Letter to the Editor

New 'trinket'?

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Dear Editor,

After the Oct. 17 City Council meeting, several folks stopped by and urged I comment ... it didn't take much coaxing.

Unfortunately, the treatment of Missy Nelson is the norm for several folks responsible for "managing" our fair city. I was amazed she even got on the agenda. Whenever I've asked, I've been told there is no room on the agenda for six or seven months ... seems the city is too busy to meet with us lowly taxpayers, including those who represent MPPD. It's too bad some "old hands" are tainting others with this bad attitude.

At that meeting, the council agreed to let bids for a 2006 4-wheel drive seven passenger vehicle so the fire chief could haul personnel to "out of town emergency incidents."

Please give us a "fer instance" of an "out of town emergency incident." (The Firemens' Ball in Benkelman doesn't count.) How often do these "incidents" occur?

If it's an emergency, won't our fire/emergency equipment be needed? Is there some new rule that personnel can't ride in vehicles already responding, or have they been walking to such incidents all along?

We already provide the fire chief with a five-passenger 4WD vehicle. Now he wants us to spend $35,000 to carry two more folks! How was the number of seven personnel determined? Some incidents might require only four to be transported, what if it requires nine? Does he leave two standing on the curb?

Emergency to me would mean get there as fast as you can, not sit in front of the firehouse and wait for six volunteers to show up.

The City Council should not waste our money on this unnecessary trinket. Do they have the guts? What is next, a slurry bomber in case there's a forest fire in Kelley Park?

Excluding the pleasure of the fire chief, if truly used for "out of town emergency incidents," chances are the improved auditorium seats would be used more often than the proposed vehicle.

When Missy questioned the use of sales tax funds, Mr. Bingham responded that "the sales tax had a specific list of projects and every project approved by the voters was completed."

Not so fast, John, as voters, we could not and did not approve "projects," we approved the sales tax. As I recall, it was to generate approximately $1,000,000 a year -- $500,000 for capital improvements and $500,000 for property tax relief. (Did you all enjoy your property tax relief?)

If all projects are complete (the swimming pool, etc.), then the city should have $500,000 a year to spend on new projects. An outside audit of sales tax funds should be required by the council to clear up the confusion.

Wouldn't it be nice if those who govern suffered from the same affliction as Pinocchio?

'Nuff said.

Bill Frasier,

McCook

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: