Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Westminster candidates split on 3H ballot measure funding fire, paramedics and roads
Summary
During the Westminster Chamber forum, City Council and mayoral candidates gave one-word positions on ballot question 3H and described how the measure would be used if approved. Candidates also debated whether long-term service funding should be put to voters.
Westminster candidates at a Chamber of Commerce forum gave varied responses to ballot question 3H, which would fund additional staffing for the fire department and paramedics and add funds for neighborhood road maintenance.
During the City Council candidate segment, Jack Johnson said he would "approve" the measure; Karen Calabity and Jeremy answered "neutral," while Mayor Pro Tem (and council candidate) Mr. Miller and Philip Romero said "approve." Kathy Stroud answered "neutral." Candidates explained that their answers reflected a tension between supporting public safety and asking voters to approve new taxes.
Mayor and mayoral-candidate answers were split as well. At the mayoral forum, candidate Baker said "oppose," while other mayoral candidates offered support; candidates emphasized different priorities in their reasoning.
David Dimas, a mayoral candidate and a current council member, described outreach and specific allocations tied to 3H: "When we had that conversation, I specifically brought up the fact that we needed to partner with the different stakeholders ... being our fire union, our business community ... and those are things that we've done as we've went through this journey of giving the option to the taxpayers." During the forum he noted that the measure would add $2,000,000 to neighborhood streets if approved.
Other candidates framed 3H as a form of investment in core municipal services. Philip Romero said that funding to maintain prompt fire and medical response is "a critical life safety issue" and compared it to having insurance for the city.
No binding city action occurred at the forum; the event recorded positions and arguments intended for voters to consider ahead of the election.
