The Golden Star asked the Town of Golden Byelection candidates what their stand on the proposed Bridge to Bridge project is.
In alphabetical order, their responses were:
I am pleased to see that the future of this project will be decided by referendum.
While I personally did not sign the counter petition, I can understand why so many in the community felt that the decision required more input. And I think that this level of community engagement is always a good thing.
I believe that we have a responsibility to examine the process that brought our community to this point.
I believe that we can always make improvements on how decisions are made, and great care needs to be taken with projects of this magnitude.
B2B is scaled back, seeking 1.3 million rather than 2.5.
Candidates have a say only by voting in the referendum. I have supported the project since 2010 when I first saw it presented.
To me it encompasses everything that should be considered including infrastructure and liability protection, risk management, and yes, beautification.
Although the beautification is currently cut, it previously represented only approximately 10% of the budget. The current proposal will cost residential taxpayers, whose average tax bill is $2000, an additional approximately, $50 per year. It will be up to residents to decide if their pockets can accommodate that.
I am completely opposed to the borrowing of $1.3 million in this economic climate for the Bridge to Bridge project.
I am not against flood alleviation when the budget allows. Council should examine more cost effective alternatives, and any future dike improvements should be in conjunction with an on going program of gravel removal and bar scalping.
Increasing the Town’s debt on a lower priority project simply does not make sense. With $14 million worth of infrastructure projects having already been identified we must prioritize those first. You the electorate will now have the final say. Please vote No.
Raising dike a short term measure requiring future work again, prefer dredging (not requiring extensive dyke work), bridge to bridge not on towns original infrastructure priority list, and in a struggling economy not the time to take on such a debt load.
However, if elected as councillor, my position would have to take into consideration the will of the town’s people.
With a project of this size ($) I expect the town to educate people on various options, pros and cons, and take it to a town vote.
After all tax payer should have a say.
Dike improvement should be one component of an integrated infrastructure management plan. There are $13.5 million in road, water, and sewer projects with priority over B2B. When the HWY95 bridge is repaired/replaced, it might make sense to do B2B at that time.
Flood control must include dredging as a major component.
The scaled-back budget at $3.5 million is still much-too-much for 330m of dyke.
The town’s balance sheet should not be burdened with more debt in this economic climate.
There are far more effective ways of beautifying the town, at much less cost, than paving a back alley.