Editor:
As a concerned citizen, and very active volunteer for our town, I have doubts about some of the items in question.
One being, the Weddle Bridge. There are conflicting statements made by the city manager, Craig Martin. Recently, my husband has brought up questions as to who will be responsible for the upkeep. It has been made very clear that the organization who was supposed to maintain it has defaulted on its commitment. And now it is in the hands of the city.
My husband asked during the March 14 City Council meeting if there is an estimated amount of the cost and was told by Martin “there is not at this time.” The confusing part is back on Nov. 8, 2005, on a request for council action, he states “the total cost to restore the bridge to public use is estimated at this time to be between $70,000 and $120,000.” So is there or is there not? And if the city is hoping to have all repairs done before the Jamboree, who is going to pay?
It was stated by the city manager that they are looking into installing a security camera that will be audible at the cost of $1,500 in order to catch the kids using foul language. Nothing was said about the damage that was done, but that their worst problem there is kids using profanity. And who will pay for that? Yet, when someone asked about having cameras installed at Sankey Park for the graffiti last year, it was said that the city has no funds available. So again, who is going to pay?
Well, the answer, I am sure, to both is the “taxpayers.” And who will pay for the police and library levies if passed? Yes, the good old taxpayers.
I for one, am fed up, especially when I read the City Manager’s report, dated March 28, 2006, where it states “our finances have been for the better as opposed to the worse, resulting in a much more positive financial picture than previously” and why is that? Yes, once again the “taxpayers.” Why don’t they use the income generated from Sweet Home’s Municipal Court? A copy of the monthly report for February 2006 showed a net accounts receivable of $902,554.90. Where does that money go?
And the last confusing thing is that during the Feb. 14, 2006 City Council meeting, I asked the newly appointed council member Rowley how many City Council meetings has he attended in the last 12 months. His response was that the only one he has attended is when he was interviewed for the position at the prior meeting.
A comment made by Councilman Gourley was confusing. He stated “Planning Commission members try not to attend City Council meetings since there may be a conflict of interest.” Correct me if I am wrong, but the only conflict of interest is if a Planning Commission member was directly and financially involved on an issue. So to make this type of statement would be incorrect, Councilman Gourley.
Again, I am asking for more involvement by the citizens of this city. It is your tax money! Come to the City Council meetings and help change this city to the better before it is too late.
Kim Lawrence
Sweet Home