OCR Text |
Show XETTERSZl More Alarming Canine Reports learned that the dog had -been put to sleep because it had not been redeemed within the four day time period allowed. Our question is why Mr. Shoda allowed this animal's life to be needlessly snuffed1 when he knew that the dog was not abandoned, that attempts were being made to retrieve it and that the owners loved and wanted their longtime companion back. Joe Hanley John Lehmer Suit Points Raised Dear Editor: In last week's Newspaper animal control officer Barry Shoda was attributed with the statement that "human error, combined with not having the right equipment" was the cause of the death of the dog hanged out of the back of the animal control pickup truck. We should like to know what Mr. Shoda's excuse is for the death of Dog Hanley. a dog owned by Jerry and Joe Hanley. Dog was picked up by the animal control officer and placed in the impound lot at Kimball's Junction. Joe Hanley called the sheriff's department and determined that the dog was in the impound lot. Inasmuch as the Hanleys were unable to personally pick up the dog and pay the appropriate fine and fees, they asked their attorney and agent John Lehmer to go to Kimball's Junction and redeem the dog. Mr. Lehmer made an appointment with Mr. Shoda to pick up the dog and when Mr. Lehmer arrived at Kimball's Junction, Mr. Shoda refused to release the dog to him, in spite of the fact that Mr. Lehmer was prepared to pay all fines in cash and told Mr. Shoda that the Hanleys were unable to personally pick up the dog. Mr. Shoda's reason was that the county's policy is that he could release the dog only to its' owner. When Mr. Hanley returned to town three days later and attempted attemp-ted to redeem the dog, he Dear Editor: As you are most likely aware, in the fall of last year Park City Ltd. brought an action suit in the federal courts accusing the City of participating in a conspiracy to commit antitrust violations. viola-tions. While Park City Ltd. does not agree with employing the media as a forum for it's litigation, we feel that citizenry should be apprised of some of the facts having the most impact on you, the taxpayer. In an earlier edition of this paper, Ms. Loble cast the blame for the city's budget overruns on the numerous Monty Gibson lawsuits. While we (Park City Ltd.) do not feel that we are totally responsible for the above referred budget overruns, we certainly have to accept the responsibility for at least one hundred thousand dollars dol-lars of them, as that is the amount that the City has indicated that they have spent of your tax dollars in defense of the law suits that we have brought. Most recently in conversations conversa-tions with the city attorney, with respect to the Cornice project, the subject turned to the litigation that the City and Park City Ltd. are involved in, and in particular, particu-lar, to the massive costs associated therewith. (This conversation is the source of much of the information referred to in this letter). As a part of this conversation, I suggested to Mr. Clyde that ' very possibly a settlement might be arrived at that would make it unnecessary for the City to incur further legal expense. While Mr. Clyde was not wholly in agreement with the proposals propo-sals that I was making, he at least was willing to communicate commu-nicate them to our autonomous autono-mous City Council. Mr. Clyde subsequently did communicate com-municate our proposal to the Council, whose position was and I quote "as of this time we are content to let matters stand as they are". The direct result of this decision by the City Council is, that they have created a potential exposure to you the taxpayer during the -coming year of legal fees which may exceed two hundred thousand dollars and should Park City Ltd prevail in the actions which it has brought, that exposure will exceed two million dollars. Are you willing to take the risk? Park City Ltd. feels that considering the exposure to the City that it has taken a responsible position in trying to limit the expenses incurred incur-red by the City. And considering the City's response we can feel no further responsibility for any additional burden which the taxpayer must bear. Park City Ltd., James Gibson, General Partner Candidate Voices Views Volleyball Court Open Dear Editor: On behalf of the Park City Recreation Department staff and all of the volleyball enthusiasts in Park City, we would like to take this opportunity to thank Bob Johnston, Parks Superintendent, Superinten-dent, and his staff for the time and effort they have put into making the new sand volleyball court at city park a reality. This is only one more step towards providing the citizens of Park City another quality recreation activity. It's the best court in town! Joy Rasmussen Park City Recreation Dept. Dear Editor: As a candidate for the fire commission, I feel compelled to write concerning fire protection services. Residents Resi-dents of the Park City area 4 are both service conscious and fiscally aware. The residents of the district will best be served if. differences can be resolved through negotiation. I propose, creation of a special ' task force to meet together and recommend a solution acceptable to all parties. The task force could be made up of two City Council members, two fire commissioners and the fire chief. The full City Council and the Fire Commission should charge the task force with: Please turn to page.1 OA I MORE I T7TT17Pg Continued from Page 2A 1. Assuring continued high quality fire protection service so residents will have physical physi-cal safety, low monetary loss and low fire insurance rates. Firefighters, who put their life on the line, need the support of the people, the Fire Commission, the City . Council and staff if they are to be effective. 2. Exploration of the policy level taxing organization thrt will assure fire service and taxation levels close to the ' desires of the people. The present commission organization organi-zation may be the best way. However, serious considera tion should be given to recent proposals to create a city fire department or to create a special fire service district as permitted by state law. The costs and the benefits of each on these options needs to be clearly identified if wise decisions are to be made. 3. Recommending the tund-ing tund-ing and taxation levels required. Currently the fire commission receives 4 mills of our taxes. A special service district could raise up to 8 mills under present law. Adequate safe guards need to be developed to insure that taxes will not be raised without clear public support. Preliminary information I have seen suggests that the cost of equipping a new fire dept. for Park City would cost well over $1 million and result in decreased quality of fire protection service in the district: I believe the task force can develop a concensus on how the fire protection delivery system can meet the standards stand-ards of efficiency and effectiveness effec-tiveness demanded by our service conscious, fiscally aware citizens. Vince Desimone Fire Commission Candidate |