h ... 3e05f.html

http://migration.kentucky.gov/Newsroom/ ... keplan.htm

Other amphitheater that is successful
http://www.furman.edu/academics/music/F ... eater.aspx

[re3too]

They already have the events you mentioned...that would bring no additional revenue. Who will maintain the infrastructure and pay the liability insurance. That is a remote area...security issues. Traffic. The marinas have a hard enough time maintaining floating structures during normal rise and fall of the water. Who will provide emergency services to the area...Burnside? Traffic landside? Increased boat traffic in a remote area? IF all the details are well thought out, it might work.

On a personal note....that is one of the few areas of the lake where locals who do not have boats affiliated with a marina have a chance to access the lake and have a quieter place to swim and enjoy the lake. I just PERSONALLY dislike the notion that another part of the lake has to become another party central. Whether we agree or not, bringing alcohol WILL be another way in which those who don't approve will lose another place to enjoy life as they choose. Guess they can just stay home....JMHO!

[E_]

I would hope there would still be "beach" access for locals on both the PC park and fishing creek rec area sides.

I wouldn't want to see that.go away either.

[E_]

Sounds like someone has the same reasoning as you Re3...

Park.png (59.96 KiB) Viewed 10737 times

[E_]

http://www.somerset-kentucky.com/news/n ... 5ac4b.html

Posted: Thursday, March 19, 2015 7:45 am

By Carla Slavey




For many, the debate over Burnside’s attempt to annex Pulaski County Park comes down to a matter of faith, but while County Judge-Executive Steve Kelley preached the gospel Tuesday night, some, like Bethlehem Baptist Church pastor Bill Meece, said it was more of an issue of losing faith in civil government officials.

Members of the public and elected officials had the chance to sound off at a town hall meeting held at the Mill Springs Museum.


The special meeting was organized so that citizens of Nancy could discuss the proposed annexation of Pulaski County Park by Burnside for the purpose of allowing the sale of alcohol at outdoor events held at the park.

More than just citizens of Nancy showed up, though. People from all around the county, from Shopville, Somerset, Woodstock, Burnside and places in between, gathered at the meeting.

It was more than just standing room only. The crowd took up the meeting room, the hallway of the building and even spilled out the front doors to the sidewalk.

Speakers were set up so that those outside the meeting room could hear what was said inside. Most of the attendees did not seem to like what they heard from Kelley.

The judge-executive did not start his prepared statements by addressing the annexation. Rather, Kelley said that Pulaski County had a larger problem.




He quoted scripture from the Bible, and focused on the phrase “Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead.”


Kelley said that Pulaski County Christians were asleep in the sense that they were focusing on the annexation, but in the process they were spreading “untruths” about Kelley and others associated with the annexation plan.


Kelley also quoted from the Bible: “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth.”


Kelly continued, “I’m not going to name names, but there were pastors in pulpits this week that were giving corrupt communications, saying untruths about me.”


He clarified that the annexation plan was not a “done deal,” as some at the meeting said they had been told.


He, along with a representative from the Army Corp of Engineers, also clarified that the deal was not between the county and the Corp, but that the Corp was neutral in the matter and would grant the annexation if both parties agreed to it.


He said also that some members of the public had been harassing both him and his secretary. “Somebody here told my secretary she’s going to hell. Folks, that’s not the way Christians act. You can’t judge her salvation.”

Kelley said that his views on drinking alcohol have not changed from what he has stated in the past, meaning that he is strongly against alcohol sales.


“I wish that none of you all here would drink alcohol, especially the Christians,” he said.


“If you’re not a Christian, and you drink alcohol, you’ve got bigger problems, but if you’re a Christian, and you’re drinking alcohol, I think the Bible says you’re wrong.”


As the leader of the county, however, Kelley said he needed to look out for the financial stability of the government.


He stated that the people in charge of the promotional company that wants to hold events at Pulaski County Park said they “can’t even come to the negotiation table unless we can sell beer and concessions at the island. And my words to them were, ‘I don’t think it will happen, but you’re welcome to try’.”

The promoters said that with alcohol sales, the revenue from events would be around $400,000, which is revenue the county sorely needs, Kelley said.


The threat of the city of Somerset taking a share of the county’s occupational tax was one of the issues involved in the decision to seek funding from different resources, according to Kelley.


“We’ve got dark days looming ahead,” he said. “When $4 million comes out of our budget, and I have to choose between laying off families who depend on that money, or closing parks that aren’t paying their way, that won’t be an easy choice for me.”

Kelley reminded the audience that he did not get a vote on the council, and that it was up to the county magistrates elected by the citizens of Pulaski County to vote as to whether or not to allow the corridor annexation.


Jason Turpen, first district magistrate, also attended the meeting, and when asked directly whether he would stand against the annexation of the park, he said “Absolutely.”


Others who attended the meeting, elected officials and private citizens alike, spoke up in disapproval of the planned annexation.


Pastor Meece said “Part of the reason that I think there is so much animosity when this question comes up is because people are losing faith in their government. We desire to have a representative government – a government that reflects our wishes under the law.”


Meece said that when alcohol sales were legalized in Somerset, the residents were promised it would be limited to only a few stores, but sales have expanded beyond what was promised.


“We have reason for losing faith in our elected representatives because we have been victims of the bait-and-switch so many times.”


Sheriff Greg Speck was asked whether his department would be able to provide police protection for events of the size planned for the park while still retaining the ability to respond to calls in the rest of the county.


“The short answer to your question is ‘no’,” Speck said. “With our current manpower, we could not effectively control such a crowd with traffic coming in and out, and then also provide the service to the citizens of the county at the same time.”

Speck also expressed a personal concern over alcohol sales at the park.

“If tasked with a job, I’ll do my best, but as a Pulaski Countian, a father…I would like to say that I, too, am not in favor of this annexation,” he said.


Former state representative Tommy Todd said, “I think it’s foolish. It’s undesirable.”


Current state representative and House Minority Leader Jeff Hoover said that he wasn’t sure what could be done on a state level, but that he was meeting 10 a.m. next Tuesday with legislative staff and people who were experts with such matters to learn more about it.


He invited members of the Nancy committee who were nominated at the end of the meeting to attend the Frankfort gathering.

The Pulaski County Fiscal Court has the annexation issue on the agenda of its next meeting, which will also be held Tuesday morning.

[E_]

IMG_20150322_091748.jpg (103.39 KiB) Viewed 10672 times

. http://m.somerset-kentucky.com/news/kel ... l?mode=jqm


Kelley: Controversial concert annexation issue in hands of magistrates - News - Commonwealth Journal
back
Side Panel
Kelley: Controversial concert annexation issue in hands of magistrates
20
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Google+ Pinterest Email

1 image
Steve Cornelius Photo

Pulaski County Judge-Executive Steve Kelley says Burnside's annexation of Pulaski Park is in the hands of magistrates.

BY CHRIS HARRIS | Posted 1 hour ago

Steve Kelley isn’t ready to call it quits on the Pulaski County Park annexation deal just yet. After Tuesday, however, it may be out of his hands.


The Pulaski County Fiscal Court is set to take a vote Tuesday on whether or not they want to go ahead with the proposed arrangement to have Burnside annex a portion of Pulaski County Park off of West Ky. 80 so that alcohol could be sold at concerts held there.

“The reason for the vote is that when we started, we had one magistrate against (the annexation) and one magistrate halfway in and halfway out,” said Kelley, Pulaski County’s Judge-Executive.

“The other three were for it as long as we don’t have to bring it to a vote,” he continued. “We were told by our attorney and Burnside’s attorney that if we weren’t opposed to it, we wouldn’t have to do anything. It would be between Burnside and the Corps (of Engineers).”

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers technically owns the land which lies on the shores of Lake Cumberland there at Pulaski County Park. The Corps has typically stayed neutral in such annexations, specifically when Burnside went along the shores of the lake to reach Lee’s Ford Marina a decade ago so the Harbor Restaurant there could serve alcoholic beverages according to Burnside’s “wet” status.

This time, Burnside would go along the shoreline they already have to Pulaski County Park, so the land there would fall under Burnside’s alcohol policy. This would allow Pulaski County Government — which would continue to own and oversee the park itself — to woo a potential big-time concert promoter and bring an event there where vendors could serve alcohol if they so chose.

“It’s about 100 yards from the water up to the pinnacle of the peninsula (that would be annexed by Burnside),” said Kelley. “It’s not even the whole park. Not the camping area, not the trails. Just that area. People think we’re annexing all the way out to Ky. 80, and that’s just not the case.”

Those concerns grew louder though as more people learned of the plan. Kelley felt the brunt of the criticism Tuesday night at a community meeting in Nancy, where residents of the western end of Pulaski showed up in droves to express their displeasure at the idea of Burnside annexing more land in that area and the potential of bringing more alcohol sales with them.

The controversy attracted the attention of the Corps, and as a result, simply working things out with Burnside wasn’t going to be enough, noted Kelley.

“The Corps called up and said they’d need a letter in favor of this,” said Kelley. “If (the magistrates) don’t vote for it, I won’t write that letter.”

It would also mean telling Burnside to call off the annexation plans, since they were only doing it to benefit the county in the first place and got no real tax benefits out of the deal. Burnside Mayor Ron Jones told the Commonwealth Journal earlier this week that there would be “no reason” to hold a vote on the annexation at the Burnside City Council’s next meeting if the county government no longer wanted it done.

Kelley continues to stress the low risk-high reward nature of the deal that would allow the concert promoter to hold an event based around headlining recording artists (likely from the country genre) that, if it succeeds, could bring in millions of dollars from outside tourists to Pulaski County each year.

“The promoter was wanting to do one concert this year, to just go in and try to see if it will work,” said Kelley. “That first year, if they can get between 3,000 to 5,000 people, they can see how everything works and the logistics with parking issues and shuttling issues, the buoys to get the boats in, then they can come back in year two and try to get 5,000 to 8,000 people and grow it.

“If they meet their year two goals, then they’re willing to put in the infrastructure to make this a more yearly, permanent thing,” he continued. “Basically, they’d have to do a contract every year with (Pulaski County) Fiscal Court. We’d tell them it’s for this weekend only. It’s the only time you can (sell) alcohol is this weekend. You can’t take the alcohol outside, you can’t bring alcohol in, it will be controlled.”

The promoter would be able to pay for a stage, barricades, other practical matters, and all that would be in place for other events the county could host there, said Kelley, who specifically mentioned Christian concerts and crusades. Reservations about the logistical matters of holding a concert at the park — including parking, access, and security — have been raised by those in vocal opposition to the annexation.

“We can’t afford to buy all the infrastructure we need, but this one particular company is willing to buy all we need if we’re willing to start the process,” he said. “It will be whoever leases the island who does security, parking, clean-up — all these concerns, the promoters will be responsible for. They could probably hire our sheriff’s department, pay them overtime and our police department and pay them overtime, and then bring in outside help. They could hire our solid waste (services). It’s not like it will put us out anything. We’ll make revenue all the way around. The key is, this particular company paying the way for us to do whatever we want to in the future.”

Kelley added that if the concert is successful, “I think two years from now, (those opposed to the plan) will look back and they’ll say, ‘It’s not that big of a deal.’”

It all now rests on a Tuesday fiscal court vote, however. First District Magistrate Jason Turpen, who represents the Nancy area, has already stated his opposition to the annexation to the Commonwealth Journal. The other four magistrates were contacted for comment on Friday, but none responded immediately.

[re3too]

It all sounds so simple. The proof would be in the pudding....

[E_]

http://www.somerset-kentucky.com/opinio ... 38b50.html

[E_]

Moving forward http://m.somerset-kentucky.com/news/jon ... l?mode=jqm

[E_]

IMG_20150405_090200.jpg (50.95 KiB) Viewed 10622 times

[E_]

Today at 6PM ET on http://www.wkyt.com/livestream

[E_]

http://www.somerset-kentucky.com/news/p ... ntent=READ

Park 5-08-15.png (270.28 KiB) Viewed 10395 times

http://www.somerset-kentucky.com/news/p ... ntent=READ

Park 5-13-15.png (195.65 KiB) Viewed 10395 times

[E_]

http://www.somerset-kentucky.com/news/b ... 0b708.html

Burnside: Somerset has to business in annexation issue

Burnside Reacts to Somerset's Opposition

555fb74eb284e_image.jpg (24.6 KiB) Viewed 10259 times

Burnside City Attorney Bruce Orwin

Posted: Saturday, May 23, 2015 7:30 am

BY CHRIS HARRIS




Legal counsel for the City of Burnside has responded to the letter sent to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers registering Somerset’s concerns about the controversial Pulaski County Park annexation.

Points made in the letter from Douglas L. McSwain from the law firm of Wyatt, Tarrant and Combs, LLP, drew criticism from Bruce Orwin, Burnside’s city attorney.


Orwin sent the letter to the Corps and asked that his reply be considered if McSwain’s was to be included in their record.

“It appears that Mr. McSwain’s letter includes matters that create a false impression on the impact to the City of Somerset by the proposed annexation,” reads the letter from Orwin dated May 22, of which the Commonwealth Journal obtained a copy.

“It appears that Mr. McSwain’s letter includes matters that create a false impression on the impact to the City of Somerset by the proposed annexation. I acknowledge that my friend Mr. McSwain has not attempted to mislead the Corp in his letter, but believe that he has not set forth the relevant facts correctly and/or creates a false impression of the proposed annexation.”

0002000004520000047544C,Orwin responded first to a portion of McSwain’s letter which stated that Somerset “operates public utilities, including water treatment and wastewater treatment facilities, which benefit both its residents and the residents of Burnside,” among others in the county.

“It is conceded that the City of Somerset operates water and sewage treatment facilities that provide drinking water and sewage treatment to both residents of the City of Somerset and others in Pulaski County,” reads Orwin’s letter. “What Mr. McSwain’s letter fails to point out is the City of Burnside also has a water treatment facility that draws water from Lake Cumberland and provides drinking water for a majority of the residents of Burnside as well as others in the area. The water drawn and treated by Somerset is then sold directly by Somerset to residents of the City and sold to rural water districts, associations and other cities for distribution in Pulaski County. The drinking water for Pulaski County Park and the rest of the annexed area is provided by the Western Pulaski Water District, not the City of Somerset.”

Added Orwin, “None of the utility infrastructure mentioned in Mr. McSwain’s letter is located within the area proposed to be annexed. No part of the water treatment, sewage treatment, or storm water disposal system mentioned by Mr. McSwain is located in or even in the proximity of the area proposed to be annexed. Somerset would have the right under state law to contest any annexation attempted where Somerset’s utility infrastructure is located in the area proposed to be annexed, (KRS 81A.427). However, no Somerset infrastructure is located in the area proposed to be annexed.”

Continued Orwin, “ In his letter, Mr. McSwain states that ‘a real potential exists that if Burnside’s new proposed annexation is approved, Burnside’s activities, including its intended use of the Pulaski County Park, could result in increased run-off into Lake Cumberland...’ It is important to note that the proposed annexation includes a small portion — approximately five acres — of the Pulaski County Park. The land on which the Pulaski County Park is located is owned by the Corp of Engineers, but is leased by Pulaski County.

[E_]

http://www.somerset-kentucky.com/news/s ... adc16.html

Somerset opposes Burnside's annexation of park


Pulaski County Park

555fb6353f405_image.jpg (15.66 KiB) Viewed 10259 times

The City of Somerset is opposed to Burnside's annexation of a portion of Pulaski County Park.


Posted: Saturday, May 23, 2015 7:45 am

BY CARLA SLAVEY




The City of Somerset has entered the fray on the possible annexation of a portion of Pulaski County Park by Burnside.

A letter on behalf of Somerset from Douglas L. McSwain from the law firm of Wyatt, Tarrant and Combs, LLP, has been filed with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It is meant to add the city’s objections to the corps’ official file on the proposed annexation of park property by Burnside.


Somerset City Attorney Carrie Wiese said the letter was sent “to address some of our concerns.” She stressed that Somerset was not taking legal action.

“The council would have to vote if it were a legal action,” she said, and added that the council has not voted on any legal matters in connection with the annexation issue, nor was she expecting the council to act against Burnside through any legal action.

The letter focuses on water and wastewater facilities owned by Somerset and how they might be impacted by the annexation.

The letter states, “Somerset operates public utilities, including water treatment and wastewater treatment facilities, which benefit both its residents and the residents of Burnside as well as thousands of others in the surrounding area. Somerset’s utilities and facilities either withdraw water from or discharge into Lake Cumberland. Somerset also has associated piping, valves and other infrastructure essential to the proper functioning and performance of these utilities and facilities.”

,Later, it continues: “Somerset is opposed to the annexation based on the very real possibility that the above-described services, and essential components involved in its providing these services, may be adversely impacted if the proposed annexation is approved.”

To back up its argument, Somerset points to both the facilities they run as well as the expected impact to the lake itself.

“For example, a real potential exists that if Burnside’s new proposed annexation is approved, Burnside’s activities, including its intended use of the Pulaski County Park, could result in increased run-off into Lake Cumberland as well as surface water contamination adversely impacting aquatic life, including protected species, which may live in or adjacent to Lake Cumberland, and its tributaries. These impacts could result in the degradation of uses of Lake Cumberland including recreational, commercial and other uses of the water. Further, upon annexation, Burnside’s activities could impact the water quality of Lake Cumberland. As a result, responsibility for water quality monitoring, testing and compliance with water quality standards should be the obligation of Burnside, a municipality that has not shown that it can or will comply with such requirements.”

[E_]

PC Park Annexation.png (218.58 KiB) Viewed 10199 times

[E_]

Most of the story above ends with this story here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7499

...well until they decide to use that 5 acres in the Park that is part of Burnside. ;-)