According to another very unofficial poll, the public safety levy being recommended by the city will not pass.
In today's Tribune, the results from yesterday's Buzz question: "Would you support a public safety levy?" did not pass. Out of 447 votes cast, 63% said no and 37% said yes.
As mentioned here, the proposed amount of the levy would increase taxes by about 25%.
According to the minutes of the special meeting held Jan. 28, Commissioner Bronson "..believes it is necessary for the public and private sectors to step up in hard times. He is willing to take the risk and believes the public will too once they fully understand all of the ramifications".
I hate to say it, but I have a very strong feeling that if this levy doesn't pass, the spin will be that the public is the bad guy. Ignored will be the millions of dollars lost on at least two projects (here and here) the citizens weren't given the right to vote on.
In today's Tribune, the results from yesterday's Buzz question: "Would you support a public safety levy?" did not pass. Out of 447 votes cast, 63% said no and 37% said yes.
As mentioned here, the proposed amount of the levy would increase taxes by about 25%.
According to the minutes of the special meeting held Jan. 28, Commissioner Bronson "..believes it is necessary for the public and private sectors to step up in hard times. He is willing to take the risk and believes the public will too once they fully understand all of the ramifications".
I hate to say it, but I have a very strong feeling that if this levy doesn't pass, the spin will be that the public is the bad guy. Ignored will be the millions of dollars lost on at least two projects (here and here) the citizens weren't given the right to vote on.
26 comments:
The City Commission is attempting to spin this levy as totally unrelated to the coal plant, but in my mind the two are very closely related.
Let the public decide how much safety they want. I disagree that this has any relation to the coal plant. Most major cities have a safety levy, and it is true that for a city this size, we are short on firefighters and police officers.
It makes sense to first stop the bleeding from the budget, then perhaps funding for necessary protective services could begin to become available without raising our taxes further. Of course this solution makes too much sense for our current leaders to possibly comprehend!
Of course our current funding shorfalls are related to monies spent -- and lost -- in extra curricular "adventures" like the Coal Plant and the city takeover of Animal Control (and going back a few years, L&C Bicentennial, Flow Rider, Skate Park, etc. and unfortunately etc.)
However, Fire Department resources now do not meet national standards. Police Department programs have been cut, and community-based policing commitments have been ignored. Crime is now on the increase in our neighborhoods.
What's worse, if the immature squabble between the County Commission and the Sheriff is not resolved, the County Jail will have to suddenly release a lot of inmates.
We can and should make legitimate criticisms of the uses to which our public dollars have been spent. However, the money is gone and now we have to decide whether or not we want to continue such luxuries as police and fire protection.
While I do not like the way our money was spent, I am not willing to cut off my nose to spite my face. If I have a fire at my home or business, I would like there to be a chance of saving those structures. I would like to live in a community without excessive crime, and I would like to see those that commit crime to be punished. Passing the public safety levy will ensure the protection of our community, and I think that is too important to deny.
If we want to punish those that spent our money foolishly, I suggest that this November will be a city election.
Simple solution: put the shelter money in protective services viola problem solved. I for one am not voting yes to waste more of our tax dollars period. It's time to tighten our belts and cut the fat from every place possible.
viola?
Handing this crop of city ninnies more tax funds would be like handing a twenty to an alcoholic on the sidewalk.
We've gone this long without. Wait until the next election so we can throw out the bums first.
I'm not voting for any mill levy increase these yahoos come up with. The money would be there if they hadn't been hell bent on involving the city in the coal plant fiasco. Instead of apologizing to the tax payers of Great Falls for their stupidity... the mayor and city commission now want more money... simply because they are inept.
Our community can protect itself thank you very much. We are not a bunch of sheep like those crying wolf for safety and security.
When I see grown men pushing this kind of claptrap I think we are living in San Fransisco, not Great Falls. Good grief, what has happened to the western pride of self reliance?
Sounds like the city and Mayor Stebbins are trying to cover up a shortfall of city money created by spending money on things we didn't have a chance to vote on, like the coal plant. Why am I not surprised?
The "Stebbins" city administration has a history of questionable money handling. Like the money the city is spending on an expensive water rights consultant to tell them to amend the city's historic water rights claim before adjudication, when they could meet with someone from the MT Water Rights Bureau about the claim and determine the best course of action FOR FREE. The city of Cascade had water rights up for adjudication too. Someone should investigate what they did; they did not hire a consultant.
Didn't I also hear she voted for a pay raise for her husband, a city employee, after promising in her pre-election days she would abstain from any votes that would represent a conflict of interest?
It will be so nice when that woman is out of office. Great Falls' largest public safety hazard is Mayor Stebbins. She is the worst thing that has ever happened to this city.
She also has no clue on how to run a meeting correctly so would the city please buy her "Roberts Rules of Order" and have someone read it to her.
Perhaps the Neighborhood Councils can promote/reinvigorate the Neighborhood Watch program so "self-reliant” citizens can regain control of their neighborhoods (becoming better acquainted with their neighbors would be a nice benefit). The Neighborhood Watch program can give the police dept. eyes and ears all over the City. To fund additional police and fire protection I suppose we could sell the Anaconda Hills golf course.
"Let the public decide how much safety they want"
How about letting the public decide how much they want the city to fund bone headed projects and then not have enough money left over for the really important stuff?
Aaron,
I don't disagree with your assesment of supporting public safety. It's easy to identify a problem but you'll have to provide a better solution than "throwing money at it"
Anonymous 12:29 PM
A good example of throwing money away is HGS. Wake up and get out of it and the sooner the better.
Dear Adults,
From an interview with Czech writer Milan Kundera, 1975.
He says about his book, "The Book of Laughter and Forgetting"
"The basic event of the book is the story of totalitarianism, which deprives people of all memory and thus retools then into a nation of children. All totalitarianisms do this. And perhaps our entire tecnical age does this, with its cult of the future, its cult of youth and childhood, its indifference to the past and mistrust of thought."
There are still adults in Great Falls. They have memories but need be carful they do not suffer retaliation for exercising free speach rights in public.
I have a copy of the YVEC REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION served to ECP/City. Many of the questions have been asked over the past years by the public. Answere have been multiple choice or non existant.
It has been a shame that elected officials never asked these questions. I think the Mill Levys have a slim chance but the public will have to be provided answers to every question asked by YVEC. I do thank YVEC for asking these questions. I wish the city could get on their side of the table.
Mary Jolley
Retaliation for a citizen speaking his or her mind is wht the City Commission is all about Commissioner Jolly.
"The city of Cascade had water rights up for adjudication too. Someone should investigate what they did; they did not hire a consultant."
Every water right in the state is being adjudicated.
Cascade is a Town, not a city. (Just in case anyone wishes to "look it up")
I did look it up, and with all due respect, you should have too, before you try to compare it with the situation in Great Falls, or suggest that DNRC will take the place of a water right expert in a situation like Great Falls was in.
And this has what to do with the "Special Levy" ?
EXTORTION...aka, shakedown.......
Of course it's 100% the public's fault. The public elected the college drop out to another term as mayor.
With a dismal record, they somehow expected Stebbins to better understand business, constitutional rights and economics the second time around. This shows a severe lack of judgment and common sense on the part of the electorate.
A big fat tax increase is just what they deserve. We'll call it a tax on stupidity.
It's your fault voters, enjoy it.
Ah... the mill levy increase has to be approved... before we have a big fat tax increase.
The reason Stebbins won a second act as mayor was because two other candidates running against her (who were close politically) would not combine forces to help oust her.
Excuse me Firefly for calling Cascade a city. I committed a terrible sin.
I guess you needed to call me on that just to make yourself feel superior. Before you criticize someone for their error, perhaps you should do some research.
Water rights are up for adjudication in basins across the state, true, but you ignore the fact that the adjudication process is the same whether it is city or town--it is still MUNICIPAL water rights.
And you are wrong when you say "every water right in the state is being adjudicated." Four basins are long past the adjudication stage, have already gone to water court and have final decrees.
So why don't you get YOUR facts straight before you blog.
Oh, come on. Is that really the best that you can do?
What "MUNICIPAL" water right does Cascade have that diverts water from the Missouri River for the direct beneficial use of its residents?
Firefly, you are skirting the issue.
It is irrelevant whether the water comes from the Missouri or other sources, you don't need to hire an overpaid consultant to tell you what to do with your water rights, if you can read and understand English.
Oh, maybe that's the problem. No one at the city is smart enough to understand how water rights work.
How about sticking with the real issue, which is city spending and accountability.
The city continues to make poor choices where spending is concerned and the public needs to start asking questions. The city needs to start listening to its citizens.
I am skirting the issue? I believe you brought it up. I just wanted to point out one apple does not cost the same as a dozen oranges. I certainly believe the City could do a better job fiscally, but...
With all due respect, I have been writing about this for a while. I have personally discussed specific water rights, adjudication, claim options, etc with DNRC on a number of occasions. I have been told repeatedly by DNRC water resources personnel that they cannot give legal advice.
“It is irrelevant whether the water comes from the Missouri or other sources” I call B.S. It is entirely relevant to your claims. Great Falls diverts ALL of it’s Municipal water from the river.
Simply, I think accusations like this one are exactly why bloggers get accused of being underinformed, nasty, etc. I really don't give a crap about feeling superior to an "anonymous" on a blog. I just wanted to see if you would actually back up your statements.
Firefly you really need to be more honest. Anyone reading this topic can clearly see you deliberately misquoted me.
Here is what you claim that I wrote (in quotes) and your response:
“It is irrelevant whether the water comes from the Missouri or other sources” I call B.S. It is entirely relevant to your claims. Great Falls diverts ALL of it’s Municipal water from the river.
What I actually wrote was:
"It is irrelevant whether the water comes from the Missouri or other sources, you don't need to hire an overpaid consultant to tell you what to do with your water rights, if you can read and understand English."
Of course it is relevant to the WATER RIGHTS CLAIM where the water is coming from. I never said it wasn't.
However, take a look at the information in the city's records, information which is also posted elsewhere on this blog.
From 2001-2008, more than $61,000 was spent on a water rights consultant with questionable ethics (conflict of interest issues).
Too many years and too much money has been spent for something that would take any reasonably smart person a few days at most. Another example of the city spending money irresponsibly.
You say the DNRC can't give legal advice and that is true. But the DNRC does send claim review abstracts with issue remarks to the claimants.
Those issue remarks detail the problems that the DNRC claims examiners have found regarding each water rights claims. Remarks often tell how much water the claim can appear to support, among other things. If there are no issue remarks, the water court usually accepts the findings of the examiner in the preliminary decree.
According to the DNRC Water Rights Database, only ONE (41Q 105494 00) of the fourteen water rights claims the City of Great Falls currently holds has any issue remarks.
So far, you have failed to give any information on why the city would need to spend $61,000 and eight years on one water rights claim. Water rights are not hard to understand. It doesn't take a consultant.
Post a Comment