The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About2009 Mayor's letter to the Editora Letter to the Editor: Tom, for your consideration: CANDIDATE FORUM I believe the community owes a big thank you to the organizers, steering committee, supporters and volunteers of the McCall City Council Candidate Forum held Monday evening at the Idaho First Bank. The forum was well organized and moderator Cheryl Haas did an excellent job in conducting the forum in a manner that was fair and equitable to both the incumbents and challengers. I also appreciate the candidates who participated in the forum and who shared their views and opinions on issues and questions put to them. It is neither an easy nor an enjoyable experience. But it is important and gives the community a better look at the candidates on a level playing field. While everyone is entitled to their opinions on issues, I don't believe they are entitled to their own set of facts. There were several statements made at the forum that I feel need clarification: 1. Mr. Lyons said that the City Council never voted on approving a business park at the airport proposed by Mr. DeBoer. That's true. The reason is because Mr. DeBoer's airport business park proposal never came before the Council for a vote. What came before the Council was a Through The Fence (TTF) proposal. This proposal would have allowed private development of hangers and other businesses outside the boundary of the city airport but with access to the airport literally "through the fence". For many reasons including the lack of a specific proposal, disagreements over lease rates, opposition by the FAA, and the fact that the proponent, Mr. John McKeown, never came before the City Council to explain, or speak on behalf of his proposal, the proposal failed. It was not voted on because the motion to approve it did not receive a second which is required to bring it forward for a vote. The motion died for lack of a second. Although Mr. DeBoer's business park and Mr. McKeown's TTF are related proposals and may have some day been connected, they are two separate proposals, not one. One came before the council and one did not. Treating the two proposals as one, as Mr. Lyons apparently did, is not only inaccurate, it implies the City Council does not support a business park at the airport and feeds the contention that the City does not support business or development. Not so. The McCall Comprehensive Plan identifies two future business park locations: one is adjacent to the airport, and the other is called the Krahn Lane/Sampson Trail business park area. The City Council has been and continues to be in support of both business parks. In fact, with the help of two grants totaling $22,000 the City just completed a Business Park Design Charrette (a grass roots ground up plan) for the Krahn Lane/Sampson Trail area. 2. Mr. Lyons indicated there are presently three ongoing law suits involving the City. That's not correct. There are five. One involves an individual who slipped on a curb and is suing the city. Another involves an auto accident between a private vehicle and city vehicle. The owner of the private vehicle is suing the City. Both of these suits are being handled by the City's risk management insurance company, ICRMP. The third law suit was brought against the City by a group of property owners in Bear Basin concerning the location and ownership of the Bear Basin Road. This suit is being resolved without going to trial by the City validating the location and ownership of the road. The fourth law suit is the dispute between the City and the Payette Lakes Water and Sewer District regarding wastewater treatment issues. That suit has been on hold while the parties work to find a mutually agreeable settlement. It seems like that ought to be simple. It's not. As of this date we have not reached agreement. The fifth law suit is a malpractice suit initiated by a previous City Council against attorneys who handled the J-Ditch litigation. It has been said "no more law suits". That would be wonderful, and I agree we should do all we can reasonably do to avoid or settle them. There are much better things on which to spend tax dollars. The City can't pass an ordinance prohibiting law suits. And in todays litigious society, it's a pipe dream to think there will be "no more law suits". 3. Mr. Parker stated that legal fees account for 20% of the City's 2010 budget . That is incorrect. The amount is just over 1.3% 4. Mr. Bailey stated that the City Council has agreed to fund the Upper Payette River Economic Development (UPRED) Council on a quarterly basis. That is incorrect. The City Council has earmarked $30,000 for economic development in 2010 but no decision has yet been made on how to allocate those funds. The City Council did agree to fund VARHA (Valley Adams Regional Housing Authority) for one quarter in the amount of $3750 and will decide on any future funding before the end of the quarter. Our goal in both these programs is to get the best value we can for the money we invest in them. 5. It was stated the city manager "turned away" potential businesses that were brought to his attention. That is incorrect. The city manager has no authority to, nor is it in the City's best interest to turn away potential businesses. Any business willing to follow city ordinances is welcome in McCall. 6. Mr. Lyons suggested that the City could pay off the J-Ditch revenue bond and reduce both water and sewer rates by selling or leasing city property. This option -r-j was explored by the City Council while we were reviewing all possibilities to satisfy the J-Ditch judgement against the City. While it is possible to dispose of surplus or unneeded city property, the amount of such property is relatively small, and its estimated value is insufficient to pay off the judgement. In addition the process to dispose of city property is, and should be, a long and cumbersome one. 7. Lastly, many of the challengers seem to conveniently forget that this "J-Ditch mess that has cost this City millions of dollars" was begun almost 10 years ago. No one, not one, of the existing City Council or even the previous City Council was in office at the time. Additionally, the existing city manager, while employed by the city at the time was not the city manager and was not involved in City Council decisions. Had the present City Council not issued the revenue bond to pay the judgement when it did, interest and penalties would have continued to accrue and the final bill (and the resulting rise in sewer rates) would have been even higher. It was time to stop the bleeding, put the issue behind us and move on. One final thought and plea, the election on November 3rd is critically important to the future of our city. Your current city council works very hard as a team on your behalf to make decisions they feel are in the best interests of all the citizens of this great community. Please exercise your right to vote. Bert Kulesza Mayor and citizen of McCall (written on his own behalf)