The Fire Bond Referendum: Town Hall Leaves A Bad Taste

As a citizen who attended that Laurel Canyon Fire Referendum meeting, I am shocked at the lack of professionalism displayed by Councilman Huffman. Furthermore, I am very concerned that all options have not been explored in relation to fire service. It was clear the plans for these stations and services have not been specifically thought out as evidenced by the use of the words: "maybe", "it could", "unsure", etc. This lack of clear planning is unacceptable, and therefore, I will still be voting NO! Here is a general listing of issues as I see them:

1)      Estimates for the stations were verified by a construction company by which Councilman Jack Goodwin is employed. Furthermore, to my knowledge, they have never constructed a fire station. 

2)      The figures that were presented were skewed, at best, and very hard to understand. The presentation of the figures was inconsistent across the board. 

3)      The initial cost may be minimal, but the long term looks very expensive due to the operations of these stations (staffing, equipment, etc.).

4)     Councilman Huffman and Rush say that the seniors are “exempt”. Where does that leave young homeowners? Also, council has gone after the senior exemption once; therefore, it would only make sense for them to try to take it away again in the future.

5)      County taxes have already been collected for two fire stations. Why should city taxpayers be double taxed?

6)      According to many citizens, the county shows up first over 90% of the time.

7)      The County Fire Trucks are always dispatched with EMS. The City is not required to do so.

8)      Huffman says the bonds will only be issued up to $6,000,000 and that the cost could be less. Well, the “study” was conducted in 2008. Things have changed since, and please refer to the reservoir as a glaring example of council cost management overruns. Almost every government project has cost overruns.

9)      Why is this referendum being put to a vote without exploring the county merger opportunity in full? It is my understanding the council refused to allow the County to make a presentation on this matter.

10) How does this encourage growth within the City? If the taxes are raised, this will be one more reason for people to purchase property outside of the city, including new businesses. 

11)   What are the personal agendas behind the passing of this referendum?

The following was in today's Cherokee Tribune about the Town Hall Meeting:

"Cherokee County Fire Chief Tim Prather said Tuesday the agreement works in the favor of both the city of Canton and Cherokee County. “As it stands now, we help the city and they help us,” Prather said. “And that won’t change. I think Canton’s fire department is doing a great job with what they have to work with, but we have stations close to two of these proposed Canton stations, that need to be rebuilt. Seeing as how we have taxpayer money earmarked for that, to me, it doesn’t seem to make sense from the taxpayers’ perspective to pay the city for these new stations, when they’re paying the county to rebuild stations nearby.”

“I don’t think people are going to care what the letters on the fire trucks say when they pull up to their house,” Prather added."

 I am very proud of the citizens that came to this meeting. If anything, it shows the City Leaders that as citizens, we are paying attention. Also, not one single citizen spoke in favor of this referendum. The only people in favor, that vocalized their position, where the councilman presenting. I think the other Councilman should host Town Hall's in their respective Wards.