Jump to content

Water Bills Going Directly to City General Fund!!!!


Guest Guest

Recommended Posts

Guest Guest

Subsequent to the open pubolic meeting last night on Robinson Street sources have come forward and explained to BCVOICE what is happenning at the Binghamton Water Department and where the money is going and what will come of the large increases.

 

Now that Broome County is collecting taxes for the City of Binghamton and some of the water payments, those that are deliquent, ($1.4 million last year) Broome county is repaying the City of Binghamton the taxes it collects and the water bills twice a year.

 

Broome County just paid the first half of the installment to the city for this year. In that payment was included $700,000 for water (half of the 1.4 million dleiqunet water bills).

 

HOWEVER THAT $700,000 DID NOT GO TO THE WATER DEPARTMENT AS IT SHOULD. THE COUNTY MAKES ITS CHECK PAYABLE TO THE CITY OF BINGHAMTON AND THE MONEY GOES INTO THE GENERAL FUND FOR MAYOR MATTHEW T. RYAN TO SPEND AS HE WANTS.

 

RYAN IS DIVERTING MONEY THAT SHOULD GO TO THE WATER FUND AND USING IT IN THE GENERAL FUND.

 

We will look further into this.

 

All the news orgainzations in town should look into this. The NYS Attorney General should look into this.

 

This is probably illegal and at the very least contravenes the City Charter.

 

Matthew T. Ryan has found a new way to rip off not only Binghamton residents but all those other places now purchasing water from Binghamton!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 287
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Guest Guest

This is what I saw on the news: Russo; lost election. Papastrat; lost election, Harding; quitter, ed; lost election. Jenson; lost election. I saw a bucnh of whiners and losers. Not that what they stand for is wrong. I simply believe that there are other avenues in which to work on things.

 

I don't know why ed kept saying "we" in regards to Ryan's policies. He does not live here. He does not own property here. He does not work here. He does not pay taxes here. Why does he continually use the word "we" when referring to increases in water bills or taxes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

 

This topic has nothing to do with your post. You must be a City employee who is trying to change the subject.

 

Misappropriation of funds is a serious accusation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
HOWEVER THAT $700,000 DID NOT GO TO THE WATER DEPARTMENT AS IT SHOULD. THE COUNTY MAKES ITS CHECK PAYABLE TO THE CITY OF BINGHAMTON AND THE MONEY GOES INTO THE GENERAL FUND FOR MAYOR MATTHEW T. RYAN TO SPEND AS HE WANTS.

 

RYAN IS DIVERTING MONEY THAT SHOULD GO TO THE WATER FUND AND USING IT IN THE GENERAL FUND.

 

Seriously, do you think Ryan is that smart?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
This is what I saw on the news: Russo; lost election. Papastrat; lost election, Harding; quitter, ed; lost election. Jenson; lost election. I saw a bucnh of whiners and losers. Not that what they stand for is wrong. I simply believe that there are other avenues in which to work on things.

 

I don't know why ed kept saying "we" in regards to Ryan's policies. He does not live here. He does not own property here. He does not work here. He does not pay taxes here. Why does he continually use the word "we" when referring to increases in water bills or taxes?

 

 

this has to qualify as a spam post.

 

It's been posted at least in 6 different threads, copy and paste.

 

City Hall started early today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
HOWEVER THAT $700,000 DID NOT GO TO THE WATER DEPARTMENT AS IT SHOULD. THE COUNTY MAKES ITS CHECK PAYABLE TO THE CITY OF BINGHAMTON AND THE MONEY GOES INTO THE GENERAL FUND FOR MAYOR MATTHEW T. RYAN TO SPEND AS HE WANTS.

 

RYAN IS DIVERTING MONEY THAT SHOULD GO TO THE WATER FUND AND USING IT IN THE GENERAL FUND.

 

Matthew T. Ryan has found a new way to rip off not only Binghamton residents but all those other places now purchasing water from Binghamton!

 

Well the City has done this with Ambulance Fees collected for probably ever. That would reduce the FD budget by $ 750,000 or more. If the city were to be a little more firm in thier bilkling it would reduce it that much more.

 

NO Sorprise LaundraMatt phucking the public again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom K.

What's the difference if former city officials lost an election? These people are still interested, and they're still probably among the more knowledgeable people when it comes to city finances and happenings, in general.

 

The poster who said they're whining appears to prefer that these men, and anyone else who has any opposing views to what's currently happening, to simply lie down and take it.

 

Thankfully, these people live in America and are apparently looking into issues that so many more people are curious about.

 

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Taxpayer and BCV Lover
What's the difference if former city officials lost an election? These people are still interested, and they're still probably among the more knowledgeable people when it comes to city finances and happenings, in general.

 

The poster who said they're whining appears to prefer that these men, and anyone else who has any opposing views to what's currently happening, to simply lie down and take it.

 

Thankfully, these people live in America and are apparently looking into issues that so many more people are curious about.

 

Thank you.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Taxpayer and BCV Lover
What's the difference if former city officials lost an election? These people are still interested, and they're still probably among the more knowledgeable people when it comes to city finances and happenings, in general.

 

The poster who said they're whining appears to prefer that these men, and anyone else who has any opposing views to what's currently happening, to simply lie down and take it.

 

Thankfully, these people live in America and are apparently looking into issues that so many more people are curious about.

 

Thank you.

 

Tom I commend you for a very well thoughtout response, as you can see the usual attacks by Mayor Ryan and Citizen Action crowd who will try to hood wink the public with propaganda.

 

Be vigolent! Watch in the coming days they are going to cover their tracks.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

Who cares where Ed lives?

Since when does living in the city preclude a person from being a critical, engaged citizen?

 

This is a small area and the actions of one municipality affect the others. This water issue has people outside the city subsidizing our water. The problems with the county collecting delinquent payments affects us all.

 

And BTW, I am a person whom Ed has attacked on this board. I am no fan of his, but he does the residents of Binghamton a huge favor with his research. Everyone else just sits back dumbly and pays higher taxes so Ryan can hire cronies in fake positions, and do god knows what with our money.

 

I cannot understnad the lack of outrage. Even for something as small by comparison as the $35,000 Justin Woods fiasco.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Ed Crumb

While it is flattering that, on another related thread, someone wants to ascribe "credit" to me for providing a "wealth of information" to the public meeting at the East Side American Legion (attended by 25 people, three of whom were news media), 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]). Contrary to what was posted earlier in this thread, if the first approach was followed, then the Water Fund half of the "make whole" check from the County would not go into the Water Fund, it would reimburse the Water Fund. I would look forward to seeing someone pursue this and do us all the service of informing us what "the real facts" are. Speculation based on an unnamed source doesn't advance this debate, IMO, when real data is available on this to anyone who wants to pursue it.

 

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just got off the phone with Calvin Stovall of The Press & Sun-Bulletin, or at least somebody calling from the PSB number claiming to be Calvin Stovall, I do not think I have ever spoken with the man so I don't know his voice.

 

Mr. Stovall wanted to tell me that he has "heard" that the money sent to the City by the County for delinquent water payments along with taxes collected goes to the general funds because money from the General fund had been paid up front from the General Fund to the Water Department BEFORE the funds are collected by the County to cover the delinquent water bills. Mr. Stoval did not say he had proof.

 

I have no idea if this is true or not.

 

I had never heard that the City of Binghamton paid the money owed up front to the Water Department.

 

Certainly the news article that the Press & Sun-Bulletin itself published last week about these delinquent payments never mentioned any City General Fund money being paid up front to the Water Department. You'd think that would have been worth mentioning....In fact, the County, Barbara Fiala, was complaining about fronting the money for the Water Department.

 

Mr. Stovall suggested I look into this!!!

 

I explained to him that it seems to me he and his newspaper and other news media around town should be looking into this, not me.

 

At that point Mr. Stovall got upset and said he had to go and hung up.

 

Here's what I suggest to Mr. Stovall, if he wants me to do the work for his newspaper they should pay me. If his newspaper would have gotten the story right in the first place maybe there would be less confusion.

 

Bottom line we still have no clue what is true or not.

 

The anonymous tip I got this morning from somebody with the County never said anything about City General Fund monies used to pay the water department up front. None of the City Councilmen at our meeting last night nor any of the people in attendance, like Ed Crumb who is very well informed, mentioned that either.

 

I find it very unlikely that the Mayor would agree to put the General Fund at risk in that way. What happens if the Water Department or County never get paid on certain accounts? Will the City lose that money from the General Fund?

 

I think not.

 

Obviously an audit is needed here. The NYS Comptroller or Attorney General should look at this.

 

We can longer trust City Hall with it, one lie seems to be covered up with another.

 

Finally none of it explains why we need a total water rate increase of more than 67% that will generate a surplus of $2,000,000 PER YEAR.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 number 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Ed Crumb
. . . . The anonymous tip I got this morning from somebody with the County never said anything about City General Fund monies used to pay the water department up front. None of the City Councilmen at our meeting last night nor any of the people in attendance, like Ed Crumb who is very well informed, mentioned that either.

Well, you're of course correct Mr. A, it did not come up in the discussion at last night's meeting. I do appreciate your compliment that you consider me "well informed", but I don't consider myself "totally informed" nor would I claim to have perfect or complete information.

 

If you will check out the post I placed above yours (9 minutes earlier than your post, immediately above), you'll see that I did, in fact, cover this subject. According to persons familiar with municipal finance in New York, what Mr. Stovall described to you is the correct procedure. How sad that he doesn't have any enterprising reporters who could follow a worthwhile story to inform the reading public.

 

Hopefully, somebody can join in to help us out on this.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Crumb, I agree. You and I are trying to wade our way through this water mess.

 

Are we said last night all we are looking for are answers and explanations.

 

They seem to be made up as we go long.

ed you are referring to the city council and mayor and something possibly backhanded and illegal, and yet you act suprised that they are making things up as they go along. I am suprised that you are suprised. these little dips into the budget has been going on for a long time and everyone has always brushed it under the rug. Now the truth is finally coming out thanks to your dilligence, as well as others. sorry i missed you last night...family obligations. i look forward to the next one and sitting down and meeting you. i hope we can put the past behind us and see what i can do to help keep this city from going under. keep up the good work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
While it is flattering that, on another related thread, someone wants to ascribe "credit" to me for providing a "wealth of information" to the public meeting at the East Side American Legion (attended by 25 people, three of whom were news media), 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]). Contrary to what was posted earlier in this thread, if the first approach was followed, then the Water Fund half of the "make whole" check from the County would not go into the Water Fund, it would reimburse the Water Fund. I would look forward to seeing someone pursue this and do us all the service of informing us what "the real facts" are. Speculation based on an unnamed source doesn't advance this debate, IMO, when real data is available on this to anyone who wants to pursue it.

 

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.

 

Unfortunatly not a thing you have to say holds any credibility- you're a plant for City Hall and we all know it. You should tell Matt he should be careful what he says and who he says it in front of. I overheard him telling someone that he was trying to find someone to sit in on these meetings and bring back the info. He said he couldnt think of anyone but said he was sure you would do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
This topic has nothing to do with your post. You must be a City employee who is trying to change the subject.

 

Misappropriation of funds is a serious accusation.

 

 

Yes, it is a serious accusation and you are making it with no substantiation. It is increasingly disturbing that you people post this sort of garbage without taking any responsibility for it. There is an audit done of all city finances every year and no misappropriation of funds has ever happened during the Ryan administration. Start doing something productive with your life.

 

 

@

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Yes, it is a serious accusation and you are making it with no substantiation. It is increasingly disturbing that you people post this sort of garbage without taking any responsibility for it. There is an audit done of all city finances every year and no misappropriation of funds has ever happened during the Ryan administration. Start doing something productive with your life.

 

 

@

There are many kinds of audits. What kind of audit is done?

Who/what company does the audit?

Where, on the web, are the results of the audit?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...