As previously stated, the franchise fee item did get delayed until the 8/24 council meeting.
Good, because the way it was put on the agenda did not necessarily allow for possible maximum input from the citizens.
Some council members felt that there was an inflammatory email going around. Maybe it was........maybe it wasn't. Perception...........key word.
Was it inflammatory, or misinformation that there were 2 sets of numbers going around about the effect of the proposed franchise fee? In a media interview the city manager said it would cost the average home owner $12 /month. At the 8/10 meeting council rep Sandifer said a 1500 sq ft house would run about $3 extra for each utility. Is that misinformation? Is that conflicting information?
What about Mr Sandifer's concern about emergency response if the franchise fee was not passed? Golly gee willikers, I don't remember seeing anything about a reduction in emergency services in the budget presentation. Taking it a step further........ even though the fire department responds, so do ambulances.......and the ambulances are JoCo MedAct and the franchise fee would not have an effect on those ambulances. Was this a scare tactic? Was this misinformation?
When the discussion was going on prior to the vote to postpone the action on the franchise fee one of the council reps (Dawn Kuhn) made a comment that totally blew me away. She was concerned that if it was delayed that there was a possibly the utility company representatives might have difficulty in attending on a different night. Whoa now. Which is more important? Allowing for maximum community involvement and input or the schedules of the utility companies? Hint: Utility companies usually have entire departments dedicated to governmental/regulatory affairs. It is firmly believed that they can handle an adjustment in the meeting schedule.
Sidebar:
Rumors, rumors, rumors? Maybe not.......maybe fact? I have been told by various folks that there are certain individuals that are extremely upset with some of my recent critical comments about council rep Dawn Kuhn. That supposedly I have gone from a community watch dog to a vindictive individual. Hmmmmm...........and it's possible that the folks that are saying this are the same ones that thought it was great when I was critical about other council members. Like certain members that Ms Kuhn is not very fond of. Seems slightly hypocritical to me.
Now supposedly these comments have appeared on one of those social network web sites. So, not only do we have the possibility of hypocrites, but gutless ones at that, that won't confront me directly. They just hide behind cyber barriers. Now my curiosity is really piqued. Are some of these folks that are supposedly making these comments members of one or more of the local KC area media outlets? Could that eventually manifest itself as biased media coverage?
For the record: This author is an EOAB. Equal opportunity ankle biter, exercising his right to voice his opinion. So, whether it is Pfrick and Pfrack or Diva Dawn, or anyone else on the council, I'm gonna call it the way I see it.
