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

[Guest Guest]

1) i DID NOT SAY THEY DID - I SAID COMPARABLE, I DID NOT SAY 81%. BUT OF COURSE YOU KNOW THAT, YOU SIMPLY ATTEMPT TO TWIST EVERY SINGLE THING TO FIT YOUR SOMEWHAT BIZARRE OBSESSION WITH THE MAYOR AND BINGHAMTON - A CITY YOU DONT LIVE IN - OR PAY TAXES IN - OR OWN PROPERTY IN OR WORK IN (EVEN THOUGH YOU PRETEND TO WORK HERE)

2) WHY DO YOU CARE ABOUT BINGHAMTONS WATER INCREASES AND NOT JC'S?

3) CALL AND ASK WHY. I ASSUME (UNLIKE YOU) THAT IT ENDS UP THERE AND THAT IT IS AN ACCOUNTING THING. ARE YOU IMPLYING ONCE AGIN THAT THESE FUNDS ARE MIS-APPROPRIATED? ONCE AGIN IMPLYING THIS WITHOUT ANY FACTS TO BACK IT UP? OF COURSE YOU ARE. THAT IS WHAT YOU DO.

 

 

We all know Ed is a freak. point it out all you want, but he will never acknowlege his sick obsession.

[Guest Guest]

There was no comparable increase in JC water rates to Binghamton.

 

JC did not raise them 81% like Binghamton, no where close.

 

Why won't you discuss the discounted rate for greater consumption? Isn't a decrease in consumption part of the rational Ryan is using for raising the rates? Is Binghamton open for business or not? Why won't you addres the question?

 

It is because it proves you are a hypocrite and have your own agenda?

 

 

I work in Binghamton, like it or not...

 

I am not sure how you can keep denying it when it is even printed in an industry magazine....

http://www.not allowed.com/hlac/article.pdf

 

There has not been any clear explanation why the water payment goes to the General Funds.

 

If you can find one please post it.

 

Matt Ryan and Tarik Abdelazim will not answer me

 

Clavin Stovall of the Press & Su-Bulletin called me to say he knew why it went to the General Funds but then in Sunday's article his newspaper never published why.

 

 

[Guest Guest]

Johnson City Water Rates: In 2006, water customers inside the village were charged: $20 for the first 1,000 cu.ft., $.1.68/100 cu.ft. for the next 6000 cu.ft., $.1.55/100 cu.ft. for the next 1,993,000 cu.ft. and $.92/100 cu.ft. for over 2,000,000 cu.ft. Outside the village: $30 for the first 1,000 cu.ft., $2.27/100 cu.ft. for the next 6,000 cu.ft., $2.05/100 cu.ft. for the next 1,993,000 cu.ft. and $.92/100 cu.ft. for over 2,000,000 cu.ft. This equates to less than 1 cent per gallon

 

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

Robert Bennett, Director

124 Brown Street 13790

(607) 797-3031

(607) 798-9553

http://www.johnsoncityny.org/Water%20Consu...6%20SUMMARY.htm

 

Same rates today.

 

Call them and check for yourself.

If you have different numbers please post them.

 

Notice the large discounts?

 

Wil Binghamton really show it is open for busines and offer similar rate discounts?

[Guest Guest]

There was no comparable increase in JC water rates to Binghamton.

 

JC did not raise them 81% like Binghamton, no where close.

 

Why won't you discuss the discounted rate for greater consumption? Isn't a decrease in consumption part of the rational Ryan is using for raising the rates? Is Binghamton open for business or not? Why won't you addres the question?

 

It is because it proves you are a hypocrite and have your own agenda?

 

 

I work in Binghamton, like it or not...

 

I am not sure how you can keep denying it when it is even printed in an industry magazine....

http://www.not allowed.com/hlac/article.pdf

 

There has not been any clear explanation why the water payment goes to the General Funds.

 

If you can find one please post it.

 

Matt Ryan and Tarik Abdelazim will not answer me

 

Clavin Stovall of the Press & Su-Bulletin called me to say he knew why it went to the General Funds but then in Sunday's article his newspaper never published why.

 

You do realize that you are truly mentally ill don't you ed?

 

[Guest Guest]

There was no comparable increase in JC water rates to Binghamton.

 

JC did not raise them 81% like Binghamton, no where close.

 

Why won't you discuss the discounted rate for greater consumption? Isn't a decrease in consumption part of the rational Ryan is using for raising the rates? Is Binghamton open for business or not? Why won't you addres the question?

 

It is because it proves you are a hypocrite and have your own agenda?

 

 

I work in Binghamton, like it or not...

 

I am not sure how you can keep denying it when it is even printed in an industry magazine....

http://www.not allowed.com/hlac/article.pdf

 

There has not been any clear explanation why the water payment goes to the General Funds.

 

If you can find one please post it.

 

Matt Ryan and Tarik Abdelazim will not answer me

 

Clavin Stovall of the Press & Su-Bulletin called me to say he knew why it went to the General Funds but then in Sunday's article his newspaper never published why.

 

I bet it is a govment conspiracy of mass proportions. Investigations should be done. Heads will roll!! Jobs will be lost!! People will be jailed!! This is the greatest coverup and conspiracy since watergate!!!!!

 

[Guest Guest]

Johnson City Water Rates: In 2006, water customers inside the village were charged: $20 for the first 1,000 cu.ft., $.1.68/100 cu.ft. for the next 6000 cu.ft., $.1.55/100 cu.ft. for the next 1,993,000 cu.ft. and $.92/100 cu.ft. for over 2,000,000 cu.ft. Outside the village: $30 for the first 1,000 cu.ft., $2.27/100 cu.ft. for the next 6,000 cu.ft., $2.05/100 cu.ft. for the next 1,993,000 cu.ft. and $.92/100 cu.ft. for over 2,000,000 cu.ft. This equates to less than 1 cent per gallon

 

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

Robert Bennett, Director

124 Brown Street 13790

(607) 797-3031

(607) 798-9553

http://www.johnsoncityny.org/Water%20Consu...6%20SUMMARY.htm

 

Same rates today.

 

Call them and check for yourself.

If you have different numbers please post them.

 

Notice the large discounts?

 

Wil Binghamton really show it is open for busines and offer similar rate discounts?

 

 

You worked on one prject and wrote an article. Show us the current paystubs. but what about the fact you dont live here - own property here - pay taxes here? what about the fact you dont complain about the town you live in where taxes are higher than here ? and complain abut the increaees in water rates in your own town?

 

of course we know why that is. if ryan were mayor there - you would be complaining abut those things in your own town. Your obsession with him is unhealth ed. get some help dude!

[Guest Guest]

What I realize is you cannot address the issues.

 

Here they are.

 

Is Binghamton open for business or not? Will it offer comparable discounts for large volume users.

 

It is an easy question.

 

You can answer now or later because the question wil be asked fro a long time.

Johnson City Water Rates: In 2006, water customers inside the village were charged: $20 for the first 1,000 cu.ft., $.1.68/100 cu.ft. for the next 6000 cu.ft., $.1.55/100 cu.ft. for the next 1,993,000 cu.ft. and $.92/100 cu.ft. for over 2,000,000 cu.ft. Outside the village: $30 for the first 1,000 cu.ft., $2.27/100 cu.ft. for the next 6,000 cu.ft., $2.05/100 cu.ft. for the next 1,993,000 cu.ft. and $.92/100 cu.ft. for over 2,000,000 cu.ft. This equates to less than 1 cent per gallon

 

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

Robert Bennett, Director

124 Brown Street 13790

(607) 797-3031

(607) 798-9553

http://www.johnsoncityny.org/Water%20Consu...6%20SUMMARY.htm

 

Same rates today.

 

Call them and check for yourself.

If you have different numbers please post them.

 

Notice the large discounts?

 

Wil Binghamton really show it is open for busines and offer similar rate discounts?

 

[Guest Guest]

What I realize is you cannot address the issues.

 

Here they are.

 

Is Binghamton open for business or not? Will it offer comparable discounts for large volume users.

 

It is an easy question.

 

You can answer now or later because the question wil be asked fro a long time.

 

I do not know if they will or not. Call them and ask them.

 

I do address the issues headon howevr. The real issue here Ed is that you are obsessed with the mayor. You have no interest in Binghamton, nor the residents of this city. Your only interest is your obsession with the mayor. You have posted over 40,000 times on online forums about him and the city. It is a simple as this. If he is for something, you are agaisnt it. If he is against something, you are for it. If he does something, he does it wrong. If he does not do something, he should have.

 

You see ed, you are one sick quack! You are someone that never actually "does" anything. You are one that sits on the sidelines and complains about others. Complains that they should do things your way. Complains that they do not do it the way you think they should do it - or do the things you think should be done.

 

But your main issue is your sick obsessive compulsive behavior around the mayor.

 

[Guest Guest]

It is not Ed who has no credibility it is you.

 

You claimed there was a comparable water rate increase in JC to Binghamton.

 

THAT IS ABSOLTUELY NOT TRUE. Ed proved it as he usally does.

 

YOU CANNOT ADDRESS A SINGLE ISSUE OTHER THAN YOUR FEAR OF ED

 

 

What I realize is you cannot address the issues.

 

Here they are.

 

Is Binghamton open for business or not? Will it offer comparable discounts for large volume users.

 

It is an easy question.

 

You can answer now or later because the question wil be asked fro a long time.

 

[Guest Servant to King A]

What I realize is you cannot address the issues.

 

Here they are.

 

Is Binghamton open for business or not? Will it offer comparable discounts for large volume users.

 

It is an easy question.

 

You can answer now or later because the question wil be asked fro a long time.

 

Let us all bow to Ed the Genius. He is right. he has always been right. Thank God for his interventions and his brilliant investigative reporting. No person has done more for Broome County than Ed A. in the last year. He has proven Mayor Ryan is an idiot and his entire staff incompetent. He deserves a key to the city. No, he deserves better! Let us name him King of the City. So, King not allowed, your water fund went from $1 million to a deficit because of Bucci. Consumption is way down and revenue shortfalls are far as the eye can see. Costs of producing are up and going way up every month.

 

What do you do?

How do you generate more revenue with less money (volume discount)?

How do you not raise rates? If you don't, how do you explain to taxpayers that you let the water fund go deeper and deeper into the red and you now must bail it out with general fund and raise taxes?

 

Please share your genius with us! I am sure you have all the solutions, King not allowed! We all wait breathlessly for your royal decrees! SHHHHHHHHHH, everybody, let the KING SPEAK!!!!

 

 

[Ed Arzouian]

As far as we can tell, because we don't have all the facts because Ryan won't offer them, we have a $300,000 deficit and a $100,000 increase in chemical costs.

 

So we need to raise $400,000 plus begin to rebuild the Water Fund.

 

Now Ed Crumb, a lawyer who works on the East Side Neighborhood Asemblies and is a stickler for details, estimates the current proposal will raise a surplus each and every year of $1,400,000. Mr. Crumb is a conservative guy. He thinks consumption will continue to decrease. I'm more optimistic. I know for a fact least one user will use an additional 2,000,000 GALLONS PER YEAR. There is growth outside of the City of Binghamton and Binghamton sells some of those places water. I think consumption will not decrease much more, I think it may begin to rise again.

 

My estimate is the current proposal it wil raise $2,300,000 year. Subtract the $400,000 and that is a$1,900,000 surplus each and every year.

 

Do you plan to pay off your mortgage in a year or two? No, you don't.

 

It took two years, two years of Ryan's mismanagement, along with guys like Abdelazim and Luke Day who have never managed a thing in their lives, to strip the water fund. It can take two or three or four years to replenish it. It doesn't have to be done in a year unless there is something Ryan is not telling us.

 

Half of the proposal 81% total increase in the water rate will still raise from $500,000 to almost $1,000,000 per year.

 

If decreasing consumption is part of the problem offer large users a volume discount as they do in about half to the water department in New York State. So people Binghamton really is open for business.

 

The Water funds is replenished in two years or so and it continues to grow every year. Residents have half the increase Ryan planned, and that is something they can live with.

 

Rates have gone from $1.65 to $2.10 in about 15 months. Raise them another 15% to 20% total, not another 43%. It is called compromise. It is how business is done and things accomplished

 

[Tax&Spend]

It doesn't cost the City less per unit to produce higher volumes of water.

 

Overtime personnel costs are higher.

 

Chemicals don't get cheaper when you buy more.

 

Nor does electricity. (In fact, NYSEG charges a "premium" price, called a "demand charge" on larger electricity users).

 

If the City needs to expand the capacity of its water works and water mains to accomodate large users, should Jane and John Q. Homeowner pay more?

 

Absolutely not! It just wouldn't be fair.

 

The large commercial users should pay for their consumption as well as their demands on the water infrastructure. Charging the same rate per unit is sustainable and environmentally friendly because it provides an incentive for conservation.

 

Homeowners should not be forced to subsidize big businesses -- especially big deadbeat businesses like some of those the Kradjians are apparently affiliated with: Kra Sall Corp ($16,184.61), 19 Chenango Street, Inc. ($11,280.45), Greater Binghamton Development, LLC [landlord to the District Attorney's offices] ($6,994.82), Kradro Realty DSS, LLC [landlord to Broome County DSS] ($5,819.84) -- to name a few (and there certainly may be more with less obvious/prominent names).

 

I'm glad I didn't vote for Naima Kradjian if this is the type of behavior she condones!

[Guest Guest]

It doesn't cost the City less per unit to produce higher volumes of water.

 

Overtime personnel costs are higher.

 

Chemicals don't get cheaper when you buy more.

 

Nor does electricity. (In fact, NYSEG charges a "premium" price, called a "demand charge" on larger electricity users).

 

If the City needs to expand the capacity of its water works and water mains to accomodate large users, should Jane and John Q. Homeowner pay more?

 

Absolutely not! It just wouldn't be fair.

 

The large commercial users should pay for their consumption as well as their demands on the water infrastructure. Charging the same rate per unit is sustainable and environmentally friendly because it provides an incentive for conservation.

 

Homeowners should not be forced to subsidize big businesses -- especially big deadbeat businesses like some of those the Kradjians are apparently affiliated with: Kra Sall Corp ($16,184.61), 19 Chenango Street, Inc. ($11,280.45), Greater Binghamton Development, LLC [landlord to the District Attorney's offices] ($6,994.82), Kradro Realty DSS, LLC [landlord to Broome County DSS] ($5,819.84) -- to name a few (and there certainly may be more with less obvious/prominent names).

 

I'm glad I didn't vote for Naima Kradjian if this is the type of behavior she condones!

 

She has no choice but to condone it, and so does all-time great Water Crusader Ed Arzoonyian.

 

[Ed Arzouian]

Why then do JC, Conklin, Endicott, Rochester, Cortland and Utica among other offer discounts?

 

Of 12 muncipalities I have surveyed, 5 offer disocunt, almost half.

 

This is a very common practice everywhere except in the socialist commune that is now Binghamton.

 

If consumption is not an issue why does Ryan keep saying lower consumption is part of the reason for an increase?

 

If he wants to raise consumption, lower the price, that is basic economics.

[Guest Holy-Misquote-Batman!]

. . . . 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. . . .

FWIW, that's what Ed Crumb said. The other Ed (not allowed) conveniently leaves out the part he disagrees with or which doesn't suit his purposes.

 

[Ed Arzouian]

Crumb said, "$1,400,139.70 per year" as I said he did.

 

He wants the City to spend more onf water infrastructure, not raise rates by 81%.

 

Find where he said that?

 

 

[Guest Guest]

Why then do JC, Conklin, Endicott, Rochester, Cortland and Utica among other offer discounts?

 

Of 12 muncipalities I have surveyed, 5 offer disocunt, almost half.

 

This is a very common practice everywhere except in the socialist commune that is now Binghamton.

 

If consumption is not an issue why does Ryan keep saying lower consumption is part of the reason for an increase?

 

If he wants to raise consumption, lower the price, that is basic economics.

 

What about these scofflaws Ed?

 

Kra Sall Corp ($16,184.61), 19 Chenango Street, Inc. ($11,280.45), Greater Binghamton Development, LLC [landlord to the District Attorney's offices] ($6,994.82), Kradro Realty DSS, LLC [landlord to Broome County DSS] ($5,819.84) -- to name a few (and there certainly may be more with less obvious/prominent names).

 

What do you think of them?

 

 

[Guest Holy-Misquote-Batman!]

Crumb said, "$1,400,139.70 per year" as I said he did.

But he doesn't label it as a "surplus" as you do. He sees ways the money will be spent, so there will be less of an increase in the Water Fund balance at the end of the year than the revenue increase by itself.

 

[Ed Arzouian]

What about these scofflaws Ed?

 

Kra Sall Corp ($16,184.61), 19 Chenango Street, Inc. ($11,280.45), Greater Binghamton Development, LLC [landlord to the District Attorney's offices] ($6,994.82), Kradro Realty DSS, LLC [landlord to Broome County DSS] ($5,819.84) -- to name a few (and there certainly may be more with less obvious/prominent names).

 

What do you think of them?

 

 

They are paying their bills with penalties and fees and interest. They have not defaulted or refused to pay.

 

It is unfortunate for them they will pay more but the City and the Water Fund do not lose a dime, especially if it is true that the City General Fund prepays the Water Fund and then collect its money back from the County. Probably with the extra fees. So, it sounds like the City of Binghamton loans money to the Water Department and makes money on interest and penalites. Soujnd slike Matthew T. Ryan is now in the loansharking business buying other people's debts.

 

But, again, we cannot be sure.

 

That is why I have contacted the NYS Comptroller DiNapoli and requested he audit the books.

[Ed Arzouian]

But he doesn't label it as a "surplus" as you do. He sees ways the money will be spent, so there will be less of an increase in the Water Fund balance at the end of the year than the revenue increase by itself.

 

 

So you are worried what he call it?

 

Here is what he wrote, "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."

 

He clearly states the fund balance will almost be restored (80-85%)in a year.

 

Quibble all you like.

 

An 81% increase is not needed except to give Matthew T. Ryan a way to sqeeze more money out of the water fund to cover his losses and mismanagement elsewhere.

[Guest Guest]

They are paying their bills with penalties and fees and interest. They have not defaulted or refused to pay.

 

It is unfortunate for them they will pay more but the City and the Water Fund do not lose a dime, especially if it is true that the City General Fund prepays the Water Fund and then collect its money back from the County. Probably with the extra fees. So, it sounds like the City of Binghamton loans money to the Water Department and makes money on interest and penalites. Soujnd slike Matthew T. Ryan is now in the loansharking business buying other people's debts.

 

But, again, we cannot be sure.

 

That is why I have contacted the NYS Comptroller DiNapoli and requested he audit the books.

 

Really. Maybe the answer to all our water revenue problems is for everyone to pay late. Imagine the spike in funds generated by the penalties the city will get.

 

[Guest Guest]

Really. Maybe the answer to all our water revenue problems is for everyone to pay late. Imagine the spike in funds generated by the penalties the city will get.

 

Lol...now that was funny.

[Guest Guest]

Lol...now that was funny.

 

 

It was, and it also proves Ed is 100% Kradjian shill, 100% phony and 100% unnecessary to hear from.

[Guest Guest]

Just curious, do all you people arguing with Ed want to pay an 81% increase in water bills??

Is that what you want?

 

Why?

[Guest Guest]

Just curious, do all you people arguing with Ed want to pay an 81% increase in water bills??

Is that what you want?

 

Why?

 

Arguing with Ed does not = being for an 81% increase.

 

Why can't Ed stop pretending he is a citizen watchdog, when he is really just a Kradjian lapdog?