Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Ice Arena Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident says no written agreement for $3.2M ice-arena pledge, raises survey access concerns
Summary
A Casper resident told the City Council he could not find a contract spelling out terms for a $3.2 million ice-arena match and said the city's online priority-budget questionnaire was inaccessible; a councilor said increased scrutiny of the resident's public statements explains recent pushback.
A Casper resident told the City Council on June 3 that he could not find a written agreement spelling out terms for the $3.2 million the city has been holding for an ice-arena expansion and raised problems with the city's online priority-budget questionnaire.
The matter was raised during the meeting's public-comment period by a speaker identified in the record as Mr. Shriffman, who said he had asked repeatedly for clarity about the ice-hockey club's deadline to raise matching funds and then sought a copy of any contract or agreement. "I found out there is no agreement. There's no contract," he told the council.
Mr. Shriffman also told the council that the city's priority-budget survey lacked an option he expected for responses and that he could not advance past the first page. "The reason I couldn't answer all the questions was the... offering of the answers were high priority, medium priority, low priority. There's no question, not a priority or not a responsibility of government," he said.
Council members did not adopt or amend any policy during the public-comment period. A councilor who responded briefly thanked Mr. Shriffman for coming forward and said city staff have generally been open to helping him access information; that remark was paraphrased in the meeting record and is reported here as such. Later in the meeting, Councilor Pollock addressed Mr. Shriffman directly, saying the council's increased pushback reflected the speaker's growing role as a public source of information and the council's responsibility to correct misinformation. "But the increased pushback that I've been, that you've been getting now is the result of you positioning yourself as a source of information for the citizenry more broadly... I feel compelled to hold you to a higher standard in the way you represent the activities of the council," Pollock said.
No formal action was taken in response to the request for copies of agreements or to fix the survey site during the meeting. The council did not provide a deadline or staff assignment on the record to produce the requested contract or to report back on the survey's technical problems.
Why this matters: If the city is holding public funds contingent on private fundraising, residents and stakeholders expect clear, written agreements that define deadlines and responsibilities. Access problems with the public budgeting survey can affect the representativeness of community input.
The council's next work session is Tuesday, June 10; the next regular meeting is Tuesday, June 17.
