OK, there wasn’t much worth reporting on from the Jeffersontown City Council meeting last night, with the exception of the curious decision to start charging people for the privilege of playing tennis on the city-owned clay courts in Plainview.
The decision to charge for playing time on the outdoor courts was approved by a 4-3 vote. In theory, the high-maintenance court surfaces cost the city money, and the plan to charge for their use will help cut the total expense.
But seriously, it’s hard to imagine people paying for something they’re used to getting for free. There is simply not much demand for clay surfaces.
Bill Dieruf, a 2010 Mayoral candidate, opposed the plan and favors paving the courts with asphalt which would allow them to be used year-round. Dieruf said the Plainview facility is not a country club and doesn’t need to offer similar amenities.
Mayor Clay Foreman said it would cost $180,000 to pave the six courts.
The suggested charge is $16 for an hour, which seems barely enough to pay someone minimum wage to collect the money.
Ray Perkins, who supported the measure, said that since people have to pay to play other sports and swim, it’s only natural for them to have to pay to play tennis.
But you can play tennis all over town for free, as long as they don’t want to play on clay courts.
10 responses so far ↓
1 Willie Loomis // Jul 7, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Come on Ray, you’re smarter than that. When you have dozens and dozens of swimmers it makes sence to pay someone to collect money. So, now we have to pay someone a minimum wage to collect $16.00 an hour from people that won’t come pay-to-play.
Dieruf’s approach was right, it just had some bad economic timing.
2 Steve Bittenbender // Jul 7, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Personally, I think clay courts are better than asphalt or hard surfaces. In fact, I didn’t even know the city had clay courts.
How much are the clay courts costing the city? I can’t imagine it would be more than $180K. I realize that’s a one-time cost versus an annual cost, but I’m just trying to get an idea for what’s cost-effective.
Not that I’m a J’town resident, but I do work in J’town and a good chunk of my food money is spent there. Just want to know my money’s being invested properly.
3 Chubby Ray Perkins // Jul 7, 2009 at 5:41 pm
In a perfect world, they should be paved, but $180,000 for paving is ridiculous. We’re not talking a large portion of the J-town community that even uses them. It wouldn’t hurt my feelings to get rid of the Plainview Facility all together. Nor do I think a majority of the citizens of Jeffersontown would care either. Sell it to a private investor & let them see how much would be charged then. One other point. It’s 20% cheaper then what Metro Louisville charges at the tennis center across from the zoo. You’re making a mountain out of a mole hill on this one. This is on a trial bases anyway. If it doesn’t work we can always change it later.
4 Jeff Gillenwater // Jul 7, 2009 at 8:12 pm
But not cheaper than what Metro Louisville charges for the clay courts at Chickasaw Park, which are free.
In a perfect world, all the free tennis courts would be clay, except for the grass ones.
5 Chubby Ray Perkins // Jul 7, 2009 at 8:53 pm
I’ll tell you what. If you can convince the rest of the council on adopting some of the numerous other cost cutting measures I’ve introduced, I’ll gladdly vote for free tennis!! :-) Sacrifices have to be made somewhere. I’m sorry
6 Edward Loomis // Jul 8, 2009 at 9:39 am
Wasn’t even aware that tennis was free at Plainview and I would love to play on clay courts. May have to go by there soon. I definitely wouldn’t pay to play on them though. One thing I know, this city doesn’t need anymore hard courts.
7 Rick Weber // Jul 9, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Everyone in that lives in Jeffersontown have made sacrifices. How about reducing the number of city council members back to 6 we do not have to have 8. That would save about $30,ooo a year.
8 Chubby Ray Perkins // Jul 10, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Rick Weber you must have been talking to your buddy Kay Ackerson. She made the same suggestion a few months back. Maybe instead of lowering the # of councilman we could just reduce the pay to each. Either way is fine with me I was in the top 6.
9 Rick Weber // Jul 10, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Ray, all I am saying and have been for awhile is why should we have to pay for something that we do not have to have…..the 2 council people that were added 8 or 9 years ago. This city is not being run any better than it was before they were added. If the city is really trying to cut cost this then this is a no brainer.
10 Chubby Ray Perkins // Jul 15, 2009 at 12:11 am
I see your point :-)
Leave a Comment