|
|
OpinionNorth Branch resident says all is not quiet on the western frontTO THE EDITOR: On July 17 at 7 p.m. (Be sure to check with city hall in case changed) the Land Use Committee (LUC) Chairman, Alan Cottingham, city planner, will present the new comprehensive plan at the public hearing. I have attended many of the LUCís meetings and hope you will attend this meeting as it guides North Branchís future for the next 20 years. Also, another item, important to all residents, was the report given to the council June 27 by the representative of the State Auditorís office. This audit was the result of 500+ signatures of this cityís registered voters. These voters voiced concerns. Is North Branch solvent or are we taking the path Cambridge did? Ratio of inventory of the liquor store to sales, co-mingling of funds between the city and the EDA, and the contract between the city and the liquor store builder, concerning a sidewalk issue. The auditorís office had many letters of concern and narrowed them down to four items. One of our former council members and now our interim mayor, raised a question sometime back about the liquor storeís inventory to sales. This, if I remember correctly, was raised on two separate occasions. It sparked questions, in the community, and became a subject that the auditor looked into. No, the mayor didnít request, or sign the petition, but, like many of us, had questions about the liquor store. The findings of the auditor regarding inventory to sales, compared to other cities, was too high. Dave Stutleberg, city finances director, stated they get better deals if they buy in volume. Well, other liquor stores would too, wouldnít they? There still seems to be one unanswered question: Why did the city vote to pay for the sidewalk behind the liquor store when it was supposedly paid by the builder? I asked the auditor that after his presentation. He said the builder paid $2,000. If my memory serves me correctly, it was discussed by the council when Ellis was mayor, the sidewalk would cost about $10,000, and the city paid for it. I questioned our interim mayor about this after the work session and he thought the city paid for it. He said he would look into it. Letís put this to rest. On the whole, the report seemed favorable. All minor problems found would be corrected. The liquor store One item not covered by the auditor were the meals the council and some staff members (as well as the EDA) were having at the work sessions. This was at taxpayer expense and had been going on for sometime. Just before the audit started, a citizen questioned its legality and the meals stopped. This was also discussed with the auditor before the audit. If you would like to see or have a copy of the report, it is available at city hall. The auditor looked only at these four items at citizenís requests. We must be aware of what is going on and assume responsibility and attend meetings. If we drop the ball, we have only ourselves to blame. The decisions made by our council affect all or us. Be heard! Barb Burrington ©ECM Post Review |