City Council Approves West High Paving; No Water Billing Changes

Last Monday’s, July 26, New Philadelphia City Council Meeting was, for the most part, pretty quiet. The media doesn’t always get the full story, possibly because they do not have time to verify what they are told by members of the administration or council. A couple of examples.

A resolution was passed for the widening of West High between Five Points and the railroad tracks. Because of the efforts of Councilwoman Cox letting the residents in that area know that the resolution was to be voted on at the Monday meeting, a number of the residents showed up to express their views. Their concern was the possibility of losing property due to widening West High and nobody had brought it to their attention. They were told the previous meetings had been announced in the media and that was all the City was required to do. Thanks to Ms. Cox, they found out about the upcoming vote. They asked questions about what was going to occur and the answers, according to the folks I spoke with, were unsatisfactory.

There are hidden issues in that resolution. Part of what the Council committed to reads that the City “does agree to participate to the proposed widening of State Route 39” and “agrees to pay 20% of the cost.” A concern about this wording was raised by Ms. Cox as to whether this made the widening by the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) a done deal. She questioned the Law Director who told her that passage of the resolution was non-binding and the City could back out whenever it wanted, a position held by Mayor Taylor as well. Apparently the wording locks the City into the project and they cannot back out of it without the agreement of ODOT.

That brings up another question. Why did ODOT refuse to take part in a public hearing on the project until after the City approved the project? All meetings with ODOT and the City have been in private or in unpublicized “public” meetings. There is a responsibility of City Council and the Administration to represent the citizens and part of that responsibility is to keep them informed. No announcements, other than Ms. Cox’s, were made to those affected.

Is this a replay of the Public Works Committee meeting concerning the runway expansion at the City airport? As you may recall the word got out about a Public Works Committee meeting, chaired by Mr. Lautenschleger, to discuss extending the runway, which would involve taking of private property, homes included, by eminent domain. So many irate people showed up at that committee meeting that it was rescheduled and held in the pavilion at Tuscora Park. Good thing, too. The pavilion was almost filled with people who were against the issue. Currently, that project is still on hold with no decision made and no date set for another committee meeting.

What’s going on here? What is being left unsaid on issues which affect the public’s interests? Why the secrecy? The Administration and some council members maintain they have done everything thing to let the public know what is going on. The only problem is that the public doesn’t know it. Why didn’t Mr. Maurer, Chairman of the Safety, Health and Service Committee, who sponsored the legislation, take steps to inform the people whose homes and property are in jeopardy? Why did it have to fall to Ms. Cox?

As a follow up to the article published Friday, July 16, 2010, “New Philadelphia Water/Sewer Billing Over Charge Explained?”, Mr. Conner asked if any action had been taken to correct the billing system to prevent billing periods from extending beyond the monthly billing periods mandated by the City Ordinances. Mr. Zucal, the Service Director, replied, “I think our billing system works fine currently. I did not make the comment that I would get back to Mr. Conner, that was not the conversation. I told him thoroughly what we do, that’s how we do business in the city. I think our system works well. Our meter readers can’t be out every single day. We do work diligently to provide a good service and we have very few people who complain.”

I agree with Mr. Zucal that the meter readers can’t be out every single day. His statement last Monday, however, evaded the question, has the computer program which bills New Philadelphia water and sewer users been corrected to prevent improper billing? The statement he made during the council meeting apparently was “No.” It was apparent that no corrections to the billing system are planned to be made. The statement that very few people complain about the water department indicates that the Service Director is out of touch with the New Philadelphia citizen. There is dissatisfaction, Mr. Zucal, whether the Administration chooses to admit it or not.

Times-Reporter Editorial Logic Fails - Again

The Times-Reporter editorial for July 22, 2010 is another no-brainer, except in this case the definition is no brains. If Mr. Jekel writes his own editorials, or if he doesn’t, what gets published is his responsibility. He needs to go back and review Economics 101 and fourth grade arithmetic. The editorial, “Benefits extension delayed too long,” is an example of what is destroying the United States as we know it. It reads well, no question about that, but it does not face the realities of the economic disaster the country is now locked into.

The cost of extending the benefits for unemployed workers, almost thirty-four billion dollars this year, is referred to as “hardly a budget buster.” True, especially when the budget was blown to smithereens months ago. Jeff Foxworthy’s fifth-graders would be able to figure out that if you have a huge debt, 13.2 trillion dollars currently, you don’t throw another 34 billion into the debt pit.

Real life works like this. You’re making $50,000 a year. Your expenses are $49,000. You want a new car. You borrow twenty grand, pay nothing down, and end up with payments of $350 a month for the next five years. You are still making $50,000 but your expenses have risen to $53,200. You’re in debt by $3,200 for the year. If you can’t come up with the extra $3,200 you can’t pay the bills. The car will be repossessed, which takes care of the car payment, but there is now another problem. You lost the $3,200, reducing next year’s operating funds to $46,800 which is $1,200 less than your expenses. No sweat. You can put your expenses on the credit card. The credit card interest charges increase the cost of your purchases further decreasing your operating funds. Eventually you end up bankrupt.

That gets you off the hook, but sticks it to the folks who loaned you the money in the first place. That you became financially unable to pay the loan off is your responsibility, not theirs, and it is morally wrong to force them to pay for your bad decisions. You’re broke, the car dealer, having lost money because of your inability to pay, has less money to spend on inventory so he orders less, the manufacturer has the same problem so he orders less materials, and so it goes because you spent more money than you could afford.

Government spending has the same problem, although the Obama doesn’t seem to know, understand, or care. The federal debt is oppressive. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which is the total amount of good, products, and services the country produces, currently stands at 14.5 trillion dollars, which is only a trillion dollars more than the national debt. The tax income from all sources to date this year, is 2.2 trillion dollars, only 17% of the national debt. If all spending were to stop right now, it would take six-and-a-half years to pay off the debt, and we all know that’s not going to happen.

Unemployment has increased steadily in the past two years. The editorial states that for every job available there are five unemployed workers. It goes on to state that “the claim that these benefits discourage the jobless from looking for work, that’s pure bunk.” Could be. But then how many unemployed workers would there be, how many jobs being done by illegal aliens would be filled by Americans if welfare and the public dole were stopped and a policy of no work no food were implemented? Public welfare serves no one but the political hacks who want to exploit those who live in poverty. Unemployment welfare is a means of governmental control, not help.

To pay the debt down takes a couple of things. The US federal income has to increase. Federal spending has to decrease. The government’s answer is to increase taxes. Like it or not, it has already happened. The tax burden is going to be oppressive. The statements by Obama that the working folks won’t be hit with higher taxes is untrue (used untrue because a lie is not politically correct). You tax who has the money, and working folks, the so-called middle class, have the money. Tax increases on working people will reach 30 to 35% according to economists, with even higher increases for businesses and the nasty rich people who provide the jobs to the rest of us. Oppressive tax legislation has already been passed by the congress and signed by Obama.

Adding another $34 billion dollars to the disastrous debt Obama created since taking office may not seem like much to Mr. Jekel, but like buying a car when you can’t afford it, it only adds to our financial trouble. What we need is more private investment to increase business opportunity, jobs, the GDP, which will put the country back on a sound financial footing.

Increasing taxes on the people and businesses which provide jobs by will only decrease investment in US industry. Jobs will be lost rather than gained. Politicians didn’t learn this in the 1930’s and they still haven’t figured it out.

Mr. Jeckel is entitled to his opinion. He also has a responsibility to do the research to back it up. Unless, of course, his editorial is politically biased. Huh. Could that be it?

New Philadelphia Water/Sewer Billing Over Charge Explained?

An article in the Times-Reporter on July 14, 2010, concerning the City Council meeting the previous Monday, reported the following:

“During the public comments period, former city councilman Robert Conner of North Ave. NW asked why his water bill was for 38 days instead of 31 as required by city ordinance. He said no one in his neighborhood was charged for that many days. He called it “unfair, illegal and uncaring on the part of the city” and demanded answers. He was told he would have an answer Tuesday.
”Water Superintendent Kelly Ricklic contacted The Times-Reporter after the meeting to say that Conner had his meter changed at his request because it was noisy.”

Good reporting, but what is the rest of the story?

New Philadelphia City Resolution 09-2009, which sets the water rates for the city is specific in how water and sewer rates are to be calculated. Section 1 states: “The minimum water rate effective June 1, 2009 shall be Twelve Dollars and 90/100 ($12.90) per month. Beyond the minimum, any water usage will be billed with a seven percent increase.” Section 2 states: “The sanitary sewer rate effective June 1, 2009 shall be Twelve Dollars and 90/100 ($12.90) per month. Beyond the minimum, any sanitary sewer usage will be billed with a seven percent increase.”

The problem concerning the over-billing of seven days was discussed in a meeting with the Mr. Zucal, New Philadelphia’s Service Director. He explained that the replacement of a defective water meter created the billing problem. While the water meter was read on June 7th, then, because of the water meter replacement on June 14, it was re-read on the 14th, which accounted for the extra seven days. This was done because the billing program the city uses, according to the Service Director, does not allow combining two meter readings, one from the old meter and one from the new meter, to be combined in the next month’s bill. The Service Director said that the billing software program provided by Software Solutions Incorporated (SSI), of Lebanon, Ohio, did not have the ability to combine readings from two separate meters for the same billing period, therefore, the old meter must be read at the time it is removed to get the total water usage. The reason, I was told, was because SSI is a business oriented billing company and not utility oriented, hence the increased billing days.

I called SSI and was told by their representative that this was not the case. The SSI software, being used by New Philadelphia, provides a complete billing system for utilities and is capable of combining readings when meters are changed within the normal monthly billing period. The SSI representative stated that instructions for meter changes in a normal billing cycle are included in the operating manual for the software. In short, SSI stated that there was no reason, when using their software, that meter changes should interfere with the normal billing cycle.

The question then arises, why has this situation been allowed to exist over the length of time it has? The Water Office personnel are aware that improper billing periods create problems, and sometimes hardship, for water consumers, as they are the ones who get the consumer complaints. But the responsibility for correction of this problem does not lie with the office personnel, rather with management. The excuse that the extended billing period is caused by meter changes no longer holds water, no pun intended. The problem is that management is ignorant of the capabilities of the SSI software they are using for water and sewer billing. The Service Director and Water Department Supervisor have ignored recurring complaints from consumers about the billing problem and have not tried to investigate solutions to that chronic problem.

There is no reason that regular billing cycles should not be maintained. The Service Director and Water Superintendent should correct this problem without hesitation by using resources already available within the billing system.

Another area of concern, which remains unanswered, is the sewer rate being charged for the use of the city sewer system. Resolution 9-2009 is specific. The sewer rate effective June 1, 2009 is $12.90. The ordinance is specific. Twelve dollars and ninety cents, no more, no less. Why are we paying more?



Addenda:

A month by definition is from the first day of a month to the last day of the month. Seven months have 31 days, four months have 30 days, one month has 28 but every four years adds an extra day to make 29, referred to as a calendar month, the terminology used in business, finance, and the legal profession. From the first of February to the first of March is a 28 day month, from the first of March to the first of April is a 31 day month, from the first of April to the first of May is a 30 day month. With this in mind, from the seventh of one month to the seventh of the next, regardless of the length of that month is a month. There is no way a month on a New Philadelphia water bill can be less than 28 days nor more than 31. (There is also a lunar month, of which there are 13, with a day over, in a year, but almost nobody in business uses it.)

Two-Percent Pay Increases for New Philadelphia Administrators

Last night’s, July 13, New Philadelphia City Council meeting was interesting to say the least. While most of the business Council conducted was of a routine nature, the matter of pay raises for non-bargaining officials, Resolution 26-2010, was reopened during it’s second reading. It was at this point that the members of City Council displayed their true positions on the fiscal well-being of the city.

The original proposal for those pay raises was brought to the floor by the Chairman of the Salary Committee, Mr. Locker who had been assigned the task of looking into pay raises for non-bargaining city officials. The salary committee brought legislation to the floor of City Council requesting a one-percent increase for elected and appointed city officials. This legislation was changed by an amendment brought to the floor by Mr. Lautenschleger which contained changes, the increase of the raise from one- to two-percent, and the exclusion of Council members from that raise. The amendment was approved by Council by a four to three vote for acceptance, Cox, Espenschied, and Walker voting against.

Last night Councilwoman Cox, chairman of the Finance Committee, proposed an amendment to the pay raise legislation which proposed two amendments, return the raise to one-percent and exclude all elected officials. Cox, in a prepared statement, said that the financial state of the City was becoming progressively worse and the City might not be meet its budget because of the decreases in City income. She further said that elected officials knew what their salaries would be when they ran for office and should be satisfied with those salaries.

A vote on the amendment was taken and by a four to two vote the amendment was defeated. That left the proposed two-percent increase intact as well as giving salary increases to the Clerk of Council and to Joel Day, the President of Council. For the record, voting against the Cox amendment were Espenschied, Lautenschleger, Locker, and Zucal. Voting in favor of the Cox amendment were Cox and Walker. Absent was Mr. Maurer. The third reading on Resolution 26-2010 will be taken on July 26 at which time a vote will probably be taken to pass the pay increases. It’s my bet at this point that the resolution will pass at that time.

There are some interesting sidelights to this scenario, For example, Mr. Jim Zucal, the Service Director, is related to Mr. Lautenschleger by marriage, by blood to Mr. John Zucal, the Councilman. Mr. Locker, Chairman of the Salary Committee, who presented the original wage proposal of one-percent on the recommendation of his committee, whose members are Winnie Walker and John Zucal, voted twice to increase the salaries of those involved to two-percent and to exclude members of Council from the increases. Council President Day, apparently dissatisfied with the Salary Committee’s handling of the wage issue, created an ad hoc committee to look into legislation to set guidelines for non-bargaining city personnel, and in an unprecedented move, appointed himself as chairman of that ad hoc committee. Chairman Day, incidentally, is related by marriage to Mr. Ricklic, the city Water Superintendent. Mrs. Espenschied said after the council meeting that she voted against the Cox Amendment this time as she didn’t like changing things in midstream. It’s all very confusing.

The bottom line is this. Employment in private business is down, unemployment in Ohio at 10.7%, which doesn’t count marginally attached and discouraged workers. These are folks who wanted work and couldn’t find it and are no longer listed on the unemployment rolls. The Bureau of Labor Statistics made the following report:

In June, about 2.6 mil­lion per­sons were mar­gin­ally attached to the labor force, an increase of 415,000 from a year ear­lier. (The data are not sea­son­ally adjusted.) These indi­vid­u­als were not in the labor force, wanted and were avail­able for work, and had looked for a job some­time in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unem­ployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks pre­ced­ing the survey.
Among the mar­gin­ally attached, there were 1.2 mil­lion dis­cour­aged work­ers in June, up by 414,000 from a year ear­lier. (The data are not sea­son­ally adjusted.) Dis­cour­aged work­ers are per­sons not cur­rently look­ing for work because they believe no jobs are avail­able for them. The remain­ing 1.4 mil­lion per­sons mar­gin­ally attached to the labor force had not searched for work in the 4 weeks pre­ced­ing the sur­vey for rea­sons such as school atten­dance or fam­ily responsibilities.

Things are not well on the employment front. With rising unemployment, decreasing tax revenues, City Council should heed Mrs. Cox’s concerns about the financial state of New Philadelphia. This is not the time for any increases in budgets.

The Administration and City Council, if they do not face up to their responsibilities, can provide the New Philadelphians with only two things in the future, higher taxes or reduced services, or both.

Citizens, wake up. Press your councilmen and mayor to stop pushing the city into insolvency. Get involved.

Times-Reporter Gets It Wrong - Again

The Times-Reporter does it again. July 5's editorial should be included in every journalism class which is taught in every high school, college and university in the United States. The ignorance, I'm being nice, of the Editor in publishing the editorial "A demonstration of fiscal restraint," sets a new low in journalism for the Times-Reporter. It is obvious that Mr. Jekel doesn't even read his own paper.

On June 28, in reporting on the New Philadelphia City Council meeting, Joe Mizer stated that the City Council amended a proposed piece of legislation made by the Salary Committee concerning pay raises for elected and other non-union people working for the City. The original legislation, as it came out of the committee, called for a one-percent raise for such people. On the floor of Council, the one-percent figure was, by a vote of four to three, changed to two-percent. At the same time, any pay raise for City Council members was eliminated.

The editorial is an obvious lie in-so-far as its comments concerning New Philadelphia. Why would Mr. Jekel allow such a blatant misrepresentation of the facts be printed in the Times-Reporter? There is the excuse that editorials are not always written by the editor, that they are the result of an editorial staff. It is easy to pass the buck to somebody else, but passing the responsibility for such misleading statements to an underling won't wash. The editor is the editor, and what ever appears in any newspaper is undeniably the responsibility of the editor. Could it be that Mr. Jekel doesn't read his own paper? Joe Mizer got it right, why couldn't the editor? Is checking background information no longer a part of the editorial process.

Could it be that the T-R editor is enamoured with the New Philadelphia Administration to the point that truth and investigation of the facts is no longer a journalistic priority? Why haven't the following questions been asked of the Mayor and other Administration officials?

Is the President of City Council included in the proposed two-percent pay raise? After all, he is not a member of City Council. He is elected to an office which is more closely related to the Administration than City Council.
Who else is included in "non-bargaining" personnel? Are the school crossing guards, life guards, part-time workers, summer help, and others who work part-time for the city?
Why should non-elected, non-union employees get automatic pay raises when they are not evaluated on their job performance? There are no current job descriptions, if any at all, by which employees are judged. Tardiness is not reported nor punished when it occurs. Mid-morning breakfasts at local restaurants, a not infrequent situation, occurs without comment. Late and incorrect city reports from city officials go unquestioned.
Why should Administration officials get a two-percent pay raise when they talked the Clerical Union into taking one-percent in their contract?

In this editorial Jekel states "Kudos to New Philadelphia.....for doing the right thing" because, on a four to three vote, City Council saved the city a maximum of a thousand dollars a year by denying City Council members a pay raise. If City Council gets kudos for that, where was the editorial outrage when union employees received over half-million dollars in pay raises for 2010?

It is obvious that the Times-Reporter no longer understands what is going on in the City. It is obvious that the Times-Reporter is no longer a newspaper which has the motivation to report the news in a trustworthy manner. It is obvious that the editor of the Times-Reporter either doesn't have a clue about the newspaper business, or just plain doesn't have a clue.

Responsibility, as it always does, rests on the shoulders of the editor. Mr. Jekel needs to take a long, critical look at the Times-Reporter and his responsibility to its well-being and reputation. The misinformation, the bias, and the incompetence displayed in this editorial are inexcusable.