City water rip off nets $2,000,000 per year!!!!

[Ed Arzouian]

One good development at the Puiblic Citizens' American Legion meeting on Robinson Street was a better understanding of just how much Matthew T. Ryan plans to rip off residents with this additional 43% increase in the water rates (above the 24% last year).

 

It was learned that the annual metered revenue for water for the City of Binghamton is $5,200,000 (five million two-hundred thousand).

 

So a 43% increase will net the City and additional $2,360,000 (two million, three-hunded and sixty thousand dollars) PER YEAR, EVERY YEAR!!!

 

REMEMBER WHEN THEY TOLD US THE PROBLEM WAS A $300,000 DEFICIT???

 

THIS INCREASE WILL GIVE THEM A $2,000 000 SURPLUS EVERY YEAR.

 

CAN THE TRANSPARENT MATTHEW T. RYAN EXPLAIN THAT?

 

A civil law suit should be launched to stop this outrageous and unecessary ripoff.

 

A court injunction should be immediately sought.

 

The news media should be reporting this violation of residents and businesses.

[Guest Guest]

Obviously Matthew T. Ryan is using the water increase as a hidden tax to cover his out-of-control spending, misamangement and waste.

 

Don't let him get away with it.

[Guest Guest]

you're so called meeting really helped alot!!!

[The West Sider]

I saw the story on WBNG. Great job guys.

 

Keep up the good work.

 

A serious set of questions to Ed et al. in advance of the the the typical discrediting posts (obsessive posting, etc.) that I am sure that will follow:

 

1) How was it figured that there will be a net increase of 2.36 million annually?

 

2) Was there any discussion as to why such an increase was made correct a $300,000 shortfall?

 

TWS

[Guest non-pedophile]

TO MY UNDERSTANDING THE COUNTY COLLECTS THE WATER BILLS AND THEN RETURNS THE MONEY WHICH THE CITY IS NOW PUTTING BACK INTO THE GENERAL FUND............I THOUGHT THE WATER DEPT. IS SUPPOSED TO RUN PARALLEL TO THE CITY WITH ITS OWN SELF SUFFICIENT BUDGET. IF THIS IS TRUE THE MAYOR HAS A LOT OF MONEY AT HIS WILL TO SPEND.

[Guest Guest]

Hey, Ed Head,

 

Why don't you recommend that your employers pay their water bills on time?

[Guest ...]

There certainly is an awful lot of cross-billing between city departments for city services to the city.

 

How much are the taxpayers being charged for people to do their jobs - more than once?

[Guest Guest]

I saw the story on WBNG. Great job guys.

 

Keep up the good work.

 

A serious set of questions to Ed et al. in advance of the the the typical discrediting posts (obsessive posting, etc.) that I am sure that will follow:

 

1) How was it figured that there will be a net increase of 2.36 million annually?

 

2) Was there any discussion as to why such an increase was made correct a $300,000 shortfall?

 

TWS

 

Figuring out the the amount of money the increase would raise was rather simple. Ed Crumb provided a wealth of information on the Water Department. He had the budget from the Water Department and it indicates that metered sales of water bring in $5,200,00 per year. Increasing that by 43% gives you the figure of $2,231,000.

 

There are other sales unmetered and of other kinds (rtanker trucks, etc.) but there a a much smaller percetnage of the revenue.

 

Nobody could really explain that $300,000 figure.

 

We did get much more detail, again for Ed Crumb, about all the charges the City of Binghamton assesses to the Water Department for rent, using city computers, city staffers' time and a whole hosts of ways they find to pad the City budget by shuffling funds out of the water department.

 

Basically the City of Binghamton uses the Water Fund as a piggybank and it shakes out money when it comes up short elsewhere.

 

Matthew T. Ryan is using the Water Fund like a line of credit.

[Guest ...]

That's interesting information.

 

How long before Mayor Ryan or one of his lackies acknowledges that fact, but then blames a former administration for doing the very same thing.

 

Isn't this supposed to be progressive government? Wasn't this "plan" supposed to "restore the pride?"

 

Whose pride? What pride? Where is it?

[The West Sider]

Figuring out the the amount of money the increase would raise was rather simple. Ed Crumb provided a wealth of information on the Water Department. He had the budget from the Water Department and it indicates that metered sales of water bring in $5,200,00 per year. Increasing that by 43% gives you the figure of $2,231,000.

 

There are other sales unmetered and of other kinds (rtanker trucks, etc.) but there a a much smaller percetnage of the revenue.

 

Nobody could really explain that $300,000 figure.

 

We did get much more detail, again for Ed Crumb, about all the charges the City of Binghamton assesses to the Water Department for rent, using city computers, city staffers' time and a whole hosts of ways they find to pad the City budget by shuffling funds out of the water department.

 

Basically the City of Binghamton uses the Water Fund as a piggybank and it shakes out money when it comes up short elsewhere.

 

Matthew T. Ryan is using the Water Fund like a line of credit.

 

Thanks for the information.

 

TWS

 

 

@

[Guest Ed Crumb]

While it is flattering that someone wants to ascribe "credit" to me for providing a "wealth of information" to the public meeting at the East Side American Legion, the real credit should go to the Ryan Administration given that it has been publicly posting the City's budgets on-line since inception of the City's website (which, IMO, is a real, positive step forward in "open access" to our City government achieved by the Ryan Administration; residents simply did not have easy access to this information during the prior Bucci Administrations). Further, by attending the City Council's public budget work sessions, anybody can learn about how the proposed department budgets are organized and compare them with prior years (the August 27, 2007 session at which the City's proposed 2008 Water-Sewer budget was reviewed, along with other departments, lasted until 11:55pm, and a great deal of detailed line-by-line budget information was discussed and debated). So, there's really nothing special in simply reading off some numbers that are already being made public by the Ryan Administration and City Council anyhow.

 

Additionally, because these types of subjects are of interest to our East Side Neighborhood Assembly Infrastructure & Public Works Workgroup, we have periodically asked for (and been provided with, oft-times with the FOIL fee waived by the Ryan Administration) access to City records and documents that are relevant to current discussions/studies within our Workgroup.

 

But, before anyone jumps to any "quick conclusions" about whether the extent of the water rate increases are necessary, people should remember that the Water Fund had a $1,261,615 "fund balance" surplus in 2002, which (because there were no rate increases during the waning years of the Bucci Administration) by 2006 had dwindled to just $95,110 (a $1,166,505 depletion). According to the 2007 adopted budget, an additional $249,590.00 was projected to be "drained out" of the Water Fund's "fund balance" in 2007, increasing the cumulative depletion to $1,416,095.00 and leaving the Water Fund "in the red" which is not a permissible situation under the City's Charter. Further, as City Comptroller John Cox aptly pointed out at the March 27, 2008 public comment session on the (at that point) proposed water rate increase, the City's credit rating for its multi-millions of dollars in outstanding water bonds could be seriously jeopardized if prompt action was not taken to stabilize the Water Fund. (With water bond debt service costing the Water Fund $2,418,423/year [that's right, 38.7% of every dollar in the Water Department budget goes to pay down the City's "mortgage" on the water treatment plant and other water infrastructure], even the smallest of increases in the City's interest rate would have serious consequences for the Water Fund well into the future).

 

(I am not a statistician, so my approach could certainly be off a bit [and any informed criticism would likely help the "debate" in this forum], but) under the water rate increase effective for the December 1, 2008 water billings at the new $2.73 per 100 cubic foot "unit" rate (water for which is likely now beginning to be consumed, at least on the City's East Side based on past history), not accounting for any "minimum use bills" where less than ten 100 cubic foot "units" are used within a billing period, and assuming a 3.75% annual decline in water sales comparable to that which has occurred over the past 6 years, the City may only see an increase of $385,073.80 over the December 1, 2007 billings to "Inside City" users. (If you want to check my math: for 12/08 projected "Inside City" billings - 702,455 units X $2.73/unit = $1,917,702.10 THEN SUBTRACT 12/07 "Inside City" billings of 729,823 units X $2.10/unit = $1,532,628.30 YIELDING a $385,073.80 increase year-over-year for the December 1st billing period).

 

If one follows the same approach for "Outside City" customers -- using the "Outside City Municipal Rate" (which increases from $2.73 per 100 cubic foot "unit" to $3.55 per "unit" for the December 1, 2008 billing and to $3.89 per "unit" for the April 1, 2009 billing), this adds an additional $27,828.21 in increased revenue, for a total for the billing period of $412,902.01 (which would be $1,238,706 annualized in additional revenue year-over-year [multiplying by 3] for this interim increase). (Again, if you want to check my math: for 12/08 projected "Outside City" billings at the "Outside City Municipal Rate" - 38,994 units X $3.55/unit = $138,428.70 THEN SUBTRACT 12/07 "Outside City" billings at the "Outside City Municipal Rate" of 40,513 units X $2.73/unit = $110,600.49 YIELDING a $27,828.21 increase year-over-year for the December 1st billing period as to "Outside City" users; add to the "Inside City" amount to get the total for the December 1st billing period).

 

If we look at the effect of the final increase on the April 1, 2009 billings in the same way (but not factoring-in the increasing costs of producing the City's water which -- of course -- must be taken into account at some point during the analysis), and taking into account a 3.75% average annual decline in usage, an annual increased revenue total of about $1,400,139.70 results. Obviously, this is a much smaller amount than the higher figures some posters on this thread are estimating, but I think they are not properly considering the declining usage of water, which I believe must be considered in a full analysis. Additionally, increased costs can be expected to erode the full potential of the revenue increase, maybe by as much as 15-20%

 

Breaking this down, next April 1, 2009, when the billing rate increases to $2.99 per 100 cubic foot "unit" for "Inside City" users, an additional $441,256.80 results in comparison to this year's projected April 1, 2008 billings. (To check my math: for 04/09 projected "Inside City" billings - 610,164 units X $2.99/unit = $1,824,390.30 THEN SUBTRACT 04/08 projected "Inside City" billings of 658,635 units X $2.10/unit = $1,383,133.50 YIELDING a $441,526.80 increase year-over-year for this billing period).

 

Again, this number only takes into account "Inside City" water customers. Adding "Outside City" customers, and using the "Outside City Municipal Rate" will add an additional $25,456.44 revenue for this billing period (40,513 "units" x $0.82 [increase from 4/1/08]) in revenue for the December 1, 2008 billing cycle and $33,796.60 (29,135 "units" x $1.16 [increase from 4/1/08]) for the April 1, 2009 billing cycle. (To check my math: for 04/09 projected "Outside City" billings at the "Outside City Municipal Rate" - 26,991 units X $3.89/unit = $104,994.99 THEN SUBTRACT projected 04/08 "Outside City" billings at the "Outside City Municipal Rate" of 29,135 units X $2.73/unit = $79,538.55 YIELDING a $25,456.44 increase year-over-year for this billing period as to "Outside City" users).

 

Then, add to the "Inside City" $441,256.80 amount the $25,456.44 "Outside City amount to get the projected total revenue for the April 1, 2009 billing period of $466,713.24. Multiply by 3 billing cycles per year to see the total effect of both rate increases, which is about $1,400,139.70 per year using this approach, and not accounting for increased costs of water production.

 

Although we won't be able to predict where the Water Fund will stand at the end of this year (especially if water sales continue to decline, or decline more rapidly in response to the rate increases), it doesn't seem that the Water Fund's "fund balance" will show much of an increase by the end of 2008. If one considers that the City's Water Fund will realize projected additional total revenue of $412,902.01 in the December 1, 2008 billing cycle, this does not make up for the 2007 depletion PLUS the depletion that would have occurred in 2008 but for the increase in the rates to be used for the December 2008 bills.

 

Depending on the production cost inflation factor (energy, chemicals, wages and benefits) through 2009 and the actual consumption billed in 2009, maybe at best the Water Fund "fund balance" at the end of 2009 might see a restoration to levels approaching 80%-85% of the 2002 level. For those not attending last night's meeting, the effect of increasing water production costs were also discussed. (Not considered were potential future regulatory/compliance costs as the federal Clean Water Act adds additional costs to the water treatment process).

 

As for me and, maybe, as for many others plagued with rusty water arriving at the meters in our homes, we also realize that our City must make significantly increased expenditures for water main replacement and upgrades. So, yes, while there will be more revenue, I and many others will be hopeful that there will be much more spent to fix the City's rusty water pipes.

 

As was discussed at last night's meeting, any enterprising participant who wishes to undertake some "due diligence" to verify the City's fiscal practices being followed will hopefully find that either (i) the City's General Fund "credits" the Water Fund with the balance of unpaid water bills re-levied each November 1st or, alternatively, (ii) the Water Fund is credited with "make whole" payments received from Broome County in mid-February and mid-August of each year. (So long as one of these practices [or a practice that reaches an equivalent result] is followed, the City's General Fund does not "profit" by "siphoning off" the value of delinquent water bills from the Water Fund [which, all considering this subject must remember, are only about one-half the total delinquency when water-sewer bills are unpaid because the other half goes to the City's Sewer Fund]).

 

For the benefit of those who may be reading this thread but did not attend last night's meeting, I hope that this information provides some accurate clarification of the discussion above. As for the numbers, I believe that our situation "is what it is". None of us like the water rate increase, and we all are facing dramatically rising energy costs, and the City's Water Treatment Plant faces drastically increased chemical costs in its day-to-day operations. We'd be even worse off if no action was taken, the Water Fund's credit rating was downgraded as a result of deficit spending, and significantly higher interest had to be paid back on the bonds now outstanding as well as any new borrowing that may need to take place from year-to-year in the future. So, along with the "bad news" of the water rate increases, we must appreciate that the Ryan Administration is taking action now to prevent things from getting worse.

 

At the end of these increases, water will cost "Inside City" customers about $0.00475/gallon (that's 4-3/4 tenths of a cent per gallon). Think about that the next time you pay anywhere from $1.36/gallon to $11.05/gallon for bottled water.

 

[marius]

Listen fool.....the reason there is no money coming in to this, MY, community is because people like you and that communist Mr. Ryan constantly raise taxes and the costs of business in the area! I don't give a crap how educated and enlightened you think you are, because any reasonable idiot will tell you.....WE NEED JOBS IN BINGHAMTON. Keep on the path you are on and I will be laughing my butt off when all of you Ryan cronies get booted out of office and have to look for real jobs. And you can forget about holding any public office again, once people realize you were a member in one of Americas most inept and corrupt administrations they wont even let you hand out fliers.

[Guest Guest]

I wonder if the Ryan staff have broken their arms patting themselves on the back for the glaringly obvious ploy to use a controversial issue (the North Side Grocery store) to have their own meeting on the same day and time to divert attention away from any possbile coverage or attendance at the public display of dissent (the water bill/participatory govt. meeting). This is either A. Block or Tarik's crowning achievement of the year.

 

I think these meeting should become somewhat regular--sort of like neighborhood assemblies controlled by the PEOPLE. The attendees should show up at City Council. I am not sure if he did, but it would be great if Steven Jensen blew up the photo of the junk car by Ryan's house and his own covered car to illustrate code's obvious targeting.

[Ed Arzouian]

So, Mr. Crumb to summarize, you are saying, "Multiply by 3 billing cycles per year to see the total effect of both rate increases, which is about $1,400,139.70 per year using this approach"

 

Last night you and I looked at the numbers and came up with a quick $2,000,000. SINCE WE ARE BOTH ESTIMATING, I'D SAY OUR NUMBERS WERE CLOSE ENOUGH.

 

The fact remans we are told the increase it to settle a $300,000 debt. Either way that is quickly done and a 67% increase is not necessary..

 

If we want to replenish the water fund to previous highs there is no reason that has to be done in one year. We all know once these rates o up THEY WILL NEVER GO DOWN.

[Guest Ed Crumb]

. . . . SINCE WE ARE BOTH ESTIMATING, I'D SAY OUR NUMBERS WERE CLOSE ENOUGH.

Last night's discussion was based on the revenue estimate in the budget.

 

I think what I provided above (based on actual usage data) is going to prove more accurate if the declining trend in water consumption continues. Plus, increasing costs will erode away the surplus in future years.

 

This is a worthy subject for public debate, of course. Maybe there are other factors City Hall can provide/explain that informed the Board of Estimate and Apportionment's final decision. I would never claim to be an expert on municipal finance as they should be.

[Guest Guest]

While it is flattering that someone wants to ascribe "credit" to me for providing a "wealth of information" to the public meeting at the East Side American Legion, the real credit should go to the Ryan Administration given that it has been publicly posting the City's budgets on-line since inception of the City's website (which, IMO, is a real, positive step forward in "open access" to our City government achieved by the Ryan Administration; residents simply did not have easy access to this information during the prior Bucci Administrations). Further, by attending the City Council's public budget work sessions, anybody can learn about how the proposed department budgets are organized and compare them with prior years (the August 27, 2007 session at which the City's proposed 2008 Water-Sewer budget was reviewed, along with other departments, lasted until 11:55pm, and a great deal of detailed line-by-line budget information was discussed and debated). So, there's really nothing special in simply reading off some numbers that are already being made public by the Ryan Administration and City Council anyhow.

 

Additionally, because these types of subjects are of interest to our East Side Neighborhood Assembly Infrastructure & Public Works Workgroup, we have periodically asked for (and been provided with, oft-times with the FOIL fee waived by the Ryan Administration) access to City records and documents that are relevant to current discussions/studies within our Workgroup.

 

But, before anyone jumps to any "quick conclusions" about whether the extent of the water rate increases are necessary, people should remember that the Water Fund had a $1,261,615 "fund balance" surplus in 2002, which (because there were no rate increases during the waning years of the Bucci Administration) by 2006 had dwindled to just $95,110 (a $1,166,505 depletion). According to the 2007 adopted budget, an additional $249,590.00 was projected to be "drained out" of the Water Fund's "fund balance" in 2007, increasing the cumulative depletion to $1,416,095.00 and leaving the Water Fund "in the red" which is not a permissible situation under the City's Charter. Further, as City Comptroller John Cox aptly pointed out at the March 27, 2008 public comment session on the (at that point) proposed water rate increase, the City's credit rating for its multi-millions of dollars in outstanding water bonds could be seriously jeopardized if prompt action was not taken to stabilize the Water Fund. (With water bond debt service costing the Water Fund $2,418,423/year [that's right, 38.7% of every dollar in the Water Department budget goes to pay down the City's "mortgage" on the water treatment plant and other water infrastructure], even the smallest of increases in the City's interest rate would have serious consequences for the Water Fund well into the future).

 

(I am not a statistician, so my approach could certainly be off a bit [and any informed criticism would likely help the "debate" in this forum], but) under the water rate increase effective for the December 1, 2008 water billings at the new $2.73 per 100 cubic foot "unit" rate (water for which is likely now beginning to be consumed, at least on the City's East Side based on past history), not accounting for any "minimum use bills" where less than ten 100 cubic foot "units" are used within a billing period, and assuming a 3.75% annual decline in water sales comparable to that which has occurred over the past 6 years, the City may only see an increase of $385,073.80 over the December 1, 2007 billings to "Inside City" users. (If you want to check my math: for 12/08 projected "Inside City" billings - 702,455 units X $2.73/unit = $1,917,702.10 THEN SUBTRACT 12/07 "Inside City" billings of 729,823 units X $2.10/unit = $1,532,628.30 YIELDING a $385,073.80 increase year-over-year for the December 1st billing period).

 

If one follows the same approach for "Outside City" customers -- using the "Outside City Municipal Rate" (which increases from $2.73 per 100 cubic foot "unit" to $3.55 per "unit" for the December 1, 2008 billing and to $3.89 per "unit" for the April 1, 2009 billing), this adds an additional $27,828.21 in increased revenue, for a total for the billing period of $412,902.01 (which would be $1,238,706 annualized in additional revenue year-over-year [multiplying by 3] for this interim increase). (Again, if you want to check my math: for 12/08 projected "Outside City" billings at the "Outside City Municipal Rate" - 38,994 units X $3.55/unit = $138,428.70 THEN SUBTRACT 12/07 "Outside City" billings at the "Outside City Municipal Rate" of 40,513 units X $2.73/unit = $110,600.49 YIELDING a $27,828.21 increase year-over-year for the December 1st billing period as to "Outside City" users; add to the "Inside City" amount to get the total for the December 1st billing period).

 

If we look at the effect of the final increase on the April 1, 2009 billings in the same way (but not factoring-in the increasing costs of producing the City's water which -- of course -- must be taken into account at some point during the analysis), and taking into account a 3.75% average annual decline in usage, an annual increased revenue total of about $1,400,139.70 results. Obviously, this is a much smaller amount than the higher figures some posters on this thread are estimating, but I think they are not properly considering the declining usage of water, which I believe must be considered in a full analysis. Additionally, increased costs can be expected to erode the full potential of the revenue increase, maybe by as much as 15-20%

 

Breaking this down, next April 1, 2009, when the billing rate increases to $2.99 per 100 cubic foot "unit" for "Inside City" users, an additional $441,256.80 results in comparison to this year's projected April 1, 2008 billings. (To check my math: for 04/09 projected "Inside City" billings - 610,164 units X $2.99/unit = $1,824,390.30 THEN SUBTRACT 04/08 projected "Inside City" billings of 658,635 units X $2.10/unit = $1,383,133.50 YIELDING a $441,526.80 increase year-over-year for this billing period).

 

Again, this number only takes into account "Inside City" water customers. Adding "Outside City" customers, and using the "Outside City Municipal Rate" will add an additional $25,456.44 revenue for this billing period (40,513 "units" x $0.82 [increase from 4/1/08]) in revenue for the December 1, 2008 billing cycle and $33,796.60 (29,135 "units" x $1.16 [increase from 4/1/08]) for the April 1, 2009 billing cycle. (To check my math: for 04/09 projected "Outside City" billings at the "Outside City Municipal Rate" - 26,991 units X $3.89/unit = $104,994.99 THEN SUBTRACT projected 04/08 "Outside City" billings at the "Outside City Municipal Rate" of 29,135 units X $2.73/unit = $79,538.55 YIELDING a $25,456.44 increase year-over-year for this billing period as to "Outside City" users).

 

Then, add to the "Inside City" $441,256.80 amount the $25,456.44 "Outside City amount to get the projected total revenue for the April 1, 2009 billing period of $466,713.24. Multiply by 3 billing cycles per year to see the total effect of both rate increases, which is about $1,400,139.70 per year using this approach, and not accounting for increased costs of water production.

 

Although we won't be able to predict where the Water Fund will stand at the end of this year (especially if water sales continue to decline, or decline more rapidly in response to the rate increases), it doesn't seem that the Water Fund's "fund balance" will show much of an increase by the end of 2008. If one considers that the City's Water Fund will realize projected additional total revenue of $412,902.01 in the December 1, 2008 billing cycle, this does not make up for the 2007 depletion PLUS the depletion that would have occurred in 2008 but for the increase in the rates to be used for the December 2008 bills.

 

Depending on the production cost inflation factor (energy, chemicals, wages and benefits) through 2009 and the actual consumption billed in 2009, maybe at best the Water Fund "fund balance" at the end of 2009 might see a restoration to levels approaching 80%-85% of the 2002 level. For those not attending last night's meeting, the effect of increasing water production costs were also discussed. (Not considered were potential future regulatory/compliance costs as the federal Clean Water Act adds additional costs to the water treatment process).

 

As for me and, maybe, as for many others plagued with rusty water arriving at the meters in our homes, we also realize that our City must make significantly increased expenditures for water main replacement and upgrades. So, yes, while there will be more revenue, I and many others will be hopeful that there will be much more spent to fix the City's rusty water pipes.

 

As was discussed at last night's meeting, any enterprising participant who wishes to undertake some "due diligence" to verify the City's fiscal practices being followed will hopefully find that either (i) the City's General Fund "credits" the Water Fund with the balance of unpaid water bills re-levied each November 1st or, alternatively, (ii) the Water Fund is credited with "make whole" payments received from Broome County in mid-February and mid-August of each year. (So long as one of these practices [or a practice that reaches an equivalent result] is followed, the City's General Fund does not "profit" by "siphoning off" the value of delinquent water bills from the Water Fund [which, all considering this subject must remember, are only about one-half the total delinquency when water-sewer bills are unpaid because the other half goes to the City's Sewer Fund]).

 

For the benefit of those who may be reading this thread but did not attend last night's meeting, I hope that this information provides some accurate clarification of the discussion above. As for the numbers, I believe that our situation "is what it is". None of us like the water rate increase, and we all are facing dramatically rising energy costs, and the City's Water Treatment Plant faces drastically increased chemical costs in its day-to-day operations. We'd be even worse off if no action was taken, the Water Fund's credit rating was downgraded as a result of deficit spending, and significantly higher interest had to be paid back on the bonds now outstanding as well as any new borrowing that may need to take place from year-to-year in the future. So, along with the "bad news" of the water rate increases, we must appreciate that the Ryan Administration is taking action now to prevent things from getting worse.

 

At the end of these increases, water will cost "Inside City" customers about $0.00475/gallon (that's 4-3/4 tenths of a cent per gallon). Think about that the next time you pay anywhere from $1.36/gallon to $11.05/gallon for bottled water.

 

Gee...thanks for clearing that up....it wasn't hard to follow at all.

 

 

@

[Guest Guest]

To the last poster, Ed Crumb can run on a bit but he does make many points.

 

This summary might help...

 

So, Mr. Crumb to summarize, you are saying, "Multiply by 3 billing cycles per year to see the total effect of both rate increases, which is about $1,400,139.70 per year using this approach"

 

Last night you and I looked at the numbers and came up with a quick $2,000,000. SINCE WE ARE BOTH ESTIMATING, I'D SAY OUR NUMBERS WERE CLOSE ENOUGH.

 

The fact remans we are told the increase it to settle a $300,000 debt. Either way that is quickly done and a 67% increase is not necessary..

 

If we want to replenish the water fund to previous highs there is no reason that has to be done in one year. We all know once these rates o up THEY WILL NEVER GO DOWN.

 

Bottom line, the increase will bring a surplus EVERY year of $1,400,000 to $2,230,000.

 

[Ed Arzouian]

So, explanations?????

 

How much work does Corporate Counsel Ken Franks do for the $5000 the City bills the water department for his services?

 

 

@

[Guest Guest]

What aboutall the other ways, al the drawdowns, the City gouges the Water Department with to pad the City budget.

 

it is all hidden taxes.

[Guest Guest]

Ryan has now taken to saying chemicals have increased 300%. Ok, was that from $1000 to $3000? $10,000 to $30,000?

 

Is that why he needs to raise an extra $2,000,000 per year every year?

 

We can no longer believe a word Matthew T.Ryan has to say.

 

When is the hotel deal going to close, Matt? It was last October, right? When wil the Southside Project get done? Wasn't there a press conference announicng the launch last fall as well. What has been done so far? nothing, rigth. Like usual.

[Guest Guest]

Ryan has now taken to saying chemicals have increased 300%. Ok, was that from $1000 to $3000? $10,000 to $30,000?

 

Is that why he needs to raise an extra $2,000,000 per year every year?

 

We can no longer believe a word Matthew T.Ryan has to say.

 

When is the hotel deal going to close, Matt? It was last October, right? When wil the Southside Project get done? Wasn't there a press conference announicng the launch last fall as well. What has been done so far? nothing, rigth. Like usual.

 

I think Ryan said he needed to build up a $2,000,000.00 Surplus in the water fund so the Bond Rating would not go down.

[Guest Guest]

I think Ryan said he needed to build up a $2,000,000.00 Surplus in the water fund so the Bond Rating would not go down.

 

 

Yes, that's another trumped up claim.

 

So he will build it all back up in one year? What happens next year? He collect another $2,000,000 to make the total surplus $4,000,000?

 

When wil it end?

 

Do you really think he will ever lower rates?

 

I'll tell you what. If he does start padding that fund the next election any candidate that promsies to lower the rates again wil knick Ryan out of office.

[Guest Guest]

Ryan has now taken to saying chemicals have increased 300%. Ok, was that from $1000 to $3000? $10,000 to $30,000?

 

Is that why he needs to raise an extra $2,000,000 per year every year?

 

We can no longer believe a word Matthew T.Ryan has to say.

 

When is the hotel deal going to close, Matt? It was last October, right? When wil the Southside Project get done? Wasn't there a press conference announicng the launch last fall as well. What has been done so far? nothing, rigth. Like usual.

 

What is the total cost of the chemicals, Matt?

 

 

@

[Ed Arzouian]

NEWS

 

Posted Saturday April 19, 2008

 

Binghamton may change the way it bills for water use

By Doug Schneider

Press & Sun-Bulletin

 

BINGHAMTON -- The way Binghamton residents pay water bills could change later this year, driven by factors ranging from the rising cost of delivering the water, to a seven-year low in the city's water fund, to the fact that residents and businesses simply are using less H2O.

 

Water-users could end up paying more to bolster items as significant as a capital projects budget, or as specialized as freeing a frozen water meter. Other changes could make life easier for consumers -- including on-line bill-paying and acceptance of partial payments.

 

In a third scenario, warning notices might be going out to tenants whose landlords aren't paying their water charges, while seriously delinquent water customers could find their service shut off.

 

"We have the opportunity to make some long-overdue changes," said Tarik Abdelazim, executive assistant to Mayor Matthew Ryan. Abdelazim called changes on the drawing board at city hall "a reform package ... that city council will embrace."

 

Reform is needed, judging from a Press & Sun-Bulletin review of years of city water-department data. The review found:

 

* The amount of water being used in the city fell by 13.5 percent from 2003 to 2007, reducing the amount of income generated by the water system. As that happened, water fund revenues fell short of budgeted projections by a total of $580,000 in 2005 and 2006, after having beaten projections by a combined $211,000 in 2002-04.

 

* The cost of providing water to the city's 14,000 customers has increased more than 12 percent in five years, to almost $6 million a year. That's in part because the cost of chemicals that feed the plant has jumped by more than half.

 

* The amount the city charges residents for water-related capital fees hasn't grown since 1986.

 

* Water delinquencies have more than doubled since 2001, shooting to their highest level this decade. Though the city eventually is reimbursed when it passes the delinquencies to the county for collection, delinquencies mean Binghamton goes without the use of hundreds of thousands of dollars for months, and county taxpayers make up any uncollected amounts.

 

The Press reviewed water-department finances after revealing this month that property-owners failed to pay a whopping $1.43 million in 2007 charges while the city's water fund -- which had a seven-figure balance three years earlier -- is $303,000 in the red. The $1.43 million, which includes water and sewer charges and a $100 penalty, has been added to the tax bills of the people who haven't paid.

 

Officials decided in March to hike water rates 30 percent beginning in August, and 10 percent in 2009, citing factors like rising costs and declining revenue. By law, however, bills reflecting that increase won't be mailed until December.

 

Bottom line: some of those bills won't be paid until 2009.

 

'Major impact'

 

City officials now are studying approaches communities including Endicott, Elmira and Ithaca use to operate their water systems, including what those municipalities charge customers for water, Comptroller John Cox said. An approach being studied, he said, is designed to reduce the time between the point the water is used and the customer receives his thrice-annual bill.

 

Instead of mailing everyone's bill at the same time, officials said, the city would bill a portion of its customers each month. For some property-owners, this would mean paying water charges at different times of the year. Officials hope the approach would provide a more-effective tool in projecting and collecting water revenues, since there won't be a lag of months between usage and payment.

 

"Changing the billing cycle," Abdelazim said, "can have a major impact on how we manage these funds." He said the administration expects to make recommendations to the city council in May that will include allowing bill-paying online, or via a city hall kiosk.

 

Property-owners like Bob Seidel could also find themselves paying more for certain services the water department provides, according to proposed changes that officials from the mayor's office and finance department outlined in a 90-minute interview with Press & Sun-Bulletin reporters last week. Currently, a customer is billed $10 when the city fixes a water meter that has frozen in the winter. The city's cost: $83.

 

"Anything that's going to get the revenue in the coffers sooner is a positive ... and that's everyone's issue, not just (Mayor) Matt Ryan's," said Seidel, a former city councilman who owns a South Side house and two rental properties. He also said it's not fair that the city doesn't shut off the water of delinquent apartment- and business-owners at a time when 90 percent of property-owners pay water bills on time.

 

"Somebody who lives in Vestal shouldn't be saddled with the bill of someone who lives in the city," Seidel said.

 

One possibility is a hike in the $12 capital fee included in every water bill to fund water-system-related improvements and borrowing. The charge had not been increased since August 1986.

 

"Any increase we'd recommend would not be dramatic," Ryan said Friday. But, he said, "we're going to look at anything and everything to make our water fund healthy."

 

In the water department, costs have been rising and revenues dropping for years.

 

The water fund balance has gone from $1.2 million in 2002 to minus $303,000 last year, as the city has taken increasing amounts out of the fund. In 2003 -- the middle of Richard A. Bucci's third term -- Binghamton's water operation took in $5.1 million, $230,000 less than it cost to run. Two years later, revenues fell and expenses grew again, widening the gap to $760,000.

 

The next year, Ryan's first in office, revenue projections missed their mark by almost $413,000. Meanwhile, the amount the city spent on chemicals grew more than $100,000. "That was a crisis year," said Cox.

 

Not everyone, though, is sold on the idea that the city needs to collect so much money to address the issue, or that such a move would promote growth.

 

Ed not allowed, a frequent Ryan critic, said a smaller rate hike would do the trick. Several upstate communities, he said, grant "volume discounts" to large commercial users of water to encourage business development.

 

"Sure transportation costs and other costs have gone up, but they haven't gone up that much," said not allowed, manager of compliance and special projects at Bates-Troy Inc., a Binghamton-based dry cleaning and health-care linen business. "There's no justification for (that) increase."

Turn off the taps?

 

By law, the city may discontinue service to a water customer who hasn't paid his bill in the 30-day period after the end of the month when the bill was due. The law was adopted in 1979, but indications are that it's rarely if ever used; Bucci last week couldn't recall the city invoking it during his administration.

 

In all, more than $8.7 million in delinquencies have been rolled into people's tax bills since 2000. The number of delinquents hasn't changed significantly, but the average unpaid bill has gone from $418 in 2000 to $959 today.

 

That fact frustrates many water-users.

 

"It's just bad business," said Kneeland Avenue resident Joe Leonard. "Collect on the bills, or turn off the water."

 

Currently, almost 1,500 water customers are delinquent to the extent that their 2007 balances were turned over to the county for collection via being added to property-tax bills. Two dozen owe more than $5,000. The county threatened this month that, unless the city gets more aggressive with collections, it would stop collections.

 

Ryan acknowledged that seven-figure delinquencies can be "a scary figure," but like other city officials is quick to point out that the county reimburses the city for delinquent water charges once the charges are transferred to tax bills (in two payments -- one in January and one in mid-year). Indeed, the city had to rely on the county to make it whole for $1.06 million in delinquent bills for 2006.

 

Abdelazim said the administration is considering shutting off what he calls "seriously delinquent customers" -- those who owe $5,000 or more. Ryan has said the administration will consider shut-offs.

 

Some city council members support shut-offs, and the city council might not wait for recommendations from the mayor's office. Teri Rennia, D-3rd District, last week filed paperwork that says she plans to propose an amendment that would end the process of rolling unpaid water bills onto property taxes.

 

Bucci, mayor for 12 years before Ryan took office in 2006, said the city should take a hard look at shutting off the water to businesses that don't pay. The city increased water rates seven times in Bucci's tenure, records show. Hikes ranged from 17 percent in 1998 to 8 percent in 2001.

 

"It's a difficult balancing act ---- everyone's going to approach it from a different philosophical perspective," he said. Water delinquents, he said, "have to be broken into different categories. With businesses, you can be more aggressive (in collections). They have an obligation to be current on their bills."

http://www.pressconnects.com/apps/pbcs.dll...EWS01/804190348

 

STORY CHAT

 

Chemicals cost now $100,000 instead of $33,000 so Ryan nees to raise $2,230,000, a TWO MILLION DOLLAR SURTPLUS every year.

 

Ed not allowed, here, "a frequent Ryan critic"...,I had asked this reporter Friday why we need a 43% increase (actually 81% total from the time Ryan took office to what he proposes by August 2009, as the reporter told me, yes eighty-one percent from $1.65 to $2.99).

 

According to the latest figures we have, lawyer Ed Crumb of the East Side Neighborhood Assembly estimates the increase will bring in $1,400,000 PER YEAR, EVERY YEAR... (We figured this out at the American Legion meeting Thursday night that The Press & Sun-Bulletin refuses to report on though WBNG, NewsChannel 34 and Time Warner's News10Now all have covered it. That's PSB Exectuive Editor Calvin Stovall censoring your news again)

 

Go watch:

http://news10now.com/content/all_news/1144...te/Default.aspx

http://www.wbng.com/news/local/17890139.html

 

I am less conservative than Mr. Crumb and I think the increase could have a resulting surplus of $2,230,000 per year (two-million, two-hundred and thirty thousand dollars).

 

A SURPLUS OF TWO MILLION, TWO-HUNDRED AND THIRTY THOUSAND PER YEAR EVERY YEAR!!!!

 

 

So chemicals went up 300% as Mayor Matthew T. Ryan likes to complain but that only represents a $100,000 expense. $300,000 deficit plus $100,000 more expense for chemicals and even by M,. Crumb's conservative estimate the result is a $1,000,000 (one million dollar) surplus EVERY YEAR. Do we need to replenish the fund all in one year? Do you pay off your mortgage in a year? How many millions does Ryan want to soak us for?

 

And consumption may not necessarily continue to drop. I know one user who will use about 2,000,000 (two million) gallons more next year.

 

There is no justification for such a large increase except to cover waste and mismanagement elsewhere. This is all just more taxes in disguise. The NYS Comptroller needs to step in here and sort this mess out..

 

And if Mayor Ryan wants to encourage larger consumption, another of his excuses, he could offer a commercial discount to volume users, usually those who consume over 2,000,000 per year. About half of all the water departments in NYS do that.

 

In this report I still see no mention of the money going from the County to the General Fund for water payments and not to Water Department where it is supposed to. I see nothing about the complicated explanation from Calvin Stovall who called me Friday to say the City of Binghamton General Funds fronts the amount of the delinquent payments to the water department and then the County pays the General Fund back instead of sending the money the Water Department. (Mr. Stovall told me I should look into that and get the proof. I suggested his NEWSpaper should do that!)

 

That sounds like a recipe for accounting disaster to me.

 

The Water Department is a cash cow milked by the City of Binghamton. The City charges about $700,000 to the Water Department in "drawdowns" for things like rent and computer charges. They charge the water department $5000 (five thousand) per year for the services of Corporate Counil Ken Franks (who doesn’t live in Binghamotn does he?). How much work does Franks do? I’ll bet the Water Department could find a far cheaper lawyer.

 

 

Come to our next meeting at City Chambers where we plan to put all these question directly to Mayor Ryan.

 

Who knows maybe the Press & Sun-Bulletin might cover that event. Maybe we wil get lucky, Calvin Stovall has to take a day off sometime.

 

Posted by: Ed not allowed on Sun Apr 20, 2008 6:20 am

[Guest Guest]

Eighty-one percent increase since Ryan took offcie and the PSB keeps telling us 30%

 

See for yourself, files can be found attached to PSB story but not in it:

 

WATER & SEWER RATE, & CAPITAL FEE HISTORY

Water Rate Minimum Date

Changed per 100 cu ft

 

 

Water Bill

 

Dec-05 $1.65 $18.50

 

Dec-06 $1.65 $18.50

 

Apr-07 $1.80 $20.00

 

Aug-07 $1.95 $21.50

 

Dec-07 $2.10 $23.00

 

Aug-08 $2.10 $23.00

 

Dec-08 $2.73 $29.30

 

Apr-09 $2.99 $31.90

 

 

Read it and weep, fror $1.65 to $2.99, 81% increase!!!!!