LETTER: Gardner’s letter missed the mark

To the editor:

In the past, Deborah Gardner was a regular participant at Cicero Town Board meetings. While she and I almost never see eye to eye on policy, I always enjoyed her participation with her questions and comments, which is why I was disappointed to see her miss the mark in her latest letter to the editor.

Ms. Gardner begins by complaining that the town board voted to exceed the tax cap, but she ignores the fact that the highway garage project — which the citizens of Cicero voted to approve — by itself causes us to have to exceed the tax cap.

She next complains about the hiring of an independent expert to give an opinion on the status and condition of the existing highway garage. The town board and I were of the opinion that a qualified subject matter expert should advise us on the condition of the garage, given the magnitude of the proposed project to replace it. While the engineer did come to the same conclusion as the building committee, he also provided a much greater level of analysis and data. I wonder — had we not hired an expert, would Ms. Gardner instead be complaining that we relied on the opinion of amateurs?

With respect to the decision not to put the project out to a mandatory referendum, the engineer’s report indicated that the existing garage was in even worse condition than we anticipated, so we believed that replacing it was an urgent necessity and it was decided that construction should begin as soon as possible. As it turns out, the referendum delayed construction and the protection of critical equipment will not be possible this year.

Ms. Gardner’s comments about the town’s informational campaign are unfounded. The informational mailers that were sent out did not advocate for either side; they presented facts and photographs about the existing building that were taken from the engineer’s report, and they also included an explanation of the tax impact on homeowners.

The first preliminary budget to which Ms. Gardner refers is essentially an early rough draft of a document which Ms. Gardner knows is subject to change and which is a work in progress.

Any change in the salary of the supervisor will be approved by the board and will take effect for the next supervisor, not me under my current term. The salary has been reduced twice in the last 10 years and does not reflect the position’s current status as a full-time position, nor does it reflect the additional responsibilities associated with it. It is my intention that the town will be able, in part, because of a salary adjustment spread over a number of years, to attract people in the future who have the skills necessary to manage job creation; 100 employees and a $14 million dollar budget. These future adjustments will still not be equal to an assistant manager’s salary at our new Chick-fil-A.