EAGLE -- Election Day is May 21st, and in Eagle the City Council has put a measure on the ballot to buy Eagle City Hall. It's a measure that's been on the ballot before, several times in fact, but the mayor believes it will past this time.
While the mayor is optimistic, those who have voted 'no' in the past are wondering why the city council is at this again.
For those who have spent more than a decade in Eagle, the measure on the upcoming ballot is more than familiar.
I believe in 2003 I voted 'no,' again in 2004 I voted 'no.' The citizens of Eagle spoke loud and clear and then the City Council decided to go ahead and build it anyways, said Eagle resident Bradley Cozzens.
Cozzens has voted on whether the city of Eagle should buy City Hall, instead of leasing it, three times.
In fact, this will be the fifth time this measure has been on the ballot. The first was 1997, followed by 2003, then 2004, just last November and now May 21, 2013.
Why, when we have said 'no' over and over again, are they shoving it down our throats? said Cozzens.
Eagle Mayor Jim Reynolds recognizes there are some people with, as he puts it, heartburn towards Eagle City Hall.
It's a previous administration, you can have heartburn about it all you want, but does it really serve the city to do that? said Reynolds.
He's looking at this bond as a way to save the city money. Right now, the city pays around $140,000 per year to lease the building. October 1st, he says, that will jump to around $240,000.
This bond allows the city to buy the building and save $167,000 each year.
Maybe the climate is such that let's just get beyond this, let's save the $167,000 a year and put to other use or put it back to the taxpayers, said Reynolds.
But Cozzens and others say there is a third option, get out of the current lease and downsize the building.
It curdles my sense of civic duty when the citizenry says 'no' and the politicians say 'yes,' said Cozzens.
A town of our size should have a place, something like this, so to me it's very fitting, said Reynolds.
The reason this measure is on the ballot again is due to an error, just six months after it failed by 25 votes in November. Many precincts in the city did not give voters the proper ballot, so those people did not vote on the measure. This measure needs 66 and two-thirds percent, or a super-majority, in order to pass.