More concerned than ever

I was honored to attend the April 18 meeting of the Concerned Citizens group at the Holiday House. I am more concerned now than I was before.

The sign-in sheet was actually a "sign-up" sheet similar to the latest petition. Basically, "don't worry about the truth or facts; we'll cover that later. Just sign up."

I learned some things I had suspected but which were even more disappointing than I had anticipated. I didn't sign up.

First, this community has only one news outlet that is even remotely interested in factual reporting, and they weren't there. The local news-sheet author was there and openly verified that facts from county officials are not a part of his daily routine. Anyone who reads that publication and gets mad enough to start a petition is really missing the point. I enjoy reading the news sheet and can get good laughs from it, never suspecting that there are actually people who believe that stuff, let alone believe it enough to get mad.

The judge, two commissioners and the county auditor were there, much to the dismay of the organizers, and they had some good factual answers to the framed questions. That was not what was desired, and they were not well received.

More of what I learned is:

The 3.94 percent certificates of obligation for the annex opportunity had expired, and thus the 3.35 percent note opportunity was embraced. Not the high hatter story that has been reported some places. Yes, there is some truth that this particular note opportunity is not subject to petition, but just possibly if folks will listen to the county officials and discuss their concerns, things can be worked out without spending valuable time and money with suits and recalls. Does anyone care that the cost for the annex has gone up $600,000 since the first petition?

The real numbers are a $4 million note for a $3.85 million project, not the $2 million and $5 million reported elsewhere.

The balance after seven years, if the note is not refinanced, is a little over $4 million, very similar to the same time frame on a 15- to 20-year amortization schedule. Do I need to keep saying these are very different from the daily news sheet reporting? Let's just assume that from here on and save trees.

The actual tax impact per $100,000 valuation from this annex project is about $10 per year. That is per year, folks.

The $400 per square foot "construction" costs actually include the furnishings, paving of the parking lot, and a new bullet-proof bench and sound system for the upstairs courtroom to meet state requirements. The actual building construction costs are about $200 per square foot, very much in line with similar projects. It was noted by an attender that the acoustics resulting from the Historical Committee design for the courtroom need help badly.

National, state and local records retention mandates are very specific for property records. The records need to be close to the people who need to access them. They should not be stored in the first floor in a flood zone. This is not rocket science, folks.

Many of the decisions made by our county officials are made with the future in mind. The past has been plagued with spending limitations so stringent that no future planning was considered. Now we are faced with reinforcing five-year-old buildings that should have been built to last at least 10 years or more. If we don't plan ahead for the growth that is already here, our "catch-up" taxes will be so paramount that the county will not be able to survive.

Those who are touting this latest controversy have rarely if ever attended a Commissioners Court, have never attended the information-sharing sessions provided by the local officials, have never requested a conversation with local officials to provide input, have no reasonable suggestions and are not interested in learning anything about current economics. They are going to do what they are going to do no matter what facts are presented. Furthermore, they didn't even serve ice water for a two-hour meeting.

It was apparent to me, through observation, that this is much the same group that was involved in keeping the Lampasas schools occupied through controversy for 20 or more years and put them 20-30 years behind any other school district within 100 miles. Now that the schools are on a path to some success, they are going to try to keep our county services as far behind as possible. Their yearning is for the county they remember in the '50s and '60s. I'm not referring to the Kempner school issue. That was valid and needed to be addressed.

If we who are really interested in what this county can be in the future don't band together and vote in support of our local officials, we will continually fall further and further behind, and valid county services will be more and more costly.

There were some very valid questions raised about historical preservation. I don't have an answer for that one. My preference would be to take pictures and save some of the stones from the Brooks building and preserve them in the local museum. Possibly build a memorial somewhere with the stone. I just think it needs to be replaced before it finishes falling down and kills someone.

I certainly don't have all the answers, but I spent 30 years as an engineering planner frustrated with those who only managed by "Held Orders" and wouldn't build plants to avoid "Held Orders." Sorry, if I didn't lose most readers a few lines ago, I have for sure lost them now. Time to quit.

David Hamilton

Lometa