HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 10 09 Other Handout Given By Commissioner Joanne M. Krebs
Date: October 9, 2006
The attached was read into the Record by
Commissioner Joanne M. Krebs during
"Reports" at the October 9, 2006 City
Commission Regular Meeting.
Krebs response to Manager's Memo regarding Item 201 September 25 mtg.
At the last commission meeting, we received a memorandum from The City Manager regarding
the Final Budget Public Hearing Agenda Item 201. In this memorandum, the Commission was
advised of a problem discovered in Bear Creek regarding the bridge.
I am curious as to why our only options incorporated the inclusion or exclusion of a Fire Truck -
what does life saving Fire Equipment have to do with a bridge at Bear Creek no less? There
would have been other ways to accomplish solving the bridge issue. I also find it very hard to
believe that a bridge costs $50,000. We were not presented with any evidence of such.
A consensus was made to keep the Fire Truck in the budget at a workshop less than a week
prior. As we all know, the Manager was not happy with this decision as it was not HIS decision
and he vehemently opposed purchasing a Fire Truck.
It is my opinion that after the budget review was finished, the City Manager's new task at hand
became finding a way to bring up the Fire Truck issue once again prior to final budget approval.
It is also my feeling that he already polled some of the commission prior to this memorandum and
therefore was able to, by virtue of the memorandum; present his case in such a manner to
exclude the Fire Truck from the budget in the 1ih hour.
Now, our Fire Chief is an employee we consider a Professional, perhaps an expert in his field, I
certainly do, and our professional Fire Chief advised this commission on the need for the Truck.
If we wanted to place conditions of proof as to the need, why was that not asked earlier in the
budget? This Commission has had the opportunity to cross examine the Chief throughout the
budget process and only one commissioner, that I recall, really questioned the maintenance
issue. An explanation was made as to the amount of repairs needed in aging units and of the
necessity for First Response equipment to be dependable. The Chief also made a strong
argument relating to the ability and dependability for a start on the very first turn of the key as
being paramount. This brings me to my next statement and question.
Now I ask this commission to wait for 15 seconds, just 15 seconds in silence. What did that 15
seconds mean to you? What could it mean for you if your loved one is lying there unconscious?
What could it mean for a friend, or a fellow man? (You probably remember the incident I
mentioned less than 2 weeks ago about our friend Smokey who had a 25% survival rate due to
the injury he had. We don't know if 15 seconds would have mattered in this case, but that is one
bet I would not place money upon. What we do know is that time was a factor in his survival. All
of us know how it feels when we need to be somewhere and our car doesn't start, well can you
imagine being paid to save lives, a call is received, and the emergency vehicle doesn't start. All
of the training and expertise at that moment is worthless - and the person(s) you were HIRED to
save - are lying there not breathing, or profusely bleeding in other words, dying.
Once again, this commission felt obligated to make a decision in the 1ih hour unnecessarily and
who is responsible for that? May I remind everyone by Charter that it is the Commission who is
supposed to make the decisions. I thought the decision had been made until the memo. . . . .
Joanne Krebs
Commissioner District 5