Ed the Genius Shares Solutions to Save All

[Guest Servant to King A]

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!!!!

 

 

[bing4126]

Someone get me a bucket to puke in .

[Guest Guest]

Noitce when you ask Ed for SOLUTIONS he is silent as a mouse.

[Guest Guest]

Noitce when you ask Ed for SOLUTIONS he is silent as a mouse.

 

I notice that Ed gets attacked by the same people every time he posts. City hall is hiring terrible forum warriors these days.

[Guest Guest]

I notice that Ed gets attacked by the same people every time he posts. City hall is hiring terrible forum warriors these days.

 

That's not an attack. I'm asking him to answer the above reasonable questions and I won't be surprised if he doesn't. Is that really an attack? I think they are simple questions. The Mayor was handed a pile of DELETED from Bucci. Naima, Doug, and anybody else would have had to do the same thing.

[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 will 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

 

[Guest Guest]

The King has spoken. Water rates will rise. Inspired. Revolutionary. Genius.

[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]

What part are you refering to?

 

Crumb said $1,400,00 will be raised. Exactly what I quoted him with.

 

He added he hopes the City will spend more on fixing water infrastructure not raising rates 81%

[Guest Holy-Misquote-Batman!]

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]

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]

You asked and he provided it....

 

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 will 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

 

[Guest Guest]

seems reasonable, that's why Ryan won't do it.

 

 

@

[Guest Guest]

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.

 

 

King A, how much does the city bond every year for water improvements?

Tick-tock, tick-tock, tick-tock......

At least a million.

Who pays for the bond?

Tick-tock, tick-tock, tick-tock......

The taxpayer. With interest. For twenty years.

So even if the 40% does produce a surplus, which is questionable, then we should all be screaming for Ryan to stop bonding with general fund dollars and start using water fees for capital maintenance and improvements of the water system, which in the end, will save the city taxpayers MILLIONS.

Who's the idiot now, King A?

Tick-tock, tick-tock, tick-tock......

 

 

@