On Monday, October 25, 2010, New Philadelphia City Council meets to vote on two important issues, the extension of the city airport runway and a natural gas aggregation program being proposed for the city. These issues will be read Monday evening at the 7:30 PM meeting.
The Airport Master Plan, Resolution 47-2010, started years ago under the previous mayor. A renewed effort by the Airport Commission to extend the runway was begun with the election of a new mayor, Michael Taylor, two years ago which resulted in a move to push the extension through City Council. A resolution drawn up to approve the Airport Master Plan met with heated vocal opposition from residents in the airport area who were in jeopardy of losing their homes and property should the Plan be adopted.
Because of the opposition to adopting the Plan, the Chairman of the Public Works and Economic Development Committee, presented to Council a resolution which stated, “City Council wishes to acknowledge, support and cooperate with the New Philadelphia Airport Commission for the continued operations of the Harry Clever Field as a valuable tool and asset for not only the City of New Philadelphia and Tuscarawas County, Ohio as well.” The wording is open to various interpretations, one of which would permit the Airport Commission to unilaterally approve the proposed Airport Master Plan.
As opposition continues unabated to the runway extension, on Monday one can suspect another change in wording, which will sound better but still leave the issue of a runway extension open for discussion. Runway extension should be discussed openly by City Council but without the omissions, half-truths, and misleading statements which have been made in Committee and on the Council floor. Candidness would be nice.
If Resolution 47-2010 is to show appreciation for past efforts made by the Airport Commission, a simple thank you is sufficient. A resolution or ordinance is not required.
Then there is the matter of the gas aggregation which will have its first reading Monday. The City was approached by Buckeye Energy Brokers, Inc. requesting permission to act as a broker representative for the City of New Philadelphia. Buckeye Energy Brokers would research existing natural gas suppliers who provide gas in the New Philadelphia area and provide the City with natural gas for a cheaper price. The price paid by the City for natural gas would be made available to other gas users in the city, if they contracted with the same supplier contracted with by the City.
Buckeye Energy Brokers are just that, brokers. They have no gas to sell. They represent existing gas suppliers the same way a real estate broker represents someone who wants to sell their home or other property.
Who does Buckeye really represent? Buckeye’s main interest is the commission, the money that comes from the gas supplier as a finder’s fee. Could there be a possibility that Buckeye’s supplier recommendation may be related to the commission?
When asked during a meeting the price of the gas being quoted, the answer was not forthcoming, nor was the name of the recommended gas supplier. Neither the Special/Contact Committee Chairman, nor the Mayor, were able to supply information on these important pieces of information.
When asked what other natural gas suppliers were contacted, the Mayor replied that no other supplier had called him. This makes no sense. The proper way to conduct city purchasing is to obtain at least three bids. We do that for car repairs, insurance companies demand it. The Service Director should have made such inquiries as a matter of course.
A contract which guarantees a specified number of years commitment with the gas supplier, unknown at this writing, is required of the City. The Mayor and Special/Contact Committee Chairman have been unable to provide what this commitment will be. The procedure and cost, should the City choose to opt out of the proposed commitment, was not known by either.
It has been reported that the City has a contract with an unnamed gas supplier. Confirmation or denial by Administration officials has not been forthcoming. If this is true, what will be the cost of reneging on that contract? We should be told who that supplier is, and the terms of that contract, before we enter into another.
Buckeye Energy Brokers insists the deal must be closed before October 31, 2010. We’re not sure why, but that’s the deadline, so City Council must act on an emergency basis this coming Monday. Sounds like a TV ad. “Send your money in for this shiny gizmo and we’ll include a shiny gizmo cleaner at no extra charge. But you have to order within the next 20 minutes because the offer is going to be withdrawn.” It’s a sales pitch as old as gullible people have been around to listen. I have dealt with gas suppliers for years and there is no deadline for start of service. You want gas, they turn it on. Beware the deadline offer. Beware of the last chance to act scenario.
The references Buckeye gave the city were checked, and not surprisingly they looked good to those who checked them. A question of logic – would Buckeye give a reference from anybody who wouldn’t say Buckeye was great. Of course not. Our inquiries to other sources paint a different picture. There is dissatisfaction with the services provided by Buckeye, which, had the advocates of the Buckeye aggregation plan done their due diligence, would have come to light.
Full details of the Buckeye plan are not known. Questions about Buckeye’s recommendations have gone unanswered. The “I’s” have not been dotted, the “T’s” have not been crossed. Research which should have been done by the Special/Contact Committee has not been done. The City is in close to buying into a plan of which little is known. As grandma used to say, “Act in haste, repent at leisure.”
These two unneeded resolutions have nothing to commend their passage by City Council. Ample opportunity has been given for an honest open discussion on both. The proponents of both did not present an overriding reason for their implementation. The Administration and the City Council Committees which sponsored both resolutions have failed to make their case. City Council should deny passage of both.
No comments:
Post a Comment