Here's what I just posted on their on-line comments:
It is hardly irresponsible for council members to suggest how to keep serious cuts to public safety and quality of life services from happening. While you bash the three of us who proposed a solution, we await the ideas of the the remainder of the council or the mayor. Yes, the others are lining up to spend the increased revenue on a variety of projects. Public safety should come first -- not an underground tunnel that someone forgot to design when the court house was proposed or a new city website.
Please get your facts straight -- for the past 9 out of 10 years -- the City has received more oil money than budgeted and it was used to restore cuts which is what we were proposing to do.
By the way, the three of us also tried to get the council to meet this coming week (instead of taking the day off) to continue working on the budget -- no surprise -- the City Manager said we couldn't get a quorum.
Bet most residents didn't even know that for the past 9 out of 10 years the city has received extra funds -- some times as much as 9 - 10 million. I have asked the City Manager to explain to the City Council where the extra revenue from inland oil has been spent for the past 9 out of 10 years so the public can see where their money has gone.
So as long as the Mayor continues to propose cuts to 5th District libraries, police, fire stations and recreational programs you can bet I will look for every source of funds to restore those cuts. That's being responsible.