Dear Editor,

Recently I have had several people ask me to explain why I am against the telephone complex purchase and all that goes with it. I am against borrowing a ton of money to “dress up” an old building that is way too big for us and has asbestos and God-knows what else in it. A fancy City Hall will not bring one business here or attract families. The council has not attempted to address any repair issues at our present City Hall and certainly done nothing constructive about the drainage problem. (Naturally. They would like the present building to collapse and we’d have to move.) Why don’t we hire a firm that is not connected in any way with the council to do a complete analysis of the building and the drainage issue and make public what is wrong? If we could get a few more years use out of our present City Hall we might be in a better position to build a new one without a huge debt. The old City Hall might be turned over to the police department and city court. Also the evidence room in the police department is “grandfathered” in and we could save considerable expense by not moving it. Attaching streets to a 20 year plan is really short sighted. You fix a street in 2020 and in 2040 you know what you have? Pot holes to China.
My main concern, though, is the long term effect the closing of the mine and the possible closing of our State Park and Lake will have. In today’s present precarious economy, going into debt when we don’t have to makes little sense. Some of our council members apparently never heard the old adage, “Use it up. Wear it out. Make it do”.
I suppose what really makes me the maddest is the way we, the voters who put the council up there, are being treated. Taking it upon themselves to decide something so momentous. Hiding for hours in executive session hoping we’ll all go home. Putting the “city hall project” at the bottom of a nearly 4 hour council meeting. (If you need a cushion for the next meeting, call me. I have dozens.)
If this is such a “great deal for the city” why not put it on the May ballot and let us vote? That way we can sink or swim together.
P.S. These bonds are now being called “Certificates of Obligation.” They are still bonds. A cat can have kittens in the oven but that doesn’t make them biscuits.

Jo Olive Turner
Fairfield, Texas

Editor’s Note: Some of the issues raised in this letter are addressed in this article .
It is important to note how a Certificate of Obligation differs from a General Obligation Bond when municipalities seek to fund various projects.
According to the Texas Municipal League, a General Obligation Bond requires an election to seek voter approval. With a Certificate of Obligation, the voters can petition for an election.
If the City of Fairfield were to pursue a Certificate of Obligation, a public notice would be required to be published in the local newspaper. The notice must list the amount, how the funds would be used, how it would be paid back, and when the Council intended to vote on the matter.
If a petition of 5% or more voters requesting a vote was submitted, then the matter would be required to be placed on the ballot for the public to give final approval.
According to Fairfield City Administrator Nate Smith, a Certificate of Obligation is only one of several options City Council is considering. Even so, the deadline has passed to include such a matter on this year’s May ballot.