Many thanks to those of you who supported my mayoral candidacy.
While I am disappointed not to move on, I am glad to have had the experience.
Showing posts with label Campaign for Mayor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Campaign for Mayor. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Candidate Forum
At last night's candidate forum, 11 of us were asked various questions that were decided by the groups that sponsored the event; the Chamber of Commerce, the Association of Realtors and the Home Builders of Great Falls. Here and here are the articles from the Tribune.
The commissioner candidates received slightly different questions than those of us running for mayor.
When we were first told about this forum, we were told we would receive a copy of the questions a few weeks in advance in order to prepare. They decided not to do that so the first time any of us had any idea of what was going to be asked was 1 hour before the forum.
It did not come as a surprise to me that no question dealt with the pressing issues facing Great Falls; ECP, SME/HGS, Budget, Animal Shelter, Safety Levy, etc. We all know that the incumbents, Bronson and Rosenbaum, do not have worthy track records concerning these issues. Why would organizations they belong to set them up for failure at a forum?
Unfortunately, the questions that were asked gave little to no opportunity for us to hammer home why we are running for our respective positions. I question how many in the audience had ever heard of TIF (Tax Increment Financing) and Impact Fees, much less how these things work? Both of these are complicated topics that can't be addressed on the spur of the moment and with only a minute to speak.
When a question from the audience was asked about funding for the police and fire departments, I was able to get in a comment about ECP being subsizded by the general fund.
Many thanks to all of you who came up afterwards and thanked me for running and agreed with my platform of OTAG; Open, Transparent, Accountable Government.
The commissioner candidates received slightly different questions than those of us running for mayor.
When we were first told about this forum, we were told we would receive a copy of the questions a few weeks in advance in order to prepare. They decided not to do that so the first time any of us had any idea of what was going to be asked was 1 hour before the forum.
It did not come as a surprise to me that no question dealt with the pressing issues facing Great Falls; ECP, SME/HGS, Budget, Animal Shelter, Safety Levy, etc. We all know that the incumbents, Bronson and Rosenbaum, do not have worthy track records concerning these issues. Why would organizations they belong to set them up for failure at a forum?
Unfortunately, the questions that were asked gave little to no opportunity for us to hammer home why we are running for our respective positions. I question how many in the audience had ever heard of TIF (Tax Increment Financing) and Impact Fees, much less how these things work? Both of these are complicated topics that can't be addressed on the spur of the moment and with only a minute to speak.
When a question from the audience was asked about funding for the police and fire departments, I was able to get in a comment about ECP being subsizded by the general fund.
Many thanks to all of you who came up afterwards and thanked me for running and agreed with my platform of OTAG; Open, Transparent, Accountable Government.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Candidate Forum
When: Wednesday, Sept. 2 at 6:00pm
Where: MSU-COT
This forum is scheduled to last until 8:00pm. Questions will be asked by Gary Moseman of the Tribune.
This forum is scheduled to last until 8:00pm. Questions will be asked by Gary Moseman of the Tribune.
Candidate Video Responses
Here you can find a video of the candidates answering this question from Rich Ecke of the Great Falls Tribune:
Why should voters choose you rather than one of the other candidates?
Bob Jones and Rolland Leitheiser did not participate.
Why should voters choose you rather than one of the other candidates?
Bob Jones and Rolland Leitheiser did not participate.
7th And Last Question: Commission Raises
This is the last question the Tribune asked of the candidates:
Should part-time city commissioners give themselves a raise? Commissioners receive $487 per month, and the mayor receives $643 per month, in pay and expenses, and both positions qualify for health insurance.
MAYORAL CANDIDATES
Sandra Guynn: Given the economic conditions and that the city's 2009-2010 budget was not at all flush with excessive cash, the commissioners should not give themselves a raise.
John Hubbard: No, it should be based on what they have done for the community. Citizens don't have the ability to give themselves raises, so why should the city commissioners?
Michael Winters: No. No sitting elective board should raise its own pay. They should not be considered part-time. Pay raises when needed should only apply to the new incoming board, or at least apply to future boards.
Mike Witsoe: No, I should not give myself a raise. City commissioners choose to serve the public and take an oath to serve the people. Commissioners who work for the public and the public good should be paid a fair wage for the time they serve the people. Raise their salaries? I don't know.
Bill Bronson: No. Commissioners should not raise their compensation during their term in office. I would not support any increase at this time, and if an increase were approved, I would refuse to accept it during the balance of my term.
COMMISSIONER CANDIDATES
Donna Zook: No, I think it is absurd for the commission to ask for a raise during difficult economic times.
MAYORAL CANDIDATES
Sandra Guynn: Given the economic conditions and that the city's 2009-2010 budget was not at all flush with excessive cash, the commissioners should not give themselves a raise.
John Hubbard: No, it should be based on what they have done for the community. Citizens don't have the ability to give themselves raises, so why should the city commissioners?
Michael Winters: No. No sitting elective board should raise its own pay. They should not be considered part-time. Pay raises when needed should only apply to the new incoming board, or at least apply to future boards.
Mike Witsoe: No, I should not give myself a raise. City commissioners choose to serve the public and take an oath to serve the people. Commissioners who work for the public and the public good should be paid a fair wage for the time they serve the people. Raise their salaries? I don't know.
Bill Bronson: No. Commissioners should not raise their compensation during their term in office. I would not support any increase at this time, and if an increase were approved, I would refuse to accept it during the balance of my term.
COMMISSIONER CANDIDATES
Donna Zook: No, I think it is absurd for the commission to ask for a raise during difficult economic times.
Fred Burow: No, especially in this recession. Most people are just getting by. If our elected (officials) vote themselves raises, the feeling is that they are not in touch with the people that elected them. Everyone has heard the comment, "I wish I could vote myself a raise."
Kathleen Z. Gessaman: When the city has a budget that is not balanced by using money that depletes reserves and if cost of living increases justify a pay increase, the commission can consider granting a raise to new and/or re-elected members of the next City Commission. Sitting commissioner members should not benefit from any granted raise — any raise a commission approves should only apply to the newly elected and/or re-elected members of the next commission.
Robert G. Jones: No.
Rolland Leitheiser: I do not think that anyone runs for City Commission, or mayor for that matter, because of the pay. The commissioners should not give themselves a raise with the economy as it is. When the economy picks up, raises should only be given with a lot of public input, and then the raises should only take effect after the next election.
Ed McKnight: No. City commissioners should make their case with the public if they want a raise.
John Rosenbaum: No.
Kathleen Z. Gessaman: When the city has a budget that is not balanced by using money that depletes reserves and if cost of living increases justify a pay increase, the commission can consider granting a raise to new and/or re-elected members of the next City Commission. Sitting commissioner members should not benefit from any granted raise — any raise a commission approves should only apply to the newly elected and/or re-elected members of the next commission.
Robert G. Jones: No.
Rolland Leitheiser: I do not think that anyone runs for City Commission, or mayor for that matter, because of the pay. The commissioners should not give themselves a raise with the economy as it is. When the economy picks up, raises should only be given with a lot of public input, and then the raises should only take effect after the next election.
Ed McKnight: No. City commissioners should make their case with the public if they want a raise.
John Rosenbaum: No.
6th Question: Levies
Here are the answers to this question: Why did the city police and fire special levies fail, and what should be done, if anything, to improve staffing in those departments?
COMMISSIONER CANDIDATES
John Rosenbaum:I believe they failed because of the timing in the current economic climate. We could look for ways to be more efficient in other areas supported by the general fund. Those savings could then be used to fund public safety, one position at a time.
Donna Zook:The police and fire special levies failed because the residents could not afford or would not pay an increase in property taxes. Many citizens whom I have talked with believe that they are held responsible through taxation because funds are being shuttled from one program to another, and there is a drain on reserve money in order to compensate for budget problems. These citizens feel they should not be taxed to compensate for a financial loss due to the ECP (Electric City Power), animal shelter, City Planning and possible other ventures.
Fred Burow:One big reason the levies failed is the current economic condition. Second, people are tired of being asked to vote for more taxes. Fire and police are very important. I think everyone has great respect for both. Let's look at the whole city budget. We may have to slim down or, in some cases, cut nonessential programs and services in order to fund the most vital (ones).
Kathleen Z. Gessaman:Difficult economic conditions locally and nationwide helped to defeat the special levies. Most people I spoke with strongly support our local police and fire personnel, but were unable to afford the requested mill levy tax increase. The city manager, while maintaining a balanced budget, could use some of the additional money generated by the increase in property taxes (associated with new property appraisals) to fund critical staffing needs in these departments. Neighborhood councils could help the police by coordinating and promoting Neighborhood Watch. Reducing police involvement at the animal shelter could also help lighten the workload.
COMMISSIONER CANDIDATES
John Rosenbaum:I believe they failed because of the timing in the current economic climate. We could look for ways to be more efficient in other areas supported by the general fund. Those savings could then be used to fund public safety, one position at a time.
Donna Zook:The police and fire special levies failed because the residents could not afford or would not pay an increase in property taxes. Many citizens whom I have talked with believe that they are held responsible through taxation because funds are being shuttled from one program to another, and there is a drain on reserve money in order to compensate for budget problems. These citizens feel they should not be taxed to compensate for a financial loss due to the ECP (Electric City Power), animal shelter, City Planning and possible other ventures.
Fred Burow:One big reason the levies failed is the current economic condition. Second, people are tired of being asked to vote for more taxes. Fire and police are very important. I think everyone has great respect for both. Let's look at the whole city budget. We may have to slim down or, in some cases, cut nonessential programs and services in order to fund the most vital (ones).
Kathleen Z. Gessaman:Difficult economic conditions locally and nationwide helped to defeat the special levies. Most people I spoke with strongly support our local police and fire personnel, but were unable to afford the requested mill levy tax increase. The city manager, while maintaining a balanced budget, could use some of the additional money generated by the increase in property taxes (associated with new property appraisals) to fund critical staffing needs in these departments. Neighborhood councils could help the police by coordinating and promoting Neighborhood Watch. Reducing police involvement at the animal shelter could also help lighten the workload.
Robert G. Jones:I believe the special levies for city police and fire departments failed due to existing economic conditions. The additional hiring of 33 personnel and their placement also surprised many citizens because they were not informed of the personnel numbers needed prior to being asked to support the levies. A continued effort of informing the public of staffing needs is very important. We may want to consider smaller increments of personnel to improve staffing in the police and fire departments. To do so would require us to resolve the continued subsidies being taken from the general fund.
Rolland Leitheiser:The economy is the largest reason that the police and fire special levies failed. I am not convinced that a large staffing increase is needed at this time.
Ed McKnight:The proposed levies failed because the majority of voters said no to raising their taxes. According to the Tribune, City Manager Greg Doyon called this year's budget "relatively static," so as commissioners work with the public to check and balance how taxpayer dollars are being spent, then restore priority services with ample funding, that will bring peace of mind to citizens and increase confidence in our bravest and finest.
MAYORAL CANDIDATES
Bill Bronson:The levies likely failed because the majority of voters were concerned about the financial cost to them personally over the next few years. As a property taxpayer myself, I understand and appreciate that view, although I still supported the levies as necessary for improving public safety. The needs of both departments remain the same, regardless of the outcome of the levies. I will work to find other sources of funding for these needs over the next few years, including grants and the Montana Legislature, so that we can provide effective public services at levels that neither compromise public safety nor the safety of the police and firefighters.
Sandra Guynn:I believe the levies failed due to the tough economic times, although I do think citizens are also getting sick and tired of fiscal irresponsibility on the part of the city. Funds continue to lose money and, with the support from the incumbents, the city's reserves continue to be spent to cover these shortfalls. I am not at all confident in the numbers presented by the city, and I am not positive that we needed a public safety levy in the first place.
John Hubbard:We are in a recession and the people are over-taxed as it is. Considering the economic condition, nothing (should be done) at this point.
Michael Winters:I believe it was too much, too fast, too soon. While both levies were and are necessary and important for our community, the public felt put upon considering the increased tax burden imposed over the next several years. Most folks feel more effective management may very well be the right answer — more effective use of personnel and better time management.
Michael Winters:I believe it was too much, too fast, too soon. While both levies were and are necessary and important for our community, the public felt put upon considering the increased tax burden imposed over the next several years. Most folks feel more effective management may very well be the right answer — more effective use of personnel and better time management.
Mike Witsoe:I believe the fire and police levies failed because of the misappropriation of reserve funds and general city funds by the present and past administrations. Funneling those monies in to ECP, SME (Southern Montana Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative) and other various harebrained programs has caused the people to not have trust in their city government. Fire and police are sworn to protect and serve the people. City government has stolen from them and us. Vote for change; it's the only answer.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
5th Question: Speaking Limit
Here is the fifth question and responses:
Do you favor continuing to limit speakers to 5 minutes each during the commission's public comment period?
MAYORAL CANDIDATES
Mike Witsoe:Yes, I do, if they ramble on like I sometimes do. However, when professional, educated individuals have made a presentation to explain/question/qualify or to present a particular subject/point of view that is of public interest and detail, the time should be extended. The public comment period is for people to express their concerns, interests, fears and their passion. The public comment period should be earlier in the meeting so as to not force older concerned citizens to wait through the b.s. Public comment is the only true voice of the city's citizens.
Bill Bronson:Yes. It is a reasonable limit on comments made at the end of our commission meetings. I have yet to hear anyone that has come before the commission at the end of the meeting to offer a comment that cannot make their point in 5 minutes or less. The Montana Supreme Court has ruled that reasonable time limits are perfectly acceptable, and we should continue this rule for the public comment section of the agenda. It is important to note that the commission does not limit the time on statements made during public hearings or inquiries about proposed resolutions and the consent agenda.
Sandra Guynn:No, I do not favor limiting speakers to a 5-minute time limit. The mayor controls the meeting and, from the outset, can remind folks that in the interest of others, comments should be limited. If a speaker ignores that request, the mayor, as the chair of the meeting, can graciously tell them to conclude their remarks.
John Hubbard:The limit should be raised to 10 minutes. It should only be broken if the speaker is commenting on something of significance and their contribution is beneficial to the matter at hand.
Michael Winters:Anyone speaking before the commission should be able to say all he or she needs or wants to say in 5 minutes or less. The mayor or mayor pro tem should control the commission public comment period with professionalism and stay with the speaker's First Amendment rights. That does not allow the speaker to abuse those rights.
COMMISSIONER CANDIDATES
Ed McKnight:I do not agree with the 5-minute rule and I do not agree with the tightening of the muzzle on the public by the new decision that citizens are no longer allowed to ask questions during the public comment period.
John Rosenbaum:Yes.
Donna Zook:I do not believe in a strict 5-minute rule during the public comment period. However, I also believe that there is a respectful and dignified way of informing the individual speaker of the amount of time he or she is taking in order to accommodate all individuals who wish to speak. This is an issue of the parliamentary ability of the mayor.
Fred Burow:Yes. If 5 minutes are not enough, it can always be changed later. Unless you have some kind of a limit, some people get off track and ramble on and on.
Kathleen Z. Gessaman:I don't think a 5-minute limit is necessary if the commission's presiding officer follows Robert's Rules of Order, which provide the flexibility to limit the length of discussion when circumstances warrant such a limitation. However, this flexibility should not be abused just so the commission can wrap up their meetings quickly. If a popular topic encourages many citizens to participate in government, then the mayor or mayor pro tem could announce a 5-minute time limit per speaker so everyone has a chance to speak. The issue really is more one of appropriate leadership than arbitrary time limits.
Robert G. Jones:I do favor a time limit on speaking during the commission's comment period. I remain very open to what that time limit would be.
Rolland Leitheiser: I do not favor continuing the 5-minute limit. There has to be a reasonable amount of time for the public to comment.
Do you favor continuing to limit speakers to 5 minutes each during the commission's public comment period?
MAYORAL CANDIDATES
Mike Witsoe:Yes, I do, if they ramble on like I sometimes do. However, when professional, educated individuals have made a presentation to explain/question/qualify or to present a particular subject/point of view that is of public interest and detail, the time should be extended. The public comment period is for people to express their concerns, interests, fears and their passion. The public comment period should be earlier in the meeting so as to not force older concerned citizens to wait through the b.s. Public comment is the only true voice of the city's citizens.
Bill Bronson:Yes. It is a reasonable limit on comments made at the end of our commission meetings. I have yet to hear anyone that has come before the commission at the end of the meeting to offer a comment that cannot make their point in 5 minutes or less. The Montana Supreme Court has ruled that reasonable time limits are perfectly acceptable, and we should continue this rule for the public comment section of the agenda. It is important to note that the commission does not limit the time on statements made during public hearings or inquiries about proposed resolutions and the consent agenda.
Sandra Guynn:No, I do not favor limiting speakers to a 5-minute time limit. The mayor controls the meeting and, from the outset, can remind folks that in the interest of others, comments should be limited. If a speaker ignores that request, the mayor, as the chair of the meeting, can graciously tell them to conclude their remarks.
John Hubbard:The limit should be raised to 10 minutes. It should only be broken if the speaker is commenting on something of significance and their contribution is beneficial to the matter at hand.
Michael Winters:Anyone speaking before the commission should be able to say all he or she needs or wants to say in 5 minutes or less. The mayor or mayor pro tem should control the commission public comment period with professionalism and stay with the speaker's First Amendment rights. That does not allow the speaker to abuse those rights.
COMMISSIONER CANDIDATES
Ed McKnight:I do not agree with the 5-minute rule and I do not agree with the tightening of the muzzle on the public by the new decision that citizens are no longer allowed to ask questions during the public comment period.
John Rosenbaum:Yes.
Donna Zook:I do not believe in a strict 5-minute rule during the public comment period. However, I also believe that there is a respectful and dignified way of informing the individual speaker of the amount of time he or she is taking in order to accommodate all individuals who wish to speak. This is an issue of the parliamentary ability of the mayor.
Fred Burow:Yes. If 5 minutes are not enough, it can always be changed later. Unless you have some kind of a limit, some people get off track and ramble on and on.
Kathleen Z. Gessaman:I don't think a 5-minute limit is necessary if the commission's presiding officer follows Robert's Rules of Order, which provide the flexibility to limit the length of discussion when circumstances warrant such a limitation. However, this flexibility should not be abused just so the commission can wrap up their meetings quickly. If a popular topic encourages many citizens to participate in government, then the mayor or mayor pro tem could announce a 5-minute time limit per speaker so everyone has a chance to speak. The issue really is more one of appropriate leadership than arbitrary time limits.
Robert G. Jones:I do favor a time limit on speaking during the commission's comment period. I remain very open to what that time limit would be.
Rolland Leitheiser: I do not favor continuing the 5-minute limit. There has to be a reasonable amount of time for the public to comment.
4th Question: City Workers Pay Raise
Here are the answers to the fourth question asked by the Tribune:
Considering economic conditions, should the city continue to give pay increases of more than 3 percent annually to city employees?
Rolland Leitheiser:Pay increases to the city employee are important to retain quality workers. The poor economy does not reduce the cost of living. It is the city's responsibility to support their employees, so the city should continue giving pay raises to the city employees.
Ed McKnight:The city should live within its means. Therefore, city employee pay should be in line with local economic standards and conditions regarding the cost of living.
John Rosenbaum:No, not necessarily 3 percent or any other amount. We need to understand the market so that we don't train and then lose valuable employees to the private sector or to other cities when our pay scales are not competitive.
Donna Zook:In order to answer the question of a more than 3 percent raise to city employees, I have to know if there is a contractual issue between the employees, the city and labor unions. If there is a contract involved, it has to be studied before a pay increase greater than 3 percent can be given.
Fred Burow:Most of the city employees are covered by a bargaining contract. That contract should be honored. City employees not covered by a contract should (receive) the same percent raise.
Kathleen Z. Gessaman:The city should not pay more for personnel costs than it can afford while maintaining a balanced budget and adequate reserves. Any pay raises for city employees should be closely tied to the cost of living — especially in difficult economic times like the nation is currently experiencing. To cut costs, many employers have reduced staff or pay levels; other employers have limited the hours their employees work. The city of Great Falls depends on the economic well-being of its citizens to continue to function and needs to always be aware of the hardships taxpayers are experiencing.
Robert G. Jones:The city needs to responsibly pay its employees. They are the most important assets the city directs to deliver services to the public. Many employee contracts are negotiated for periods of one to three years, taking into consideration what's best for the public, community and employees. If economic conditions change during the terms of the contract, it's unfortunate, but the contract has to be honored. I believe the pay increases given to city employees are the responsibility of city management. When management enters into the collective bargaining process, it should be based on the interests of both parties.
MAYORAL CANDIDATES
Michael Winters:If there is a contractual agreement with city employees agreeing to certain pay raises, and the city has signed off on the contract, then the city must live up to the agreement.
Considering economic conditions, should the city continue to give pay increases of more than 3 percent annually to city employees?
Rolland Leitheiser:Pay increases to the city employee are important to retain quality workers. The poor economy does not reduce the cost of living. It is the city's responsibility to support their employees, so the city should continue giving pay raises to the city employees.
Ed McKnight:The city should live within its means. Therefore, city employee pay should be in line with local economic standards and conditions regarding the cost of living.
John Rosenbaum:No, not necessarily 3 percent or any other amount. We need to understand the market so that we don't train and then lose valuable employees to the private sector or to other cities when our pay scales are not competitive.
Donna Zook:In order to answer the question of a more than 3 percent raise to city employees, I have to know if there is a contractual issue between the employees, the city and labor unions. If there is a contract involved, it has to be studied before a pay increase greater than 3 percent can be given.
Fred Burow:Most of the city employees are covered by a bargaining contract. That contract should be honored. City employees not covered by a contract should (receive) the same percent raise.
Kathleen Z. Gessaman:The city should not pay more for personnel costs than it can afford while maintaining a balanced budget and adequate reserves. Any pay raises for city employees should be closely tied to the cost of living — especially in difficult economic times like the nation is currently experiencing. To cut costs, many employers have reduced staff or pay levels; other employers have limited the hours their employees work. The city of Great Falls depends on the economic well-being of its citizens to continue to function and needs to always be aware of the hardships taxpayers are experiencing.
Robert G. Jones:The city needs to responsibly pay its employees. They are the most important assets the city directs to deliver services to the public. Many employee contracts are negotiated for periods of one to three years, taking into consideration what's best for the public, community and employees. If economic conditions change during the terms of the contract, it's unfortunate, but the contract has to be honored. I believe the pay increases given to city employees are the responsibility of city management. When management enters into the collective bargaining process, it should be based on the interests of both parties.
MAYORAL CANDIDATES
Michael Winters:If there is a contractual agreement with city employees agreeing to certain pay raises, and the city has signed off on the contract, then the city must live up to the agreement.
Mike Witsoe:I'm sorry, but I must say no. The cost of living and present economy dictate that the worst is not over. The taxpayers/property owners/senior citizens and the children aren't getting raises. We/they/I cannot give more than 3 percent annually. The people working in the public sector, business, state government and the general public are between a rock and a hard spot. No more raises.
Bill Bronson:Contracts approved for the two-year period July 2009-July 2011 provide for a 3.25 increase the first year, but the second-year increase is limited to 1.5 percent. The first year increase may seem high in relation to some wage increases in other sectors, but city employees did not have major increases in pay over the past few years, and the first-year increase was an appropriate way to play catch-up. These wage packages were negotiated in good faith with our various unions and should be honored. The amount of future increases will depend on several factors, including maintaining salaries competitive with the private sector.
Sandra Guynn:I would not have voted for this increase. In these tough economic times and the less than rosy financial picture of the city, an increase of 3 percent should not have been authorized. If elected your mayor, I will vote against any raises for the 2010-2011 budget year.
John Hubbard:No, until the economy has become more stable and we are out of the recession, we should avoid giving pay increases. We should put a freeze on raises and new taxes.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
3rd Question: Golf And Swim Funds
Here are the candidates responses to this question:
What should the city do to improve the bottom line for its golf courses, which are to receive $245,000 in subsidies this year, and swimming pools, which are scheduled to receive a subsidy of more than $580,000 from the general fund?
What should the city do to improve the bottom line for its golf courses, which are to receive $245,000 in subsidies this year, and swimming pools, which are scheduled to receive a subsidy of more than $580,000 from the general fund?
MAYORAL CANDIDATES
John Hubbard:I think if the golf courses and swimming pools were to lower their prices, they would have more business. After all, less is more.
Michael Winters: Lower entrance fees to allow everyone the opportunity to enjoy our pools and golf courses. At neighborhood pools, all children under age 12 should be admitted free. Adults and those over 12 would pay a reasonable fee. Lower fees will encourage greater usage. Rather than considering selling one of the golf courses, why not consider leasing one to a local company to run as a for-profit business that would appeal to tourists, out-of-town visitors and local golf enthusiasts? Treat customers like they are important. Consider leasing a good restaurant at Eagle Falls course. Currently, we are pricing ourselves out of business.
Mike Witsoe:Whoa! The biggest bleeder of all! Park and Rec. (Recreation) has been completely unorganized, overpaid, understaffed, lacking a qualified director, since 1994. Two thousand season pass holders in the 1990s, 700 in 2009 — where did all the golfers go? They raise fees, raise fees, raise fees! They forgot about seniors, students and family oriented golf. The foundation of all successful golf, skiing and swimming programs is the number of participants and a strong season pass foundation. Swimming is for kids. Missoula's water park costs $5 or less. Missoula has season passes, family oriented swimming. New blood in Parks and Rec. is the only answer.
Bill Bronson:I support continued operation of our swimming pools; our young people use the pools heavily, and they are a good use of taxpayer dollars. The community's 2006 vote in favor of capital improvements to our pools demonstrates the public supports this approach. As for golf, the commission has been working with staff and an advisory board to improve management and marketing at both courses, with the goal of making them more profitable. Within two years, should it appear current operation levels are not sustainable and we are still not able to cover all expenses, we will have to look at other options.
Sandra Guynn:I think both of these funds need to be examined very closely as to why they continue to lose money. It concerns me greatly when the director of the Fiscal Service Department reported that the golf fund would receive a $240,000 "gift" from the general fund. This was done in order to reduce the red ink this fund has been wallowing in for the past several years. Shifting monies around to make certain funds look better does not solve the problem. it adds to it.
John Hubbard:I think if the golf courses and swimming pools were to lower their prices, they would have more business. After all, less is more.
Michael Winters: Lower entrance fees to allow everyone the opportunity to enjoy our pools and golf courses. At neighborhood pools, all children under age 12 should be admitted free. Adults and those over 12 would pay a reasonable fee. Lower fees will encourage greater usage. Rather than considering selling one of the golf courses, why not consider leasing one to a local company to run as a for-profit business that would appeal to tourists, out-of-town visitors and local golf enthusiasts? Treat customers like they are important. Consider leasing a good restaurant at Eagle Falls course. Currently, we are pricing ourselves out of business.
Mike Witsoe:Whoa! The biggest bleeder of all! Park and Rec. (Recreation) has been completely unorganized, overpaid, understaffed, lacking a qualified director, since 1994. Two thousand season pass holders in the 1990s, 700 in 2009 — where did all the golfers go? They raise fees, raise fees, raise fees! They forgot about seniors, students and family oriented golf. The foundation of all successful golf, skiing and swimming programs is the number of participants and a strong season pass foundation. Swimming is for kids. Missoula's water park costs $5 or less. Missoula has season passes, family oriented swimming. New blood in Parks and Rec. is the only answer.
Bill Bronson:I support continued operation of our swimming pools; our young people use the pools heavily, and they are a good use of taxpayer dollars. The community's 2006 vote in favor of capital improvements to our pools demonstrates the public supports this approach. As for golf, the commission has been working with staff and an advisory board to improve management and marketing at both courses, with the goal of making them more profitable. Within two years, should it appear current operation levels are not sustainable and we are still not able to cover all expenses, we will have to look at other options.
Sandra Guynn:I think both of these funds need to be examined very closely as to why they continue to lose money. It concerns me greatly when the director of the Fiscal Service Department reported that the golf fund would receive a $240,000 "gift" from the general fund. This was done in order to reduce the red ink this fund has been wallowing in for the past several years. Shifting monies around to make certain funds look better does not solve the problem. it adds to it.
CITY COMMISSION CANDIDATES
Robert G. Jones:(Golfing friends) say golfing in Great Falls is the best deal around the state, with two courses. To improve the bottom line, we need to consider increasing the cost of season passes or eliminating them and implementing a pay-as-you-play system. We need to decide if the city can operate two golf courses profitably. Swimming pools nationally receive subsidies. However, $580,000 from the general fund seems extremely high, even considering carrying the debt of the Flow Rider. We need to consider our operating season, including days lost to inclement weather. A restructuring of our operation may be needed.
Ed McKnight:Seriously investigate privatization.
Rolland Leitheiser:Both the golf courses and the swimming pools are valuable amenities. If the city of Great Falls is to attract new businesses, amenities are very important parts of that process. Raising the rate will not improve the bottom line. I do not believe that funding these amenities from the general fund is wrong. I do not think that either of them needs to be self-sufficient — the parks, the tennis courts, the ball parks all need funding. We just need to run them as efficiently as possible, and fund the rest of it.
John Rosenbaum:The city's golf courses are long-term recreational facilities that enhance our city. However, we need to take a serious look at the practicalities of continuing with the number of courses we currently have. The swimming pools are an investment in our community, and especially young people's recreational opportunities. I believe they are extremely important, but we do need to examine if we are funding the pools adequately. Maybe we won't call it a subsidy — we will call it funding.
Donna Zook:Before I can make a decision on subsidies to the golf course and swimming pool, I need to review the whole financial picture in order to reconcile the financial situation. The city already has obligations to ECP (Electric City Power), the Animal Shelter and city development, and there are too many factors with regard to these obligations that are unknown to the public. The commission has not given the public straight answers with regard to various obligations and citizens are dismissed when the issues are raised at public meetings.
Robert G. Jones:(Golfing friends) say golfing in Great Falls is the best deal around the state, with two courses. To improve the bottom line, we need to consider increasing the cost of season passes or eliminating them and implementing a pay-as-you-play system. We need to decide if the city can operate two golf courses profitably. Swimming pools nationally receive subsidies. However, $580,000 from the general fund seems extremely high, even considering carrying the debt of the Flow Rider. We need to consider our operating season, including days lost to inclement weather. A restructuring of our operation may be needed.
Ed McKnight:Seriously investigate privatization.
Rolland Leitheiser:Both the golf courses and the swimming pools are valuable amenities. If the city of Great Falls is to attract new businesses, amenities are very important parts of that process. Raising the rate will not improve the bottom line. I do not believe that funding these amenities from the general fund is wrong. I do not think that either of them needs to be self-sufficient — the parks, the tennis courts, the ball parks all need funding. We just need to run them as efficiently as possible, and fund the rest of it.
John Rosenbaum:The city's golf courses are long-term recreational facilities that enhance our city. However, we need to take a serious look at the practicalities of continuing with the number of courses we currently have. The swimming pools are an investment in our community, and especially young people's recreational opportunities. I believe they are extremely important, but we do need to examine if we are funding the pools adequately. Maybe we won't call it a subsidy — we will call it funding.
Donna Zook:Before I can make a decision on subsidies to the golf course and swimming pool, I need to review the whole financial picture in order to reconcile the financial situation. The city already has obligations to ECP (Electric City Power), the Animal Shelter and city development, and there are too many factors with regard to these obligations that are unknown to the public. The commission has not given the public straight answers with regard to various obligations and citizens are dismissed when the issues are raised at public meetings.
Fred Burow:How are the subsidies being spent? Is it a one-time cost for repairs and equipment? If not, then find ways to cut costs or look to user fee increases.
Kathleen Z. Gessaman:The public golf courses and swimming pools are wonderful resources for Great Falls residents and visitors. With the implementation of point-of-sale money collection systems, the city should soon have a better idea of when, what for and how much money is collected from these operations. Hopefully, this will allow identification of nonvalue-added activities and lead to productivity improvements. The city could pursue sponsorships to help reduce the golf debt and Flow Rider operating costs. Finding grant money to install a solar water heating system at the Flow Rider should be a city priority.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
2nd Question: Recycling Fee
(Don't forget to check out Sandra Guynn For Mayor for additional comments on these issues).
In today's paper, the candidates responses to this question were published:
City government may soon consider a $1.50 monthly charge on city households to support recycling, which has been a money-losing venture for the city. Would you favor such a fee, and why or why not?
COMMISSIONER CANDIDATES
Kathleen Z. Gessaman: What will citizens get for this monthly charge? Nothing different than now! Montana Waste Systems (MWS), a Montana, private, tax-paying company, provides a bin and curbside pickup twice a month for $2 per month. I support recycling but don't believe the city has adequately established its costs. Reported recycling costs may be inflated by other activities occurring at the Citizens Convenience Center. I don't think we should charge any fees until we can better identify the true costs of recycling to the city.
Robert G. Jones: If the city government is considering a $1.50 monthly charge to city households to help support recycling, I would want considerable discussion. I believe recycling is very important and a noble undertaking for the city, but we have other ventures that are losing money that need our attention. The golf courses and swimming pools have had considerable difficulty meeting operational needs and carry outstanding debt. The utility arm, Electric City Power, is also losing money and borrows from the city General Fund. I believe we need to set priorities and resolve present issues before asking the citizens for more money.
Rolland Leitheiser: A charge of $1.50 per month sounds very reasonable; I am not sure that this would be the end of the problems of recycling. As the economy worsens the cost of recycling will continue to increase. How many times do we go to the citizens and increase this fee to pay for recycling? I believe that the city should find a way to continue recycling without adding a monthly fee.
Ed McKnight: Recycling is an example of a community-oriented project and decision. A private recycling business operates in town at a profit. Before burdening the public with increases there should be a realistic assessment of why the city is unable to operate at a profit and alternatives should be examined.
City government may soon consider a $1.50 monthly charge on city households to support recycling, which has been a money-losing venture for the city. Would you favor such a fee, and why or why not?
COMMISSIONER CANDIDATES
Kathleen Z. Gessaman: What will citizens get for this monthly charge? Nothing different than now! Montana Waste Systems (MWS), a Montana, private, tax-paying company, provides a bin and curbside pickup twice a month for $2 per month. I support recycling but don't believe the city has adequately established its costs. Reported recycling costs may be inflated by other activities occurring at the Citizens Convenience Center. I don't think we should charge any fees until we can better identify the true costs of recycling to the city.
Robert G. Jones: If the city government is considering a $1.50 monthly charge to city households to help support recycling, I would want considerable discussion. I believe recycling is very important and a noble undertaking for the city, but we have other ventures that are losing money that need our attention. The golf courses and swimming pools have had considerable difficulty meeting operational needs and carry outstanding debt. The utility arm, Electric City Power, is also losing money and borrows from the city General Fund. I believe we need to set priorities and resolve present issues before asking the citizens for more money.
Rolland Leitheiser: A charge of $1.50 per month sounds very reasonable; I am not sure that this would be the end of the problems of recycling. As the economy worsens the cost of recycling will continue to increase. How many times do we go to the citizens and increase this fee to pay for recycling? I believe that the city should find a way to continue recycling without adding a monthly fee.
Ed McKnight: Recycling is an example of a community-oriented project and decision. A private recycling business operates in town at a profit. Before burdening the public with increases there should be a realistic assessment of why the city is unable to operate at a profit and alternatives should be examined.
John Rosenbaum: This is a two-part question to me. The first part of the question is if $1.50 is the amount needed to run the program and what is the program? Second, are we going to include the private sector in the program, so that we do not duplicate their program, and can we be more efficient and cost effective? We have yet to see a business plan or a complete proposal yet.
Donna Zook: Yes. I believe in recycling.
Fred Burow: Looks like we have another feel-good program that's losing money. There are several recycling businesses in the area. Scrap iron, aluminum cans, cardboard, hides, autos; all can be recycled. Presently, the cost of collecting bottles, plastic, newspapers, etc. is too much. Let the professional businesses handle recycling. If and when the price of recycling these items becomes profitable, the pros will collect them. It's time to think outside of the box. When you have people that are part of the current system or think that way, change is impossible. Someone outside the system can have different ideas.
MAYORAL CANDIDATES
Sandra Guynn: At this time, I do not favor the city continuing its involvement in recycling. First and foremost, cities have a responsibility to provide core services in a fiscally prudent manner. Providing recycling services is not a core service of the city. It has been reported from the Public Works Department that even by adding this proposed fee, recycling will continue to lose money. It is not fiscally responsible to continue to provide a secondary service that doesn't break even.
John Hubbard: Personally, I don't believe another charge would benefit our city. However, I do believe we need to support recycling and we should create an alternative method to do so.
Michael Winters: I believe recycling is an important and priority program. Before charging $1.50 per household the City Commission should first explore how communities of similar size in Montana are handling recycling, then devise a management program to educate and encourage participation. Let's put in place a program interesting enough that makes us want to be part of. Generally, it isn't the program that is failing and losing money, it is more often lack of interest. Let Great Falls become a leader in community action affairs.
Mike Witsoe: Yes, I would! Private enterprise or environmentally organized individuals who care about real recycling, yes. The present division of city government running garbage and recycling has no conception of recycling! New blood from the top down is the only way for the city of Great Falls to join the 21st century ideals on the environmental impact of our waste. Give the young, educated people who care a chance to show us how it works in Missoula, Bozeman, Helena and the rest of the West!
Bill Bronson: Yes, I support imposition of a nominal monthly fee to cover recycling costs. Based on information currently available from the Public Works Department, we can probably limit the costs to about $1 per month. This is a small price to pay for encouraging a responsible activity like recycling.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
What The Commission Candidates Think Of ECP
The Tribune has started to print answers to various questions they submitted a short time ago to the City Commission candidates. You can find today's article pertaining to ECP here. Unfortunately, I could not find the candidates answers online so scanned the print version of them.
The first question:
Do you think the city should shut down its utility arm, Electric City Power, or should the city try to make its venture more profitable? The city stood to lose an estimated $4.75 million if it suddenly liquidated its electrical energy business earlier this year.
My responses and additional comments to all of the questions will also be posted at my Sandra Guynn For Mayor blog as well.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Friday, July 3, 2009
Final Slate Of Candidates
Yesterday was the final day to file for the Mayoral seat and two City Commissioner positions on the City Commission. Following are the candidates for each office, listed in alphabetical order:
Mayor:
Mayor:
Bill Bronson (current City Commissioner)
Sandra Guynn
John Hubbard
Michael Winters
Michael Witsoe
City Commissioner:
Fred Burow
Kathleen Gessaman
Robert Jones
Roland Leitheiser
Ed McKnight
John Rosenbaum (incumbent)
Donna Zook
Monday, June 29, 2009
Saturday, June 20, 2009
For The Record
There was something oddly familiar about one of the suggestions newly filed Mayoral candidate Mike Winters made to the Tribune:
Winters also suggested the City Commission set up an office in the Civic Center for a half day two or three times a week when the public could come in to talk to a commissioner or the mayor.
I first suggested that very idea at the mayoral forum that was held at NC#3 on June 4. KRTV and one other source have my remarks on tape.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Feel Free To Respond
A commenter asked on another post how things went last night at the mayoral forum.
Since I was a participant, I don't feel it appropriate that I respond.
If you attended and wish to comment, please feel free to do so.
Since I was a participant, I don't feel it appropriate that I respond.
If you attended and wish to comment, please feel free to do so.
Thank You!
Thanks very much to Neighborhood Council 3 for hosting last night's mayoral candidate forum.
I very much appreciated the opportunity to express my position and answer questions from the audience.
KRTV was there as well and filed this report.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Mayoral Candidates
On Thursday night (6/04), at Neighborhood Council 3's meeting, Bill Bronson and I are on the agenda. According to Tim Austin, chair, the following format will be used:
1. Each of us will have between 10-15 minutes to talk about our candidacy.
2. For up to 30 minutes, questions will be taken from the audience.
Update:
Here is a memo from Tim Austin:
If you have a question to ask the Mayoral Candidates: Bill Bronson and/or Sandra Guynn, now is the time.
If you cannot make the meeting, but you would like to ask a question, please send me an email at: austindesigns@yahoo.com
If you cannot make the meeting, but you would like to ask a question, please send me an email at: austindesigns@yahoo.com
Saturday, May 2, 2009
NEWS RELEASE
This is a personal post from me, Sandra Guynn, aka GFGirl and the author of Cataract City.
I have made the decision to run for the Great Falls mayoral position.
I have been involved in Great Falls government for about four years. I am currently in my second year as the chair of Neighborhood Council 4.
My platform is very simple:
OPEN, TRANSPARENT, ACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENT (OTAG)
According to the city's organizational chart, the citizens are #1. Unfortunately, the citizens have not been treated as #1 for a number of years. If elected, I will change that.
A separate campaign blog will be up and running soon. I will continue to post to Cataract City as I always have.
A press release was sent yesterday. KFBB came and did a short interview, which aired last night on the 10:00p.m. news. (For the record, my last name rhymes with "win").
(Here is the Tribune's article from Sunday's (5/03) paper).
(Here is the Tribune's article from Sunday's (5/03) paper).
"For Citizens To Win, Vote For Guynn"
Thanks in advance for your support!
Thanks in advance for your support!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)