Page 1 of 2

Issue 14

Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 2:04 pm
by Thomas J. George
Lakewood Residents,

The Oct. 4 non-partisan primary election, in addition to At-Large candidates for City Council and Ward 1 candidates for Council will address Issue 14.

Issue 14 states, "Shall the City of Lakewood permit the use of the two (2) mills currently approved and restricted to the funding the reconstruction, expansion, operation and maintenance of a sewage disposal plant to include the financing of street reconstruction and other necessary capital improvements of the City?"

Simply put, Issue 14's approval will allow the City to be more flexible in utilizing existing tax resources that currently are limited in use to the sewage treatment plant.

Issue 14 has been endorsed by Lakewood City Council, the Lakewood Board of Education, Lakewood Community Progress Inc. (LCPI), Mayor Tom George and many others.

Issue 14 is part of our long term financial strategy and your support of this important issue will greatly assist our efforts to continue to move the City forward.

Thank you in advance for your support of Issue 14.

Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 2:54 pm
by Grace O'Malley
I have a question.

Is the money collected for the sewage plant needed for " funding the reconstruction, expansion, operation and maintenance of a sewage disposal plant"?

Are you saying this money is not needed for the sewage plant and so we are directing it towards other expenses?

My concern is that will we then need to raise water or sewer rates to make up the money?

"PART" of the strategy

Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 4:01 pm
by Thomas J. George
Grace,

Passage of Issue 14 is "PART" of the long term financial strategy of the City. There is NO increase in taxes associated with passage of Issue 14.

Issue 14 has the potential to add up to $1.8 million per year for the City's capital program including streets and parks improvements.

Most years we project, a substantial portion of that revenue, will be needed for the maintenance and operations of the sewage treatment plant.

In years when there are unused funds, however, passage of Issue 14 will allow for use of funds for streets and other essential capital needs.

The key aspect of Issue 14 is the FLEXIBILITY its passage would provide to use the extra funds for purposes other than the sewage treatment plant.

Passage of Issue 14 will not solve all our City's capital needs, however, its passage is a "part" of the strategy to address our City's capital needs.

Thanks for your question.

TJG

Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 9:36 pm
by Grace O'Malley
According to this Fact Sheet from the City of Lakewood, the city will be required by the EPA to eliminate Combined Sewer Overflows, or CSO's (see fact sheet for details).

A conservative estimate of the cost, according to the city's figures, is 50 to 100 million dollars. Alternative plans could cost several times that amount.

Neither the state or Fed EPA will provide any funding for this. In fact, the city expects bonds would need to be sold and then paid off through increased sewer rates.

Given these facts, when would we actually be at the point where
there are unused funds



Here is the fact sheet:

http://www.ci.lakewood.oh.us/pdf/FAQ%20Sheet%204.pdf#search='lakewood%20ohio%20sewer'

Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 7:10 am
by dl meckes
It is my understanding that the monies collected for the water treatment plant could not be used towards rebuilding the sewers without the passage of Issue 14. Any further clarification on this issue would certainly be appreciated.

Not only do we have an unfunded mandate to rebuild the sewers, we will be faced with hefty daily penalties if the work is not completed in a timely manner.

Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:42 am
by Grace O'Malley
I was hoping for a response on this so that I could determine whether or not to vote for this.

From a brief look at this issue, I can only conclude that there is no "extra" sewer fund money laying around that could be re-directed to the streets. In fact, it looks like the sewer and water treatment departments will need a serious influx of funds, and soon.

If anyone has credible information to contradict this, I'd be interested in hearing it.

Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 11:50 am
by dl meckes
Grace O'Malley wrote:From a brief look at this issue, I can only conclude that there is no "extra" sewer fund money laying around that could be re-directed to the streets. In fact, it looks like the sewer and water treatment departments will need a serious influx of funds, and soon.

If anyone has credible information to contradict this, I'd be interested in hearing it.
There is no extra money lying around. Monies need to be found or raised to fix the sewers & streets and that's one of the reasons behind Issue 14. Funds raised for the water treatment plant may not (at this time) be used to cover sewers or sewer repair.

Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 1:35 pm
by Grace O'Malley
dl

Color me dense, if you will, but aren't sewers and sewer repair part of "wastewater treatment?" What we have in Lakewood is a WASTEWATER treatment plant, not a drinking water treatment plant.

You flush, it goes out to the sewer in the street, the sewer dumps into the treatment plant, the water is treated and then discharged into the lake.

How are sewers not part of our wastewater treatment plant responsibility? The mayors post specifically says:

Issue 14 states, "Shall the City of Lakewood permit the use of the two (2) mills currently approved and restricted to the funding the reconstruction, expansion, operation and maintenance of a sewage disposal plant to include the financing of street reconstruction and other necessary capital improvements of the City?"

So again I ask, if the money set aside specifically for the WASTEWATER TREATMENT or SEWAGE DISPOSAL plant is directed instead toward the repair of streets, then where will the money come from to maintain, expand, and repair the wastewater treatment system AND its sewers?

Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 3:52 pm
by dl meckes
Grace-

The only part of your question I can answer is that the monies are collected for the treatment plant only & not for the sewers. I don't have a clue why this is so, but this is my understanding of the situation. This is pretty much as far as my knowledge goes on the subject.

I'd love to see those more versed on the issue post about it.

Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:58 pm
by Lynn Farris
First of all Grace, I would never color you dense, I think your questions are right on the money.

But my concerns are in another direction. I almost feel like this is a bait and switch. To me this is like asking the voters to approve the building of the new library. Despite having a tough economy, the voters decide of all the things they want, the library is someplace they want to invest.

Then to have the politicians say, you know, we thank you for voting for a new library, but we need a new fire station instead. (Definitely a worthwhile project - but not the one I agonized over spending my hard earned dollars for.)

Don't tell me I just crossed Intergovernmental agencies and this couldn't happen I know it - it is an example.

I don't doubt that the city has numerous worthwhile places to spend the money, more money than we will ever be able to collect. But the citizens felt the need for this one for some reason.

Mayor George, you are a Lakewood History buff. What was the rationale for collecting the money in the first place. Were we going to do something with that money that we found a cheaper way to do? Or did the need for it disappear? Why are we continuing to collect money for something that isn't ever going to be built? Or does the need still exist, but we have a greater need now? Is the "excess" building until there is enough to actually build what we need and if we take it now, we will never get there?

The council has always been able to raise our sewer rates if the need arises. (Not the water - but the sewer.)

Will the money for the sewer replacement be diverted to other worthwhile causes and then replaced with higher sewer rates over which I can't vote?
Even if Mayor George and our current council say No, they wouldn't do that, they can't speak for future generations of Mayors and Councils or can they?

While I understand the goals of the Mayor and sympathize with him. I really don't like the precedent we may set with this. Vote for one thing and we will use it for another.

Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 8:38 pm
by dl meckes
This is more like saying that we'll collect money to build a new library and the money can't be used for anything but bricks and mortar.

The new library is built and some monies can be used for building repair, but there's money building up in the bank account.

Meanwhile, we have no books, but we have "library" money in the bank that we can't touch.

Now we look back & think that we should have put some books into that funding proposal because the new building is great, but there isn't a book or a magazine to be found in our swell new building.

Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 9:39 pm
by Kenneth Warren
dl:

I want to make clarify a particular point about the library's funding sources and expenditure practices, because I believe a mistaken impression could arise from your post concerning building funds raised by a bond issue and the need to purchase books.

Simply put, you post mixes the operations budget (books being one object with the operations budget) and the capital or building budget (the expenditures pertaining to the building construction and renovation.)

Voters passed a bond issue for the expansion and renovation of Main Library. The dollars raised from this issue were placed in a building fund, and will not be spent on books or operations.

In addition voters approved an operating levy. It is from the operating levy that books are purchased.

There is a difference between a capital issue and an operating issue.

From Lakewood Public Library's practice and budgetary requirements, the objects and purposes of expenditures from a capital issue would pertain only to the capital project.

Kenneth Warren

Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 9:53 pm
by dl meckes
Ken-

I apologize if I caused any confusion over actual library funding; that was not my intent.

I was speaking metaphorically, but my analogy was permanently flawed and I'm glad that you called me on it. I had been thinking of a line in a musical where "he left River City the Library building, but he left all the books to her..."

I should have been comparing apples to apples - capital improvements to capital improvements. It is difficult for me to understand why the sewers and waste treatment plant aren't connected in their maintenance funding, but they are not. Replacing our sewers when we redo streets and keeping everything within a scheduled time frame is a major problem for Lakewood.

Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:59 am
by Brad Humphreys
Mayor George,

I'm a resident on West Clifton. We have lived in Lakewood for 5 years; over the last 2 years Lakewood has started to literally stink.

A stench emanating from Lakewood’s sewage plant has increased in frequency from about 1 to 2 times per YEAR to 1 to 2 times per WEEK (no exaggeration, I’m keeping a log now). In the last 2 years, the frequency has drastically increased from rare to being a obnoxious nuisance.

While the odor “cloudâ€Â￾ seems to mostly blow in at about dusk and typically lasts for 1-2 hours, numerous times I am greeted by it as I pick up my newspaper in the morning. The smell is prominent all along the riverside rim. There is absolutely no correlation with weather and drainage run-off; it happens on wet and dry days.

Imagine our embarrassment and frustration when we recently had a gathering at our home and our guests were subjected to Lakewood’s noxious odor. Imagine my frustration as I close the windows to my children’s rooms at night as we tuck them in.

During the last property tax assessments, residents on our street successfully were able to fight for reductions in their assessments due to the stench. During the next assessment cycle we plan to do the same.

Can you please provide a detailed reason for the sewage treatment plant’s problems and how issue 14 affects it?

I believe one of the proposed charter amendments would change water rates from having to be approved by residents, to only needing council approval. Is this true? If so, and you redirect funds from sewage treatment plant, is it already planned to raise water rates to make up for the shifted sewer plant funds?

To summarize, my questions:
1) Why does my neighborhood suddenly stink?
2) Will the shift in funds be made up by increased water rates?

Issue 14

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 1:00 pm
by Bill Call
I have some questions regarding the issue:

1. How much total millage is dedicated to the sewer plant?

2. How much money is raised by two mills?

3. How much money will be needed in the next 5 years for plant maintenance?

4. If the two mills is not available for plant maintenance because it was used for other projects where will the money come from for plant maintenance?

5. If the two mills is used for streets will money that would otherwise be spent on streets be spent on something else?

6. If the money now spent on streets is to be spent on something else doesn't that mean we are using money dedicated for capital expenditures to fund current operating expenses?

7. If council can raise water and sewer rates without voter approval and can use that money for things other than water and sewer projects how can we be sure that the water and sewer lines are properly maintained?
In the 70's and 80's New York City used funds dedicated for capital projects to finance current operating expenses, i.e. wages and benefits.
The result was bankruptcy and a federal bailout. Will the federal government bail out Lakewood?