GRAVETTE — Dear Editor,
There have been some decisions made by the City Council in recent months that concern me and I feel the community has not been given reasonable explanation for the actions taken.
The decision not to open the pool for the community appears to have been because the pool lost money and needed expensive repair.
It was my belief that the pool was there for the citizens’ use and enjoyment and the fees collected were to help pay for the operations. Are our pools money makers?? No, but they are kept up for us to use and enjoy, just as the ballfields are, and as the pool should be as well. The swimming pool was the only safe place or teaching water safety and non-swimmers to swim. This year our children were denied that opportunity and I feel certain that, if we had been given an option, the community could have come up with fund raisers and donations to help offset the cost of repairs. The steps in Old Town Park were restored because we cared and had the opportunity to help. We were not given that option with the pool. The decision was made.
The decision to pay off the “new “ City Hall building, when we could have continued the payments virtually interest free, seems to be a very large squandering of the city funds. Many of us remember the time the City didn’t have the money to pave and repair our streets and the property owners had to pay for it, adding an assessed payment for the streets to our property taxes for many years.
If the City can’t meet their obligations for upkeep and repairs that are necessary it could happen again. Some of this money could have been used to help pay for the pool repair but instead we are the proud owners of yet another City Hall building. This was not a sound business decision. To those Council members who opened opposed this decision, kudos, we appreciate your efforts!
My final point is Gravette lost one of the most dedicated employees it has ever had with the dismissal of Junior Hartley. No one knows our water system like he does and this is a crucial time with the sewer option deadline here. Like most, I don’t know what the situation was but I know him to be a good person who has served the City extremely well for many years. Could this have been handled differently as well???
Sincerely, Jean Phipps
---
Dear Editor,
In my recent letter of thanks I forgot to mention the Boys and Girls Club.
Chris and Tina and their kids helped us out on our Summer Reading Program by letting us use their facility and helping us set up. And, to my error, I neglected to mention them! My sincerest apologies to my neighbors!!
Kim Schneider Library Director
---
Dear Editor,
Thanks to the efforts of Junior Hartley and McGoodwin, Williams and Yates, the Decatur option for sewer disposal has been pared down to 5.2 million. If we finance 3 million with the 3/4 cent sales tax, the remaining 2.2 million would cost each customer $14.45 a month if added to the minimum bill.
I used 830 customers for the calculations and 2.75% interest. Or we could levy an additional 1/2 cent sales tax and the resulting 3/4 cent sales tax generated would cover the cost completely.
Our O&M costs would be greatly reduced. We would only have to maintain three lift stations and the pipeline. No more chemicals. If we stopped putting liquid into the sludge lagoon the sludge would eventually dry up and could have hauled to a landfill.
Infiltration water from storm run-off could be stored in one of the lagoons that does not have sludge and sent to Decatur as they need it. This solves the sludge problem and eliminates the need to build a new facility.
Mike von Ree
Opinion, Pages 4 on 07/21/2010