Goshen advances $14M bond for pool despite uncertainty
GOSHEN — City officials are moving toward a $14 million bond issue to overhaul Shanklin Pool despite angst over the amount of uncertainty coming out of Indianapolis.
Goshen Common Council on Monday passed the bond issue on second reading after weighing the chances the pool project may have to be paused. The city's revenue may suffer if Gov. Mike Braun prevails in his insistence on strict tax cuts, council heard.
'We're in a heartbreaking situation. I mean, we never anticipated to be in this spot,' said Redevelopment Director Becky Hutsell. 'We have moved forward with best efforts, we talked with council on several occasions. We've done all of the proper steps. It's just, this is unexpected. And it's whether or not there's a comfort level to take the risk.'
Councilman Doug Nisley put it more bluntly. He said he's interested in keeping the project moving forward but has doubts that state lawmakers won't rob the city of revenue with any tax reforms that eventually pass.
'I don't know if I want to say I have confidence in our legislators that they're not going to screw us over too bad,' he said.
'Can you say it louder for the people in the back,' Mayor Gina Leichty said.
Goshen stood to lose more than $9.5 million in revenue over three years – out of a countywide loss of over $140 million – in fiscal impact analyses of tax overhaul bills introduced this year. The legislature scaled back the cuts in amended versions of the bills, but Braun threatened to veto those if passed.
The city started looking at options for overhauling the pool in Shanklin Park in 2023. Council was given the option of spending more than $4 million to help the 50-year-old pool limp along for a few more years, or investing over $12 million to build a larger, more modern facility.
The original hope was to open the new pool in time for Memorial Day 2026, according to Hutsell. The pool will have to stay closed this year regardless of whether the renovation plan moves forward, due to costly and dangerous mechanical issues, council heard.
A number of steps have already been taken which wouldn't have to be repeated if the city is forced to shelve the project for a year, Hutsell said. She said the risk lies in whether or not the city has the money available to repay the bond.
'If it's a $14 million bond, there's a tax rate that's associated with it for the debt payment,' she said. 'But then that also results in a circuit breaker loss for us that's around $400,000 a year that we would lose from our general operating.'
Actually selling the bonds would mark the point of no return, which is a risk council members agreed they had no stomach for at this point. The city likely won't know if it's safe to pull the trigger until April.
'That's $300,000 to $400,000 we'd have to find within the budget,' Councilman Brett Weddell said. 'Which probably could be done, unless we're losing half a million, $1 million, $3 million out of our budget each year, and then that becomes really dicey.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump should not control US Marshals, our courts' last line of defense
During his first term in office, President Trump pulled no punches in his personal attacks on federal judges with whom he disagreed. For instance, in February 2017, Trump called U.S. District Judge James L. Robart a 'so-called judge' after he temporarily stopped Trump's travel ban. In his second term, Trump has upped the ante. In his all-caps 2025 Memorial Day message, Trump denounced what he claimed were 'USA-HATING JUDGES WHO SUFFER FROM AN IDEOLOGY THAT IS SICK, AND VERY DANGEROUS FOR OUR COUNTRY.' Presidents have long expressed their unhappiness with court decisions they disagree with, often in public. But President Trump takes a different approach from other presidents by personally attacking judges. This violates decades of norms of presidential respect for the judicial branch and has important consequences. Most notably, physical threats against federal judges reached an all-time high during Trump's first term. And things have only gotten worse. This year alone, the U.S. Marshals Service, the law enforcement agency charged with protecting federal judges, has investigated almost 400 threats to federal judges, with 162 judges facing threats between March 1 and April 14. Much of the recent intimidation comes in the form of 'pizza doxing,' in which federal judges receive unsolicited pizza deliveries to their homes. The recipient of these deliveries is listed as Daniel Anderl, the late son of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, who was killed by a gunman who was targeting Salas. Recognizing this problem, Democratic members of Congress have introduced the Marshals Act, which would move the U.S. Marshals Service from the executive branch to the judicial branch, overseen by a board that includes the chief justice of the United States and the Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking body of the federal courts. Congress should pass this important legislation. By bringing the Marshals Service under the authority of the judicial branch, the nation can better protect the safety of federal judges. In addition, the act anticipates two very real possibilities, helping the nation avoid a potential constitutional crisis. First, the Trump administration has violated federal judicial orders relating to federal funding, the freedom of the press and the deportation of immigrants without due process of law. If the administration continues to ignore court decisions, the primary tool at the disposal of judges is to hold Trump administration lawyers in contempt of court. This usually begins with a fine, but can escalate to jail time if the administration continues to refuse to comply with court orders. Here's the problem: The entity charged with enforcing a criminal contempt of court order by making the arrest is the U.S. Marshals Service. Since the Marshals are under the control of the executive branch, President Trump could simply order the Marshals not to enforce the court order. This would render the judicial branch powerless over the Trump administration, setting off a constitutional crisis. By moving oversight of the Marshals from the executive branch to the judicial branch, we can avoid this crisis since federal judges would surely enforce their own orders. Second, there are concerns that Trump may order the Marshals to stop protecting federal judges. This wouldn't be the first time Trump has removed protective details for federal officials. For example, in his second term, Trump pulled security details for former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former national security advisor John Bolton and President Biden's adult children, Ashley and Hunter Biden. It is hardly a stretch to imagine Trump removing the Marshal's protection of federal judges. We can avoid this by putting the Marshals Service under the control of the judicial branch, which will no doubt ensure its judges get the protection they need. As Chief Justice Roberts stated in May, 'Judicial independence is crucial' to the American separation of powers system, which 'doesn't work if the judiciary is not independent.' In the current era, our system of checks and balances is deteriorating, and the judicial branch is arguably its weakest link. Passing the Marshals Act will strengthen judicial independence by allowing judges to render decisions free from concerns about intimidation or retribution from those who would do them harm. Paul M. Collins, Jr. is a professor of Legal Studies and Political Science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and the coauthor of 'The President and the Supreme Court: Going Public on Judicial Decisions from Washington to Trump.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Letter: Trump is hardly the Christian he keeps pretending to be
In his Memorial Day speech at Arlington National Cemetery, President Donald Trump said he brought America soccer's World Cup tournament, the Olympic Games, and the Army's 250th-year celebration in his second term. He then said that God made it happen. I believe God gives us free will and that it was Trump who ordered a parade of weapons in our nation's capital. On his birthday. The president using God's name to honor himself is indeed blasphemy. So is Trump a Christian as he claims? True Christians adhere to the teachings of Jesus Christ, including forgiveness, repentance, compassion for the poor and marginalized, integrity and sincerity and love of enemies. But Trump focuses his administration on retribution, refuses to admit when he is wrong, cuts nutrition and health benefit programs, tells lies by the thousands and savages anyone who disagrees with him. Though Trump does not exhibit Christian values, he courts those who follow Jesus for their political support and donations. Some Christians may support Trump because he claims to protect the unborn, a reversal of the position he held before entering politics. Such Christians should not turn a blind eye to the living children who will go hungry without federal aid to food banks and government nutrition assistance. And across the globe millions of children will suffer from cuts to foreign aid. See Trump for who he really is. Sam Morris Exeter Township
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump should not control US Marshals, our courts' last line of defense
During his first term in office, President Trump pulled no punches in his personal attacks on federal judges with whom he disagreed. For instance, in February 2017, Trump called U.S. District Judge James L. Robart a 'so-called judge' after he temporarily stopped Trump's travel ban. In his second term, Trump has upped the ante. In his all-caps 2025 Memorial Day message, Trump denounced what he claimed were 'USA-HATING JUDGES WHO SUFFER FROM AN IDEOLOGY THAT IS SICK, AND VERY DANGEROUS FOR OUR COUNTRY.' Presidents have long expressed their unhappiness with court decisions they disagree with, often in public. But President Trump takes a different approach from other presidents by personally attacking judges. This violates decades of norms of presidential respect for the judicial branch and has important consequences. Most notably, physical threats against federal judges reached an all-time high during Trump's first term. And things have only gotten worse. This year alone, the U.S. Marshals Service, the law enforcement agency charged with protecting federal judges, has investigated almost 400 threats to federal judges, with 162 judges facing threats between March 1 and April 14. Much of the recent intimidation comes in the form of 'pizza doxing,' in which federal judges receive unsolicited pizza deliveries to their homes. The recipient of these deliveries is listed as Daniel Anderl, the late son of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, who was killed by a gunman who was targeting Salas. Recognizing this problem, Democratic members of Congress have introduced the Marshals Act, which would move the U.S. Marshals Service from the executive branch to the judicial branch, overseen by a board that includes the chief justice of the United States and the Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking body of the federal courts. Congress should pass this important legislation. By bringing the Marshals Service under the authority of the judicial branch, the nation can better protect the safety of federal judges. In addition, the act anticipates two very real possibilities, helping the nation avoid a potential constitutional crisis. First, the Trump administration has violated federal judicial orders relating to federal funding, the freedom of the press and the deportation of immigrants without due process of law. If the administration continues to ignore court decisions, the primary tool at the disposal of judges is to hold Trump administration lawyers in contempt of court. This usually begins with a fine, but can escalate to jail time if the administration continues to refuse to comply with court orders. Here's the problem: The entity charged with enforcing a criminal contempt of court order by making the arrest is the U.S. Marshals Service. Since the Marshals are under the control of the executive branch, President Trump could simply order the Marshals not to enforce the court order. This would render the judicial branch powerless over the Trump administration, setting off a constitutional crisis. By moving oversight of the Marshals from the executive branch to the judicial branch, we can avoid this crisis since federal judges would surely enforce their own orders. Second, there are concerns that Trump may order the Marshals to stop protecting federal judges. This wouldn't be the first time Trump has removed protective details for federal officials. For example, in his second term, Trump pulled security details for former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former national security advisor John Bolton and President Biden's adult children, Ashley and Hunter Biden. It is hardly a stretch to imagine Trump removing the Marshal's protection of federal judges. We can avoid this by putting the Marshals Service under the control of the judicial branch, which will no doubt ensure its judges get the protection they need. As Chief Justice Roberts stated in May, 'Judicial independence is crucial' to the American separation of powers system, which 'doesn't work if the judiciary is not independent.' In the current era, our system of checks and balances is deteriorating, and the judicial branch is arguably its weakest link. Passing the Marshals Act will strengthen judicial independence by allowing judges to render decisions free from concerns about intimidation or retribution from those who would do them harm. Paul M. Collins, Jr. is a professor of Legal Studies and Political Science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and the coauthor of 'The President and the Supreme Court: Going Public on Judicial Decisions from Washington to Trump.'
