Wednesday, January 21, 1998

No more certificates

Another certificate of obligation?

To the mayor and City Council: How could you make repairing the creek flooding a political issue? You know that I and many others want no more certificates issued.

You have about $2 million in emergency reserves. Mayor McCaleb, please explain what happened to the $700,000 you had left over from last year's budget. If this were such an emergency (this is what City Manager Roy McDaniel implied as to the urgent reason for the certificate of obligation), why hasn't it been budgeted in the regular budget? You certainly have known of this for many years now.

Certainly the creek problem needs to be fixed. Now if we oppose this plan before the City Council, paid for by this certificate of obligation, it will be assumed that we don't want the work done. Not true!

Do the work like you should have done long before this, but not paid for with a certificate.

Be innovative, City Council members. Use DCOA funds. New companies will join us when they see you take care of your people. Use CDBG funds; that is helping that community. Let Abilene Improvement Corp. be used like it was when you bought the service station (Boyd Building); the work will improve Abilene. And last but very important, with just four little votes, you could do away with the TIF (downtown taxes that go back into downtown only) and do repairs.

No certificates of obligation!

BOBBIE HOTCHKISS

Abilene

EDITOR'S NOTE: By law, the Development Corporation of Abilene can use the half-cent sales tax revenue for job creation only. The AIC relies on the Tax Increment Financing district for funds. State law requires TIF monies be spent downtown. Recouping the city's portion of TIF revenues would generate about $48,000 for city coffers; the flood control project is estimated to cost $350,000. Community Development Block Grants could possibly be used for flood control if the affected neighborhoods qualify as low-income.

Child care licenses

Re: the new law requiring registration for home child care where three or less children are involved (Reporter-News, Jan. 11):

I see no logical reason for this law and am infuriated at the intrusion of the state into citizens' lives at this level of activity. I am neither a care giver nor a recipient, but I am a firm believer in minimum government control in our daily lives. This seems to me to be totally unnecessary and a burden to anyone wanting to keep a neighbor's child or children for a modest charge.

My initial reaction was that this is really just plain stupid and that I will determine which of our representatives supported this and will lend my efforts to terminate their services come election time.

As for the fee of $20 annually, that also is an unnecessary cost, but even so probably does not cover the cost of administrating the ridiculous law.

If there is a sensible reason for this foolishness, will someone please advise me? I see none.

BERNARD SMITH

Abilene