Only Residents can speak? Are nonresidents welcome?

Interesting post. You state if things don't change you cannot afford to live here. Taxes are high. What is it that you suggest they cut to make it more affordable to live here. That is what the council needs. Its funny, everybody likes to spend the money...but the responsible thing to do as a citizen is to suggest where money can be cut. That is the difficult decision. I am very curious of your suggestions?

PS. It is customary in any city council for the engineer hired by the city to present the project to the citizens. This is not the responsibility of the mayor. I don't think he is hiding.

mouthpiece wrote:

This is how we do it in Ortonville from understood!

Both of us represent a information site attempting to inform the citizens of the real facts surrounding what we perceive to be corruption in government. The role of the press is to address this issue.

There is nothing I could write that would convince you of your stubborn and inarticulate position. It does not surprise me that you rely on yahoo as your legal definition of "citizen". Here is a more educated and legal definition, And every white man, born or naturalized in any other State, is such a citizen of such other State as to be entitled, in this State, to all the civil rights of citizenship, and by residence and other qualifications to all the political rights.

You see your definition of citizen was used when slaves attempted to cross into Union states. It does not surprise me you would rely on an outdated and racist definition to attempt to prove your point.

However I can thank God that other government agencies such as Big Stone City, SD are more open-minded than you.

Just last month Donnette Herberg on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce asked for money at their meeting and not only was she allowed to speak, they voted to give her the money.

Thank-you Mayor Wik and the entire Big Stone City council for rising to a higher level of government and promoting the idea of listening to all people whether residents or not.

I suspect that understood and the people who support this position think that only citizens should speak at a city council meeting would also discourage disabled veterans from speaking at their meeting if they were from out of town, or a minority from out of town or a person of a different religion from out of town.

Keep up the good work Big Stone City.

I think you are out in left field, citizens to be heard and a chamber marketing for a town are apples and oranges. Your examples are getting goofy. Lets stick to facts.

understood wrote:

How can one make an educated opinion without a complete understanding of the city finance? I want it, I want it, I want it! That is what you here from a 2 year old.

You sound like you are describing Mayor Blair Johnson and the golf course. You also sound like you are describing Nick Anderson talking about having the Sheriff take over the police department. All one hears from the two of them is "I want it, I want it!"

I'll have to give you credit for that description.

understood wrote:

An adult could have a more professional approach. It would be nice if I could here debates about the facts of law enforcement, instead of I want it, I want it, I want it. Until I hear some real good facts that go against what a majority of the council may want, your 2 year old approach won't change my mind. Lets not forget, you are paid to represent them..duh, maybe a bias opinion???? Ya, think???

As I understood he didn't get paid to represent him, and for that matter his opinion was the same as it was before he represented him. So money has no bearing on the matter. Just because a person earns a living doesn't necessarily mean that they sell their integrity.


I would love to discuss the facts. Since you are so knowledgeable about the police department and how much money we can save, why don't you tell us how much money the city will pay to the Sheriffs department to take over the policing of Ortonville.

Misunderstood
It has been my experience that when someone's defense involves blasting people for asking questions and calling them names instead of explaining the answers to the questions, there is some guilt and deception going on.
And I'm intrigued by the accusation that someone is being paid to stir things up. Wouldn't that be like paying someone to make sure the sun comes up? I mean, do you not believe that people can get ticked off on their own or can speak out against poor governance without monetary incentive? (By the way, who are these people willing to finance my opinion -- My 201K could use some help getting back to a 401K.)
People only behave like 2-year-olds when it is in their nature and upbringing to do so. More often than not, I find the accuser is guilty of the crime, not the accused. Their mind works like that, ya see...
Once again, the point was lost -- Citizens participate. Elected officials welcome that and they COMMUNICATE with them. They are not communicating -- all they are doing is bashing the citizen for speaking. Do you see the problem with that? The solution is still the same --- they need to COMMUNICATE. When did you ever go away feeling your questions were satisfied if someone told you, "Well, you just don't understand everything they do and you should just let them do their thing."
INFORMATION....ANSWERS. People want COMMUNICATION. Hello?

First, I like to say, Welcome to Advocate and the others who have made city of Ortonville their home. There are many, many wonderful and delicated people in Ortonville who are trying to make it a great city to live in. According to "understood", I'm not one of them even though I work in Ortonville, have lived here in the area all my life (except for going to school), have family and friends live in Ortonville, spend majority of my paycheck in Ortonville, my children go to school and graduated from Ortonville School, my church is in Ortonville and my address states Ortonville. Thank you to this forum so I can speak. After reading what "understood" wrote: "You shopping in Ortonville does not give you the right to advocate for us citizens to pay higher taxes." , I was appalled! To me this means: "understood" wants (I want! I want!) me to spend my money in Ortonville but shut up while doing it because you don't have any rights here and it causes them to pay higher taxes!
It was asked for suggestions: how about selling the golf course--if it was any other business and it was losing money, they would sell it, not pump more money into it; how about selling the swimming pool or any other places that the city owns? Maybe the city council would come up like the city of St. Cloud is considering: Street light fee considered in St. Cloud http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=700942&catid=14 Watch it residents if the city council is as sneaky as they have been in the past, they could get it passed without you knowing it until you get a bill. Like the purchase of the medical facility, still puzzles me how the city council can say that the city has no funds but can turn around and buy it.
As a resident of Big Stone County, eliminating the Ortonville Police Department DOES affect me! Because when you take away my protection at work and at home then you come into my territory of being safe. Please correct me if I am wrong but when the city council decrease the police coverage in Ortonville, was it not a policy or a discussion made for the county sheriffs department take over that decreased coverage?

Zorro wrote:

More often than not, I find the accuser is guilty of the crime, not the accused. Their mind works like that, ya see...

Finally we agree!!!! Yeaaaa! You, Mouthpiece and Lady hawk have been accusing for months!!!! You are right! The accuser is most often guilty of the crime. I figured over time the truth would come out. I will sleep much better now!
Thanks,

LittleDeb wrote:

Watch it residents if the city council is as sneaky as they have been in the past, they could get it passed without you knowing it until you get a bill.

Interesting point LittleDeb. Did you notice the latest Ortonville City Council Meeting notice put up by Mouthpiece.

mouthpiece wrote:

3. Consider and Approve Certain Police Department Personnel Hiring and Appointment Decisions

Does that look like another attempt to possibly appoint Dan Oakes to the Ortonville City Council?

LittleDeb wrote:

Please correct me if I am wrong but when the city council decrease the police coverage in Ortonville, was it not a policy or a discussion made for the county sheriffs department take over that decreased coverage?

I am not sure what you mean? Can you clarify your question? Are you saying that when the Sheriffs Dept takes over the Ortonville city coverage it was understood that there would be less coverage than we have now with our present force?

Maybe it that is why it is supposed to be cheaper. If the City of Ortonville cut back on coverage that would lower the cost of the police department. Why surrender the city police department to the county if they are going to just cut back the hours? Couldn't Ortonville do that?

I asked understood how much the city would pay the Sheriff's department for this police coverage and so far no answer. Unfortunately understood is sleeping now. Two year olds do need their rest you know. After nap time perhaps understood could provide the answer to the question.

I can't believe you don't have this information! Its is a pretty important part. No wonder your against it, your missing information.

Many contracts for county coverage were looked at. The best model I saw was Redfield SD. They have the county provide special coverage for 20 hours per day. They have an officer on duty in town 20 hours per day just as you would with a city department. They even provide additional services for the city. The cost for this was around $185,000 per year. There wages were about 10% less than ours at that time which would bring the total to around $200,000 for us. At that time Ortonville was paying around $350,000 for coverage. In this scenerio we would save $150,000 per year. One thing to remember is Ortonville pays around 40% of the current Sheriff budget already through county taxes. The last I saw that budget was around $900,000. That would mean that $360,000 paid by Ortonville into county law enforcement. If you total the two you are around $700,000.

So in a nut shell it appeared that Ortonville could have its 20 hours of dedicated coverage through the county and save $150,000 per year. I have not heard one convincing reason not to do this. The Sheriff would be in control and he is elected in. The people have a say in that. As far as getting called out of town, our local PD leaves town now when needed. The officers could even be the same people that are city officers now (Mork, Clint, Horman). But instead our city has reduced coverage to 16 hours a day(saving $50,000), which I do not agree with and we continue to pay around $300,000 a year.

Yes, we could increase our police coverage back to 20 hours a day and save nearly $100,000 per year. We already saved $25,000 a year on dispatch when we looked into this. We found out that we were one of the only cities in the state providing dispatch. This became a county responsibilty immediately upon that finding. And to think Mike Dorry voted against even looking into it?????? He is not saving us any money :cry:

Now that I gave you those facts, give me your opinion of this...its OK to change your mind based on the facts, many people have. I can back up any figure on here, they are very close but may have changed slightly over the years.

What Understood is really saying is that there is no hope for ortonville. As our population declines to that of Redfield we need to save money for the foot of the lake and the golf course.

We need negative economic growth because we can not recruit other businesses to our area because we do not like outsiders.

We need to spend money on projects that decrease property values because the golf course continues to be the leading polluter of our lake.

We need to protect what we have because we do not have much.

As I have already said, the elimination of the police force is an economic development issue. It is well known that the money circulates 7 times. If we eliminate $150,000 in wages we lose over a million dollars.

My position on this thread has been consistent. The bright and shining star in this area is Big Sone City and Milbank.

Understood as I walk the streets of this community and talk with those who read this forum, the people are not impressed with your usage of statistics. You know how the saying goes, statistics lie and people who use statistics. . .

Your whole post from a statistical analysis is so weakl, I frankly do not know where to begin to srtraighten it out. Your analagies between Redfield located in a state that does not have an income tax, to an entirely different form of tourism, lake real property vs. hunting, the location of Ortonville near a boundary and a population radius within 15 miles over 12,000 people in the summer is just a beginning of the failed comparison.

There is a formula used by Minnesoat already. Give me the savings using this number.

The result would still not influence me because this is an economic development issue and sends a clear signal that we are a declining community with no future.

Apparently you are willing to accept this. As for me, I have a different vision.

understood, I read your post last night and found it interesting. Rather than reply I wanted to think about it. Your post prompted another question and in spite of mouthpieces comments above I would still like to ask the question.

Where is this report and a can anyone see it? I would like to see the figures and facts for myself before I form a conclusive opinion.

"Lady Hawk": I was not sure but I thought there was a discussion made when the city council decreased the police coverage hours, that the the County Sheriff Department was going to cover the rest of those hours and now according to "understood" that there was.

"Understood": Thank you for giving that information. When the city council decreased the police coverage hours to 16 hours, was it discussed or a policy made for the County Sheriff Department to do the other 4-8 hours of police coverage in Ortonville?

"Understood": this is my take on what you also wrote--the city council would eliminate the police department, saving this money and put the burden of policing the city of Ortonville on the rest of the taxpayers in Big Stone County. Which means my taxes would go up to pay for this additional staff! Which according to you, I have no right to say anything because I am not a citizen of Ortonville. Or anyone else who lives outside of Ortonville in Big Stone County.

Mouthpeice, buying the most afordable 20 hours of coverage is using tax dollars wisely. I told you all the numbers I have provided can be backed up. Using state income tax has absolutely nothing to do with providing 20 hours of coverage. 20 hours is 20 hours. Doesn't matter if you have a lake or state income tax. If the taxpayers kept the $150,000 in savings and spent that money in town, would that not turn 7 times? Does it only turn 7 times when an officer spends it? If I got my portion of that savings, I could promise you I would turn it 7 times. That is very bad math on your part. Shame on you. You are reaching for the sky now. It is obvious. Until you show facts that contridict mine, we will go with my figures which have hundreds of hours. You have no basis for not believing them. Redfield is not a dying town, they have been county policed for nearly 20 years. Works great.

Little Deb, there is little to no addl burden on county tax by contracting with the county. That is what the $200,000 is for. Besides Ortonville pays 40% of the current sheriff budget, would it be OK if we get some coverage for this, or should we continue to subsidizde the county residents. How about we quit paying our $360,000 into the county and then rely soley on our own department. We would have twice the budget!

Here is an analigy:

The public decides to have the city and the county open up a donut shop. They decide to even put these shops in the same town. They both sell donuts through the tax base by delivering to all of there residents except the county does not deliver to Ortonville even though they are buying the donuts because they have their own donut shop. The elected officials decide to hire a chief for one and a sheriff for the other one. These people would get paid over $60,000 each with benefits. Then we need our donut runners (officers). Each department needs 3 of these and pay them an average of $35,000 a piece they also each need their own support staff. Again Ortonville will not get donuts from the county donut shop unless they really get behind. After this donut arrangement has worked for several years the state decides to take some money away from the Ortonville donut shop. The council is concerned how it should keep the shop open so they decide to talk to the other donut shop. It is discovered that the 2 donut shops could combine and still provide Ortonville with all of their donuts, eliminate the chief of the donut shop and save his wages and eliminate the support staff and building saving $150,000. It seems clear that the donuts could still be delivered just as they have but the donut man would have a brown shirt instead of a blue shirt. The citizens confused of the donut arrangement are scared of the change and some of them voice that they want their own donut shop even though we cannot afford them. The council decides they better keep looking into the donut shop because it makes sense financially and the citizens will still get their donuts 20 hours per day.
I don't care who gives me the donuts as long as they are the same donuts. What kind of donuts do you want?

It is the responsibilty of the council to show these facts to you who want them. They were readily available over the last several years.

understood wrote:

It is the responsibilty of the council to show these facts to you who want them. They were readily available over the last several years.

Where were they readily available? Where did you see them?
If I want to see them what do I ask for?

Thank you for answer. So by your reasoning, why is there a street department? Why not have the county do your streets (as I believe some streets in the city are done by the county) and eliminate the street employees since you graciously pay into the county just like you do for law enforcement. Then why have a city administrator? Why not have a county administrator who can overlook all the departments of every city in the county? If I remember correctly, when I lived in the city, owned a house, I paid Ortonville city taxes, just like now my taxes are paid into a township, school district, etc.

As in your analogy, when the 2 donut shops combine to serve all the people, someone is going to get shorted, more than likely the ones who aren't allow to enter that donut shop (remember when you stated that "You shopping in Ortonville does not give you the right to advocate for us citizens to pay higher taxes.") or the one who doesn't live in Ortonville because there isn't enough "donuts" to go around. Take for example, if someone is breaking into a house in Ortonville, at the same time someone is breaking into one in Graceville, what call would be answered first?

You say that Ortonville already pay 40% of the Sheriff's budget, is it for the Sheriff's department to cover the decreased Ortonville police hours?

I apologize to this thread if I got off topic but this is the only way I can voice my opinion. Thank you.

Understood don't get to excited I was out fishing,

I have said over and over. Economic Development in part is the creation of jobs. Your proposal takes away at least three jobs and probably closer to five. Your one time savings of $150,000 turns seven times if you create jobs.

If you buy a new piece of equipment or a building the money does not turn seven times each year. I could ridicule your reasoning, but you don't get it.

In terms of your numbers. I have now waited a week. I suspect the numbers are skewed and we will never see them.

In terms of the comparison to Redfield. Answer the question. I am uninterested in re-writing the book. Minnesota already has a formula for county policing which is more reflective of our situation because we are in Minnesota where there is an income tax and we do not rely as heavily on sales tax and property tax. In case you did not realize this, each city in South Dakota gets part of the sales tax. This is not true in Minnesota.

Answer the question. How much are you saving using the Minnesota formula? Or admit you did not know it existed.

LittleDeb wrote:

Thank you for answer. So by your reasoning, why is there a street department? Why not have the county do your streets (as I believe some streets in the city are done by the county) and eliminate the street employees since you graciously pay into the county just like you do for law enforcement. Then why have a city administrator? Why not have a county administrator who can overlook all the departments of every city in the county? If I remember correctly, when I lived in the city, owned a house, I paid Ortonville city taxes, just like now my taxes are paid into a township, school district, etc.

As in your analogy, when the 2 donut shops combine to serve all the people, someone is going to get shorted, more than likely the ones who aren't allow to enter that donut shop (remember when you stated that "You shopping in Ortonville does not give you the right to advocate for us citizens to pay higher taxes.") or the one who doesn't live in Ortonville because there isn't enough "donuts" to go around. Take for example, if someone is breaking into a house in Ortonville, at the same time someone is breaking into one in Graceville, what call would be answered first?

You say that Ortonville already pay 40% of the Sheriff's budget, is it for the Sheriff's department to cover the decreased Ortonville police hours?

I apologize to this thread if I got off topic but this is the only way I can voice my opinion. Thank you.

What happens now if someone is breaking in at Graceville and someone in Ortonville? The county still has someone on 20 hours per day plus Ortonville would have 20 hours per day of dedicated coverage. This would mean the normal county guy would go to Graceville and the contracted officer would take care of Ortonville. Besides, how many times do you think that happens. I bet the Big Stone guy would come over just as he does now for even a 3rd guy ready just as we help him now. I don't know why that is so hard to understand. The law requires the Sheriff to take care of felonies in the entire county regardless of city departments. Ortonville is not required to provide any law enforcement. Anything Ortonville does is a bonus for the other county residents because the county does not need to respond with the city taking the call.

As far as streets, that has been talked about as well. That is a little more complicated. Tim Scherer did indicate that he needed all of his guys during snow removal but not in the summer. It was discussed that the city could contract with farmers to come help remove snow in the winter. This would save a lot of money as well.

The city administrator manages 19 departments of the city. It would not be feasible to delegate that. I am surprised he can do it now with as little staff as he has.

mouthpiece wrote:

Understood don't get to excited I was out fishing,

I have said over and over. Economic Development in part is the creation of jobs. Your proposal takes away at least three jobs and probably closer to five. Your one time savings of $150,000 turns seven times if you create jobs.

If you buy a new piece of equipment or a building the money does not turn seven times each year. I could ridicule your reasoning, but you don't get it.

In terms of your numbers. I have now waited a week. I suspect the numbers are skewed and we will never see them.

In terms of the comparison to Redfield. Answer the question. I am uninterested in re-writing the book. Minnesota already has a formula for county policing which is more reflective of our situation because we are in Minnesota where there is an income tax and we do not rely as heavily on sales tax and property tax. In case you did not realize this, each city in South Dakota gets part of the sales tax. This is not true in Minnesota.

Answer the question. How much are you saving using the Minnesota formula? Or admit you did not know it existed.

Your economic development scenerio still does not make sense, you are assuming that money would go to a building. You have no basis for that. That is not facts, its poor assumptions. Facts are if you save $150,000 for taxpayers, that money stays in there pocket and is spent just the same as an officer. The money does not disappear. Even if we use your scenario of money going into a building, this is what you have: city hires hasslen to put up building, hasslen buys the materials from jim&sons, hasslen employees get paid and go spend there money at the grocery store, the grocery store hires several people that spend money at hardware hank and so on and so on to 7 times. Is that economic development? Of course it is! Man you really lost that arguement! C'mon mouthpeice, your better than that. The money doesn't disappear!!!

All of the information and research for law enforcement was lead by council member Dan Oakes. He has copies of all this information in a book and has offered to show it to anyone. Many of these figures were shared at several council meetings. There is several contracts in MN as well that were looked at. I encourage you mouthpiece and Lady Hawk to call him and view the information. There was also a study done of MN cities less than 2500 in population and within $50,000 of our taxbase. This study ranked Ortonville #1 out of 50 towns in that catagory in how much we spend in public safety. In fact, we were nearly double #2 rank. The easiest statistic that was right from the state auditor shows what the average town our size spends on public safety. Dan will have this figure for you as well. The ball is in your court, call him at 839-6107. I am not about to go spend 20 hours re-researching something that has already been done. Keep in mind, the council voted 6-1 to have Dan Oakes and Artie Arndt go get this information. This research also included meetings and input from the county sheriff and the county auditor as well.

As far as tax mouthpeice, how does that have anything to do with protection. MN does not get local sales tax, they get LGA instead. Big deal. Facts are what does it cost for protection? I am most familiar with Redfield because my uncle worked there. There are several contracts for you to look at.

Here is my question: if we set up a meeting to show Lady Hawk, Mouthpiece and Little Deb the information would you come??? I would not be interested if your plan was to make a political circus, but if you truly wanted to see the facts I would put forth the effort to do so. My guess is you really don't want to see it. I will wait for an answere from all of you.

Is Mr. Dan Oakes the only one who has the report? Does Mr. Artie Arndt have a copy? Does the city have a copy? When was the report made? At what meeting did the council vote 6 to 1 to have Dan Oakes and Artie Arndt to go get this information?

Rather than show it to three people wouldn't it be better to have a public hearing on contracting law enforcement and let everyone see it?

I have already seen Dan's numbers and concur much more with the study which indicated that the department was the best value for the dollar. You claim John Haukos will hire all of the current officers. What happens if the County Commissioners say too much money?

You were on the council that did not agree with Mr. oakes position years ago. Why are we still arguing? Have the numbers changed? Maybe we should have another task force?

I concur with the study that indicated Mr. Lang was part of the problem. Mr. Lang can not even keep accurate minutes let alone run a city.

How does eliminating $150,000 in wages create jobs. Your argument that the city will build each year to make up the $150,000 is silly. Then again, if you save $150,000 in wages and spend $150,000 in building how much have you saved? My math says, 0.

See how circular your argument is? We have had 20 some posts and you still have not shown how you are creating jobs by eliminating the police force.

Mouthpeice, you are not reading the posts. If the city did not have a department and they cut 3 guys and the county hires 3 guys, how did we lose? Are you choosing to not understand or do you not get it? we could keep economic development with those 3 guys and still save money. See how a contract works is the city would contract for the county to provide 20 hours of DEDICATED coverage. when the county signs that and receives payment , they must provide that. They can't take our money and say "too expensive". You say keeping local is a better value, with no factual information what so ever to back it up. This is why council continues to look into it. Guys like you argue against it with no facts. When did you see Oakes' information? I have offered you and Lady Hawk the opportunity to look at the info and niether one of you have accepted. This totally reconfirms that you do not want to see the facts. The information is much too large to attempt to copy it or post it to the web. I have offered, and you have declined to look at it. This reminds me of the Mike Dorry approach, don't look at it, because it might make sense! Are you guys related? Do me a favor, argue the facts or give it up.

understood wrote:

Mouthpeice, you are not reading the posts. If the city did not have a department and they cut 3 guys and the county hires 3 guys, how did we lose? Are you choosing to not understand or do you not get it? we could keep economic development with those 3 guys and still save money. See how a contract works is the city would contract for the county to provide 20 hours of DEDICATED coverage. when the county signs that and receives payment , they must provide that. They can't take our money and say "too expensive".

What guarantee do you have that the Sheriff will hire three men to replace the three Ortonville Police Dept officers? What if they decide to hire only two or perhaps one? Is it in the contract that they have to hire three?

understood wrote:

You say keeping local is a better value, with no factual information what so ever to back it up. This is why council continues to look into it. Guys like you argue against it with no facts. When did you see Oakes' information? I have offered you and Lady Hawk the opportunity to look at the info and niether one of you have accepted. This totally reconfirms that you do not want to see the facts.

That is not true. I have neither accepted nor rejected your offer. I wanted more information and have patiently waited for you to answer my questions from my last post on the bottom of page three. It is disingenuous for you to falsely accuse me because of your not responding to my inquiry.

understood wrote:

The information is much too large to attempt to copy it or post it to the web.

No one asked for a copy but since you brought it up just how large is it? Does the City have a copy? Why not make it available at the library then everyone can have a chance to look at it.

understood wrote:

I have offered, and you have declined to look at it.

That is a lie. I have not declined. You are proposing a "private" meeting with a select few who are deemed worthy to see the sacred grail in the inner sanctum. The last thing I would want to do is be caught alone with a group of people who like to use the committee mentality to control people. I have already been there twice. First at the Hockey Rink Board meeting and then at the Chamber of Commerce Board Meeting and I have no intention of subjecting myself to further abuse and I wouldn't recommend LittleDeb to do that either.

If this information is important then I am not above the rest of the citizens of Ortonville that I can see it and they cannot. If you can't make it available to the public then that indicates to me that your so-called report is some kind of flim-flam-sham and I will not be a part of it. Again it is the same old argument you started out with. Only a select few can see the facts and they decide for the dull ignorant people.

Your post is very revealing because I asked you a question on the bottom of page two of this thread and you have yet to answer it. The question was:

Lady Hawk wrote:

why don't you tell us how much money the city will pay to the Sheriffs department to take over the policing of Ortonville.

The answer you have given me is "you don't know." When I asked for the figure you toss out what other places pay and say that is what we will pay. That is not a fact. You spend two days arguing hypothetical figures and situations about donut shops and accuse mouthpiece of not having "facts?"The City Council has not made public any financial details to my knowledge and evidently you don't have any either. Perhaps Mr. Mike Dorry can see that and has stood against a group of people for a long time alone. He is not alone now.

Your ridiculous ending statement

understood wrote:

...argue the facts or give it up.

is self convicting. You have no facts.

Maybe you should take your own advise.

An exact figure will not be available until the council votes to proceed with a contract proposal. The figures I gave you were generated when the council last discussed it with the county. There are variables that change continously. There is an order of events that take place. What I have posted is facts. You have nothing to disapprove that. There is a process that will take place if the council chooses to move forward. I was offering to expedite that for you. I will see if Dan Oakes is interested in publishing his research. I am not sure who would pay for doing this. You being scared of a meeting is no excuse to not look at the info. I simply stated we would not allow a political circus. Mouthpeice has a history of doing that. Based on the fact that nobody is willing to discuss the facts, I'm sure they are on the Dorry bandwagon. You cannot get an intelligent conversation with him either. If you can buy 20 hours of coverage for around $200,000 from the county or 16 hours of coverage from the city for $300,000, which one would you buy? C'mon! If there is not any savings after moving forward towards a contract, than don't do it. But, if you can get better coverage for less, than why hurt the citizens? Simple math will tell you by eliminating a building and Chief you would have substantial savings. How wouldn't you?

Why are people listening to "understood"? He is clearly getting his information from Mr. Lang, Artie Arndt and Dan Oakes. Is these not the people that everyone has problems with already sharing only 10% of their FACTS to make it look like the golden grail, because the other 90% dispute the 10%. CITIZENS BEWARE IF THEY HAVE OCEANSIDE PROPERTY FOR SALE......YOU WILL FIND YOURSELF LIVING IN KANSAS!!!!

I liked the post of Little Deb..........why look at just the elimination of the police, why not the county highway to take care of the city streets, county auditor to take care of the city administrator, school district for our library and by the way "understood" says ortonville residents pay 40% of all these with our taxes..........just think of the savings the city of ortonville could do.........oh how about contracting big stone city, sd for our fire department......we could sell our trucks and building and make more money.

I also find it interesting that the people that are trying to eliminate the police have had issues with the police in a negative way. Lang trying to control everyone and anyone, Arndt has faced criminal charges by the sheriff's department because he was on the city council and it would have looked bad for the the police, Oakes....?, "Understood".....? What is your connection with the police?...........any ghosts in the closet that you dont want getting out.

I was out with my wife and friends this weekend and we talked issues involving Ortonville and it was said that the sheriff has said numerous times in public that he is not wanting to take on the city with sheriff coverage..........so why are we even talking these issuses........also it was said that when the city officer is not working the county is not out working.....INFACT THE CITY OFFICER IS SITTING AT HOME WAITING FOR THE TELEPHONE TO RING. And I bet everyone thought that the officer was always out and available.

Cool it. You are flying with several acquisations you know nothing about. If it makes sense to do this, don't kill the idea by saying "hey, go look somewhere else to do this. Previous research showed Ortonville way out of line in public safety, not the other areas you are hammering. Why don't you bring your library idea to the council. It has already been suggested by the county, but again, you will be tarred and feathered by the library folks. It looks to me that you are disappointed in the fact that it makes sense. Why attackLang Arndt & Oakes? These people were asked or it was their job to find this information. Don't shoot the messenger! These people did not create the facts, they just reported them. You are trying to make this into a personal attack and look for hidden agendas and you are not going to find one. Do you think if you can find a skeleton in the closet, it will null and void any financial information about the facts of countywide policing. Please, Please tell me why county policing won't work. I am begging someone to show me why it won't work. Why don't you debate facts and statistics and stop trying to personally discredit those who have worked hard for the betterment of Ortonville. I am quite certain I know who you are and I am not interested in letting your skeletons out of the box. Again if you would like to sit down and go through this information I would love to do this with you. Still waiting for someone to take me up on this offer. Are you scared of looking silly when you see the facts?