Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Les New, Rodney Brown Win School Board Election
Les New and Rodney Brown have won the Worth County School Board Election. Les New won with 231 votes, followed by Brown with 188. Incumbent Karen Fletchall followed with 127 votes. Mary Jo Fletchall followed with 120 votes. Julia Cox followed with 68.
The county was divided, with four different people winning in different jurisdictions. New and Brown received their biggest support in Allendale (Smith Township), where Brown had 39 votes, New had 35, Mary Jo Fletchall had 9 votes, Karen Fletchall 6, and Julia Cox 5. Mary Jo Fletchall shared first place with New in the absentee ballots and won Worth (Middlefork). Karen Fletchall won Denver (Allen). Les New and Rodney Brown won everywhere else.
The levy question in Worth won handily, with 18 yes votes and 2 no votes.
Full details will be in tomorrow's Sheridan Express.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Five Initiative Petitions Approved for Circulation for 2012 Ballot
Secretary of State Robin Carnahan today announced that one initiative petition relating to early voting, two initiative petitions relating to early voting and election procedures, and two initiative petitions relating to the Missouri House of Representatives met state standards for circulation.
The ballot title for the petition relating to early voting reads:
Shall Missouri law be amended to expand options for voters by allowing them to cast ballots in person prior to federal general elections without the current absentee ballot excuse requirement?
It is estimated state government entities would reimburse election authorities for incurred costs of at least $974,016 in fiscal year 2015 (one-time costs of $676,800 and on-going costs for each federal election of $297,216). Those costs may be higher depending on the compensation, staffing and planning decisions of affected election authorities.
The ballot titles for both petitions relating to early voting and election procedures read:
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to allow early voting prior to federal general elections and include certain procedures relating to voter identification affidavits, voting address updates, and provisional ballots?
It is estimated state government entities would incur unknown potential costs and local governments would incur costs of at least $1,256,256 (one-time costs of $676,800 and on-going costs for each federal election of $579,456). Those costs may fluctuate depending on the compensation, staffing and planning decisions of election authorities.
The petition related to early voting, which would amend Chapter 115 of the Missouri Revised Statutes, and the petitions relating to early voting and election procedures, which would amend Article VIII of the Missouri Constitution, were submitted by Mr. Matt Cologna, 2923 S. Chantilly Lane, Springfield, MO 65804, 573-424-7382.
The ballot titles for both petitions relating to the Missouri House of Representatives read:
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to reduce the number of members and districts of the Missouri House of Representatives from 163 to 103 beginning with the 2023 General Assembly?
Annual estimated savings to state government would be at least $4.7 million. No fiscal impact is expected for local governments.
The petitions relating to the Missouri House of Representatives, which would amend Article III of the Missouri Constitution, were submitted by Mr. Russell C. Purvis, 10104 N. Helena Ave., Kansas City, Mo., 64154, 816-769-4559.
Before any constitutional changes can be brought before Missouri voters in the November 2012 election, signatures must be obtained from registered voters equal to eight (8) percent of the total votes cast in the 2008 governor's election from six of the state's nine congressional districts. For statutory changes, signatures must be obtained from registered voters equal to five (5) percent of the total votes cast in the 2008 governor's election from six of the state's nine congressional districts.
Signatures on behalf of all initiative petitions for the 2012 ballot are due to the Secretary of State’s office by no later than 5 p.m. on May 6, 2012.
Before circulating petitions, state law requires that groups must first have the form of their petition approved by the Secretary of State and Attorney General. The Secretary of State then prepares a summary statement of no more than 100 words and the State Auditor prepares a fiscal impact statement, both of which are subject to the approval of the Attorney General. When both statements are approved, they become the official ballot title.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Senate finalizes resolutions combining education departments
Voters would have final say in November whether to combine the state's education departments into a single department under a measure cleared by the Senate. Following a sluggish session on April 21, senators unanimously approved resolutions the following day to combine the two education departments into one responsible for overseeing kindergarten through the completion of undergraduate education. A single board would oversee the state's entire public school system.
Senate action had been stalled over arguments as to how much power the new education board should have over higher education institutions. Ultimately, the passage was assured when the version before the Senate effectively made no substantive changes in the current level of independence by the various higher education institutions. As with the existing board, the new board would not take any new powers and would continue to be subject to state law. After discussion on the size and term limit for the board, the senate decided it would consist of six members appointed by the governor and approved by the senate to serve six-year terms. No more than three members could be from a single political party. Since the resolutions would alter the state constitution, they would go on this November's general election ballot. If the resolutions pass, they would go into affect July 1, 2011.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Election Results for April 6th, 2010
Sheridan Mayor:
Leland Wake 51
Gene Via 12
Grant City Marshall:
David Snow 31
Tyler Hann 86
Lenny Campbell 36
Allendale Board of Trustees:
Kevin Harding 22
Bill Calhoon 19
Willie Stewart 12
Darrell Lamb 17
Joe Hertl 2
Bobbie Novak 3
Allendale Levy Renewal:
Yes 25
No 0
Denver Levy Renewal:
Yes 13
No 2
Worth County Levy Renewal:
Yes 345
No 97
Phone Franchise Fee:
Yes 275
No 160
Worth County School Board (includes Nodaway County):
Karen Fletchall 271
Mary Jo Fletchall 191
Jubal Summers 319
Nursing Home Board District Six:
Anthony Steinhauser 62
Sharon Nonneman 43
Northeast Nodaway School Board (Includes Worth County):
Chris Redden 137
Charlie Standiford 111
Diane Wiederholt 248
Cecilia Gallagher 153
55 Cent Levy:
Yes 181
No 159
Leland Wake 51
Gene Via 12
Grant City Marshall:
David Snow 31
Tyler Hann 86
Lenny Campbell 36
Allendale Board of Trustees:
Kevin Harding 22
Bill Calhoon 19
Willie Stewart 12
Darrell Lamb 17
Joe Hertl 2
Bobbie Novak 3
Allendale Levy Renewal:
Yes 25
No 0
Denver Levy Renewal:
Yes 13
No 2
Worth County Levy Renewal:
Yes 345
No 97
Phone Franchise Fee:
Yes 275
No 160
Worth County School Board (includes Nodaway County):
Karen Fletchall 271
Mary Jo Fletchall 191
Jubal Summers 319
Nursing Home Board District Six:
Anthony Steinhauser 62
Sharon Nonneman 43
Northeast Nodaway School Board (Includes Worth County):
Chris Redden 137
Charlie Standiford 111
Diane Wiederholt 248
Cecilia Gallagher 153
55 Cent Levy:
Yes 181
No 159
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Worth County Election Results for August 4, 2009
Brush Control Ordinance:
Yes 331
No 102
Road Rock Levy:
Yes 299
No 136
Yes 331
No 102
Road Rock Levy:
Yes 299
No 136
Thursday, July 23, 2009
County Commissioners Answer Ballot Initiative Questions
The Worth County Commissioners have provided the Sheridan Express with written answers to frequently asked questions about the road rock fund as well as the brush removal ordinance which are both on the ballot on August 4th. Poll information is on Page 5.
How much is needed to pass?
Both measures require a simple majority to pass.
Why should the voters of Worth County vote for and pass the Gravel Tax and Brush Enforcement Law?
There are several reasons why the residents will benefit if these two issues are approved. One is to improve Worth County roads. This will allow for absentee landowners to contribute and help maintain our roads. They typically use these roads for recreation on a regular basis, but have had no responsibility in the maintenance of these roads. Worth County is one of the few places in the country that does not have the benefit of the two proposals. The positive impact of these two issues would have numerous benefits to families living here in the county.
Better and safer roads should be a concern to everyone, not just parents whose children are bussed to school. We feel that people who live, work, and raise their families here should have the same benefits of living elsewhere. We feel that it is past time to level the playing field and find a more equal and fair way to maintain and improve our roads in the county for which we live.
At one time, almost all of the land in Worth County was once owned by hard-working people who resided here. They farmed, raised their families, sold their livestock, and purchased supplies and machinery all locally. The problem now is that purchasing and selling locally is not always an option and that means our tax dollars are leaving our area and are benefiting and supporting some other county’s roads. Every dollar spent locally works several times over to benefit all. There is a high percentage of farmland in Worth County that is owned by people or corporations that do NOT live in or work in the area. This situation puts more burdens and responsibilities on the people that do live here and do their business locally. As the trend continues of land purchases for recreation and hunting, it hurts our local economy.
Mowing, brush control, and road rock has always been on the “honor system” for lack of a better term. The “honor system” worked fairly well at one time, but things are much different now. If a landowner decides not to control the brush by mowing or spraying or buying gravel for the road, then someone else has to either take up the slack and do more than his fair share, or the road becomes neglected and soon will become a large problem. School busses, emergency vehicles, and other vehicles all need to have the ability to travel all of our county roads. We see no way that this will cure itself and only foresee it getting worse if we do not act and vote YES on August 4th and pass both of these issues.
We believe that all of the elected officials and employees of the county should be and are committed to doing the best and most efficient job for all of the county. We are looking for ways to make the most of what we have to work with. These are trying times economically. The Road and Bridge Department must become more efficient to meet existing goals and to use and maintain equipment and machinery safely. Breakdowns because of brush and trees are a constant threat.
Another problem is that the state will not allow a county credit for roads that fall below a certain standard. Our county has already lost credit on some roads which equals a loss of money and we cannot afford to lose anymore. Our county needs to recapture some of these credits and increase our inventory of safe and reliable roads. Not only would we have safer roads, but we will not have to pay the majority of the price tags. The new system would spread it out to all landowners equally, whether they live here or not. We cannot depend on the absentee landowners to donate to help keep our roads to a decent standard. While a few have helped to donate, most have not. Every time we purchase something out of the county, we help to maintain that county’s roads and schools. It is time for us to stand up and take a stand for ourselves and take care of our county. Today, Worth County has an “honor system.”
How are roads funded now?
Currently, we operate under the CART (patron gravel) program, which is generated from the State Vehicle Tax, other state fees, and the state's gas tax. This is the county’s primary source of gravel. This is money that the state collects and reimburses the county based on the number of miles of county roads. With the current economic conditions, the state reimbursements have drastically dropped and could drop in the next few years as well. What this means is that the county's cost-share for gravel would continue to drop every year. For instance, last year, the county's cost-share for CART gravel was 100%; this year, the county could only match 75%. As state funds decline, the county will have to make further reductions.
What can the voters expect if these two issues are not passed?
We can only project that the county’s share of the patron gravel will decrease and the road conditions will deteriorate. Cost share budget on brush removal will need to be reduced as well.
Will the Patron/CART Gravel system still be used if the new system is passed by voters?
Yes, it will still be utilized to the best advantage of the residents of Worth County. This system can be used on a cost-share basis to bring a road up to specs to qualify a road to the newly-passed system or if a road for some reason does need more rock.
Will all roads in Worth County be graveled?
Only roads that have had patron gravel applied recently or is brought up to spec will qualify. This means that if the road has not been graveled for years, it must be brought up to spec, improved, and inspected after base rock is applied before normal road stone could be applied and qualify for the newly-passed gravel system.
By passing the Brush Enforcement Law and Gravel Tax, do you think that this is the best way to maintain our road system?
No, but it is much more fair and equal than the system we currently have, and will be the best system that is, or will be available for Worth County at this time. We would like to see some changes made at the state level that would make it possible for Worth County landowners who live here in the area to not have the full burden of purchasing all the gravel on our roads. But until changes can be made, this is the first step that has to be made before better ways of improving the system can be made for the residents of Worth County.
If the voters pass the Brush Enforcement Law and the New Gravel System Tax, what can they expect to change?
Better and safer roads. Approximately 70 tons for every mile of rocked road would have been applied at the 2009 delivered price if the new system had been in place for this season. This would have been applied to every mile of all of the current graveled roads.
As for the Brush Enforcement Tax, roads will be maintained and clear of trees to a standard that at a minimum will allow road maintenance equipment to properly blade, keep gravel on, and allow water to drain off the roadways and autos and farm machinery to pass down a road. The cost share program will still be in place and will be expanded as funds are available for brush removal.
How much is needed to pass?
Both measures require a simple majority to pass.
Why should the voters of Worth County vote for and pass the Gravel Tax and Brush Enforcement Law?
There are several reasons why the residents will benefit if these two issues are approved. One is to improve Worth County roads. This will allow for absentee landowners to contribute and help maintain our roads. They typically use these roads for recreation on a regular basis, but have had no responsibility in the maintenance of these roads. Worth County is one of the few places in the country that does not have the benefit of the two proposals. The positive impact of these two issues would have numerous benefits to families living here in the county.
Better and safer roads should be a concern to everyone, not just parents whose children are bussed to school. We feel that people who live, work, and raise their families here should have the same benefits of living elsewhere. We feel that it is past time to level the playing field and find a more equal and fair way to maintain and improve our roads in the county for which we live.
At one time, almost all of the land in Worth County was once owned by hard-working people who resided here. They farmed, raised their families, sold their livestock, and purchased supplies and machinery all locally. The problem now is that purchasing and selling locally is not always an option and that means our tax dollars are leaving our area and are benefiting and supporting some other county’s roads. Every dollar spent locally works several times over to benefit all. There is a high percentage of farmland in Worth County that is owned by people or corporations that do NOT live in or work in the area. This situation puts more burdens and responsibilities on the people that do live here and do their business locally. As the trend continues of land purchases for recreation and hunting, it hurts our local economy.
Mowing, brush control, and road rock has always been on the “honor system” for lack of a better term. The “honor system” worked fairly well at one time, but things are much different now. If a landowner decides not to control the brush by mowing or spraying or buying gravel for the road, then someone else has to either take up the slack and do more than his fair share, or the road becomes neglected and soon will become a large problem. School busses, emergency vehicles, and other vehicles all need to have the ability to travel all of our county roads. We see no way that this will cure itself and only foresee it getting worse if we do not act and vote YES on August 4th and pass both of these issues.
We believe that all of the elected officials and employees of the county should be and are committed to doing the best and most efficient job for all of the county. We are looking for ways to make the most of what we have to work with. These are trying times economically. The Road and Bridge Department must become more efficient to meet existing goals and to use and maintain equipment and machinery safely. Breakdowns because of brush and trees are a constant threat.
Another problem is that the state will not allow a county credit for roads that fall below a certain standard. Our county has already lost credit on some roads which equals a loss of money and we cannot afford to lose anymore. Our county needs to recapture some of these credits and increase our inventory of safe and reliable roads. Not only would we have safer roads, but we will not have to pay the majority of the price tags. The new system would spread it out to all landowners equally, whether they live here or not. We cannot depend on the absentee landowners to donate to help keep our roads to a decent standard. While a few have helped to donate, most have not. Every time we purchase something out of the county, we help to maintain that county’s roads and schools. It is time for us to stand up and take a stand for ourselves and take care of our county. Today, Worth County has an “honor system.”
How are roads funded now?
Currently, we operate under the CART (patron gravel) program, which is generated from the State Vehicle Tax, other state fees, and the state's gas tax. This is the county’s primary source of gravel. This is money that the state collects and reimburses the county based on the number of miles of county roads. With the current economic conditions, the state reimbursements have drastically dropped and could drop in the next few years as well. What this means is that the county's cost-share for gravel would continue to drop every year. For instance, last year, the county's cost-share for CART gravel was 100%; this year, the county could only match 75%. As state funds decline, the county will have to make further reductions.
What can the voters expect if these two issues are not passed?
We can only project that the county’s share of the patron gravel will decrease and the road conditions will deteriorate. Cost share budget on brush removal will need to be reduced as well.
Will the Patron/CART Gravel system still be used if the new system is passed by voters?
Yes, it will still be utilized to the best advantage of the residents of Worth County. This system can be used on a cost-share basis to bring a road up to specs to qualify a road to the newly-passed system or if a road for some reason does need more rock.
Will all roads in Worth County be graveled?
Only roads that have had patron gravel applied recently or is brought up to spec will qualify. This means that if the road has not been graveled for years, it must be brought up to spec, improved, and inspected after base rock is applied before normal road stone could be applied and qualify for the newly-passed gravel system.
By passing the Brush Enforcement Law and Gravel Tax, do you think that this is the best way to maintain our road system?
No, but it is much more fair and equal than the system we currently have, and will be the best system that is, or will be available for Worth County at this time. We would like to see some changes made at the state level that would make it possible for Worth County landowners who live here in the area to not have the full burden of purchasing all the gravel on our roads. But until changes can be made, this is the first step that has to be made before better ways of improving the system can be made for the residents of Worth County.
If the voters pass the Brush Enforcement Law and the New Gravel System Tax, what can they expect to change?
Better and safer roads. Approximately 70 tons for every mile of rocked road would have been applied at the 2009 delivered price if the new system had been in place for this season. This would have been applied to every mile of all of the current graveled roads.
As for the Brush Enforcement Tax, roads will be maintained and clear of trees to a standard that at a minimum will allow road maintenance equipment to properly blade, keep gravel on, and allow water to drain off the roadways and autos and farm machinery to pass down a road. The cost share program will still be in place and will be expanded as funds are available for brush removal.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Grant City Mayoral Candidates Discuss Recent Progress, Future Challenges
Three Grant City mayoral candidates discussed the recent progress that the community has experienced as well as the upcoming challenges for the city. Incumbent mayor Debbie Roach is facing two challengers, David Snow and Glen Hughes in the upcoming municipal election. Dennis Downing is unopposed as West Alderman as a write-in candidate; he filed as a write-in after incumbent Doug Pickering did not seek reelection to the post. East Alderman Cathy James is unopposed. In addition, there is a municipal telecommunications issue on the ballot; this is not a new tax, but a measure that would allow the city to collect franchise fees from telecommunications providers who already assess city taxes to customers without turning them over to the city. All three candidates made their remarks at the Times-Tribune Candidates' Forum Thursday. The candidates gave opening remarks and then took questions from the audience.
Mayor Debbie Roach said that she was proud of what has taken place in the last five years. She said that some of the priorities for the city included finishing the pool and getting it open in time for Memorial Day, completing the Nature Trail, and seeing the Downtown Renovation Project forward. She said that she wanted to continue to support the work of Code Enforcement Officer Patsy Worthington, implement the Strategic Plan, and seek funding for the new Bathhouse; the city has recently completed an application for a $166,000 grant towards that project. She said that her experience in writing grants was important to keep the city moving foward. Specifically, she talked about her experience in writing the grants for access roads for the Gunstock Factory and the Dollar Store and other projects.
Challenger David Snow faced off against Roach in the 2007 election and is challenging her again. He spoke briefly, saying that he was pleased that there were three candidates for mayor and promising to "serve for the city and not for myself." Glenn Hughes said that he felt that some changes were needed at City Hall, including more accountability, and said that he wanted to find more money for turning gravel roads in the city into pavement.
Asked about what specific grants they would pursue, Snow said that he had worked with grants when working on projects with KCP&L and said that he would look into getting some of the stimulus money and make sure that "Grant City gets their fair share." Specifically, he said that he wanted to see more money for streets and infrastructure. "We need water and sewer, or we will have nothing to offer," he said. Snow said that he wanted to improve the water supply, saying that he did not want to see a repeat of the drought of a few years ago, where he said that the Middlefork Water Company lake was "down to puddles." Hughes said that he would push for funding for the streets that needed finishing as well as the pool.
Roach said that the greatest challenge for the city would be facing government mandates on water systems that would be coming down the pipe; she said that Allendale's new water plant would not be able to meet them even though it was built two years ago. She said that it was a statewide issue as well as a federal issue as entities all over the state would not be able to meet the mandates either. She said that another challenge was getting everyone hooked up to city sewer; part of the problem with state funding was that they only provided a 50% match; she said that although the city had a sales tax for streets, there were not any grants out there for streets except for access roads for businesses like the Gunstock Factory. She said that another challenge was getting people involved in local organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce as well as the Progress Organization as well as other organizations in the city. She said that the city had a balanced budget and that $58,000 had been raised through donations for the pool.
Snow said that one of the biggest challenges for the city was the buildings and the need to remain viable. He said that although the budget was balanced, times were going to be tough; "we saw what happened in the 1980's" with rural communities. He said that for the next two years, things would be tough as the whole country continues to deal with the ripple effect of the current economic crisis. Hughes said that the biggest challenge was improving the roads and "finding out what it takes" to make the pool work. "It's up to everyone already here to make things work."
Councilwoman Linda Phipps asked about code enforcement, saying that first impressions were important for a town Grant City's side. She said that some of the messes were so bad that "who would want to move here?" Hugues said that a lot of the buildings on the square as well as old homes were a good place to start. But he said he wanted to relax the rules on unlicensed vehicles, saying that "they had to be put somewhere." Phipps replied that all of the city ordinances were there for a reason and Clerk Ayvonne Morin said that when the city got 10-15 complaints, that action from the city was needed. "If it needs to be taken care of, then it needs to be taken care of," responded Hughes. He said that it was important that enforcement efforts go deeper than 46. "We have to follow through," he said. Morin said that it was important for people to realize that it was not just a matter of city officials arbitrarily taking action, but a matter of the city acting on complaints from residents. Hughes asked if all the city statues were up to date; Cathy James said that the city had recently spent a lot of money to bring the city statues up to date and properly codified.
Snow agreed that the city ordinances should be enforced, saying that he was "bound by oath" to do so, and that enforcement would be up to the Code Enforcement Officer or himself. He said that it would not be a matter of "taking the hammer" to people and that the ultimate goal was to clean up the town and not to punish people.
Roach said that it was something that needed to be done and that the city could not "pick and choose" what to enforce and what not to enforce. She said that sometimes, the city acted on complaints; other times, they would send out letters. She said one of the worst complaints about a house came over one which she said was infested with coons, skunks, and snakes. "One person killed ten snakes in one day," she said. Roach said that in cases like that, the animals would get into neighbors' gardens and eat the plants. Roach said that it was also a hazard for children, who frequently get play around vacant houses. She said that Patsy Worthington was very good at what she did and at communicating the city's willingness to help people. "She doesn't just leave the problem hanging over peoples' heads," she said. "She goes out of her way to help. She'll make the calls and lines up the work so that it gets done," she said.
Dennis Downing asked about whether the city will use the municipal court system or do the cleanup work and assess the costs on peoples' taxes. Morin said that there was a process in place to determine which process was used. Hughes said that the court system was not the way to go and that he would clean up the property and assess it against that person's taxes. But Morin said that the work would have to be hired, for which she said the money was not in the budget for. Typically, Morin said that people were given 20 days to clean up their property, which she said was more than enough time for most people. "Charlie Sanders cleaned up his neighbor's former property in less time than that," added Debbie Roach. Morin added that if a person then failed to pay their taxes, that would be a lein against their property. Hughes said that whatever action the city takes against violators would be up to the council and that he would back whatever decision they made.
Snow said that for him, it would be a matter of using them as tools and that it was important to judge each situation individually in determining what action to pursue. He said that most of the work would be up to Worthington as Code Enforcement Officer, but that if a case was referred to him, then that meant that it had reached a "critical point." "I have to serve the community, so I would use the tools that we have in place to get results," he said. "It's not about punishment, but it's about getting a resolution."
Sherri James of the Pool Renovation Committee asked the two challengers how actively involved they would be on the pool. Both candidates said that they would help with the project as much as they can. Councilwoman Cathy James asked Hughes about his availability; Hughes, who is gone for much of the summer doing harvest work, said that he would make himself available by phone if something were to come up. In the past, the city has had a mayor pro tem run the meeting in the absence of the mayor.
New Presiding Commissioner Kevin Austin asked the challengers if they were willing to work with him to make sure the county and city were working as one unit. Hughes said that had been a problem in the past, but should not be a problem if he were elected. Snow agreed and said that the city could look at sharing resources with the county. He said that although the county was responsible for the Courthouse, for instance, it was still within city limits.
Mayor Debbie Roach said that she was proud of what has taken place in the last five years. She said that some of the priorities for the city included finishing the pool and getting it open in time for Memorial Day, completing the Nature Trail, and seeing the Downtown Renovation Project forward. She said that she wanted to continue to support the work of Code Enforcement Officer Patsy Worthington, implement the Strategic Plan, and seek funding for the new Bathhouse; the city has recently completed an application for a $166,000 grant towards that project. She said that her experience in writing grants was important to keep the city moving foward. Specifically, she talked about her experience in writing the grants for access roads for the Gunstock Factory and the Dollar Store and other projects.
Challenger David Snow faced off against Roach in the 2007 election and is challenging her again. He spoke briefly, saying that he was pleased that there were three candidates for mayor and promising to "serve for the city and not for myself." Glenn Hughes said that he felt that some changes were needed at City Hall, including more accountability, and said that he wanted to find more money for turning gravel roads in the city into pavement.
Asked about what specific grants they would pursue, Snow said that he had worked with grants when working on projects with KCP&L and said that he would look into getting some of the stimulus money and make sure that "Grant City gets their fair share." Specifically, he said that he wanted to see more money for streets and infrastructure. "We need water and sewer, or we will have nothing to offer," he said. Snow said that he wanted to improve the water supply, saying that he did not want to see a repeat of the drought of a few years ago, where he said that the Middlefork Water Company lake was "down to puddles." Hughes said that he would push for funding for the streets that needed finishing as well as the pool.
Roach said that the greatest challenge for the city would be facing government mandates on water systems that would be coming down the pipe; she said that Allendale's new water plant would not be able to meet them even though it was built two years ago. She said that it was a statewide issue as well as a federal issue as entities all over the state would not be able to meet the mandates either. She said that another challenge was getting everyone hooked up to city sewer; part of the problem with state funding was that they only provided a 50% match; she said that although the city had a sales tax for streets, there were not any grants out there for streets except for access roads for businesses like the Gunstock Factory. She said that another challenge was getting people involved in local organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce as well as the Progress Organization as well as other organizations in the city. She said that the city had a balanced budget and that $58,000 had been raised through donations for the pool.
Snow said that one of the biggest challenges for the city was the buildings and the need to remain viable. He said that although the budget was balanced, times were going to be tough; "we saw what happened in the 1980's" with rural communities. He said that for the next two years, things would be tough as the whole country continues to deal with the ripple effect of the current economic crisis. Hughes said that the biggest challenge was improving the roads and "finding out what it takes" to make the pool work. "It's up to everyone already here to make things work."
Councilwoman Linda Phipps asked about code enforcement, saying that first impressions were important for a town Grant City's side. She said that some of the messes were so bad that "who would want to move here?" Hugues said that a lot of the buildings on the square as well as old homes were a good place to start. But he said he wanted to relax the rules on unlicensed vehicles, saying that "they had to be put somewhere." Phipps replied that all of the city ordinances were there for a reason and Clerk Ayvonne Morin said that when the city got 10-15 complaints, that action from the city was needed. "If it needs to be taken care of, then it needs to be taken care of," responded Hughes. He said that it was important that enforcement efforts go deeper than 46. "We have to follow through," he said. Morin said that it was important for people to realize that it was not just a matter of city officials arbitrarily taking action, but a matter of the city acting on complaints from residents. Hughes asked if all the city statues were up to date; Cathy James said that the city had recently spent a lot of money to bring the city statues up to date and properly codified.
Snow agreed that the city ordinances should be enforced, saying that he was "bound by oath" to do so, and that enforcement would be up to the Code Enforcement Officer or himself. He said that it would not be a matter of "taking the hammer" to people and that the ultimate goal was to clean up the town and not to punish people.
Roach said that it was something that needed to be done and that the city could not "pick and choose" what to enforce and what not to enforce. She said that sometimes, the city acted on complaints; other times, they would send out letters. She said one of the worst complaints about a house came over one which she said was infested with coons, skunks, and snakes. "One person killed ten snakes in one day," she said. Roach said that in cases like that, the animals would get into neighbors' gardens and eat the plants. Roach said that it was also a hazard for children, who frequently get play around vacant houses. She said that Patsy Worthington was very good at what she did and at communicating the city's willingness to help people. "She doesn't just leave the problem hanging over peoples' heads," she said. "She goes out of her way to help. She'll make the calls and lines up the work so that it gets done," she said.
Dennis Downing asked about whether the city will use the municipal court system or do the cleanup work and assess the costs on peoples' taxes. Morin said that there was a process in place to determine which process was used. Hughes said that the court system was not the way to go and that he would clean up the property and assess it against that person's taxes. But Morin said that the work would have to be hired, for which she said the money was not in the budget for. Typically, Morin said that people were given 20 days to clean up their property, which she said was more than enough time for most people. "Charlie Sanders cleaned up his neighbor's former property in less time than that," added Debbie Roach. Morin added that if a person then failed to pay their taxes, that would be a lein against their property. Hughes said that whatever action the city takes against violators would be up to the council and that he would back whatever decision they made.
Snow said that for him, it would be a matter of using them as tools and that it was important to judge each situation individually in determining what action to pursue. He said that most of the work would be up to Worthington as Code Enforcement Officer, but that if a case was referred to him, then that meant that it had reached a "critical point." "I have to serve the community, so I would use the tools that we have in place to get results," he said. "It's not about punishment, but it's about getting a resolution."
Sherri James of the Pool Renovation Committee asked the two challengers how actively involved they would be on the pool. Both candidates said that they would help with the project as much as they can. Councilwoman Cathy James asked Hughes about his availability; Hughes, who is gone for much of the summer doing harvest work, said that he would make himself available by phone if something were to come up. In the past, the city has had a mayor pro tem run the meeting in the absence of the mayor.
New Presiding Commissioner Kevin Austin asked the challengers if they were willing to work with him to make sure the county and city were working as one unit. Hughes said that had been a problem in the past, but should not be a problem if he were elected. Snow agreed and said that the city could look at sharing resources with the county. He said that although the county was responsible for the Courthouse, for instance, it was still within city limits.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Oswald Files for Rematch against Thomson
Richard Oswald, the Democratic candidate who ran against Republican State Representative Mike Thomson, has informed the Sheridan Express that he has filed to oppose Thomson again. Oswald lost to Thomson in the 2006 election for the seat vacated by then-Representative Brad Lager, who ran for State Senate. The two candidates will face off in the November General Election.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Breaking: Worth County election results
Sheridan Mayor
Bud Allee 34
Gene Via 30
Kevin Austin 4
West Alderman
Shelly Barnett 19
Mary Jo Hawk 20
Nursing Home District #3
Scott Houk 24
Jerry Dignan 10
Andy Welch 9
Nursing Home District #4
Eddie Costin 22
Boyd Pickering 30
Grant City West Alderman
Bruce Downing 62
David Snow 9
Capital Improvement Levy Renewal
Yes 316
No 54
Bud Allee 34
Gene Via 30
Kevin Austin 4
West Alderman
Shelly Barnett 19
Mary Jo Hawk 20
Nursing Home District #3
Scott Houk 24
Jerry Dignan 10
Andy Welch 9
Nursing Home District #4
Eddie Costin 22
Boyd Pickering 30
Grant City West Alderman
Bruce Downing 62
David Snow 9
Capital Improvement Levy Renewal
Yes 316
No 54
Monday, March 31, 2008
Three incumbent county officers face opposition
East Commissioner Bill Calhoon, Sheriff Bear Groom, and West Commissioner Lorace Waldeier will all face election opposition this year. Waldeier, a Democrat, faces a primary challenge from Glenda Hughes; the winner will face Republican Dennis Gabbert in the General Election. Incumbent East Commissioner Bill Calhoon faces a primary challenge from Jack Wilcox and Rob Ruckman; all three are on the Democratic ticket (Corrected from last week). Sheriff Groom faces a challenge in the general election from Robert Staton.
Assessor Carolyn Hardy, Public Administrator Patsy Worthington, and Coroner Gary Hann are also up for reelection this year; they have filed for reelection and are unopposed.
Assessor Carolyn Hardy, Public Administrator Patsy Worthington, and Coroner Gary Hann are also up for reelection this year; they have filed for reelection and are unopposed.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Opinion: Give council credit.
Opinions are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editor of the Sheridan Express.
by Mary Jo Hawk
For those of you in town who do not know me, I am a home grown product of 24 years; the only time I moved away was to get a college education. I have been a member of the Community Betterment Club for many years and I have been President for the past 2 years. I spend countless hours for CBC along with working two jobs and taking care of my family. Through CBC I have helped along with many others bring money making events to this community.
I would like to thank the current and past city council members for the accomplishments they have achieved for the city, because without their vote, the city mayor wouldn't be able to accomplish things alone.For those who have never been to a city council meeting I would like to quickly explain how it works. The mayor is the head of the meeting and the 4 council members have to approve all issues by a majority vote in order for them to happen; the only time the mayor gets to vote on an issue is when there is a tie.
I would also like to point out that Old Defiance days brings in a lot business for this town and for some organizations it is the only money making event of the year and for the past many years the city has had no part in that event; it is organized by the CBC and is the effort of a few community members.
I do want to point out that I am not trying to make a name for myself; I would like to see this community that I like to call home last and be thought of as a good town that people would like to come to. I don't want to spend city money I would like to see it allocated to the proper departments and the city be able to apply for grants, but there is also a point when you have to spend a little money to get some in return.
When credit is to to be given for accomplishments of the city the whole city council should be praised, not just the mayor. If it weren't for the citizens of this town along with businesses and taxpayers there wouldn’t be a city to call home.
by Mary Jo Hawk
For those of you in town who do not know me, I am a home grown product of 24 years; the only time I moved away was to get a college education. I have been a member of the Community Betterment Club for many years and I have been President for the past 2 years. I spend countless hours for CBC along with working two jobs and taking care of my family. Through CBC I have helped along with many others bring money making events to this community.
I would like to thank the current and past city council members for the accomplishments they have achieved for the city, because without their vote, the city mayor wouldn't be able to accomplish things alone.For those who have never been to a city council meeting I would like to quickly explain how it works. The mayor is the head of the meeting and the 4 council members have to approve all issues by a majority vote in order for them to happen; the only time the mayor gets to vote on an issue is when there is a tie.
I would also like to point out that Old Defiance days brings in a lot business for this town and for some organizations it is the only money making event of the year and for the past many years the city has had no part in that event; it is organized by the CBC and is the effort of a few community members.
I do want to point out that I am not trying to make a name for myself; I would like to see this community that I like to call home last and be thought of as a good town that people would like to come to. I don't want to spend city money I would like to see it allocated to the proper departments and the city be able to apply for grants, but there is also a point when you have to spend a little money to get some in return.
When credit is to to be given for accomplishments of the city the whole city council should be praised, not just the mayor. If it weren't for the citizens of this town along with businesses and taxpayers there wouldn’t be a city to call home.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)