Page 1 of 2
Concerned about basement flooding-July 3, 2006
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 9:03 pm
by Thomas J. George
Observers,
Upset and very concerned about basement flooding like I am? Check the minutes of the City Council meeting held on July 3, 2006 as to which members of Council voted for sewer improvements. Ordinances no. 52-06 and 54-06.
Thank you to the members of Council who want to be part of the solution, rather than the problem.
Council minutes available on city web site ci.lakewood.oh.us.
No hidden agendas,
No ulterior motives,
Mayor Tom George
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 9:06 pm
by David Lay
Re: Concerned about basement flooding-July 3, 2006
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 9:23 pm
by Richard Cole
Thomas J. George wrote:Observers,
Upset and very concerned about basement flooding like I am?
No hidden agendas,
No ulterior motives,
Mayor Tom George
Oh come on
If you've got something to say, say it
Re: Concerned about basement flooding-July 3, 2006
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 6:01 am
by Bill Call
Thomas J. George wrote:No hidden agendas,
No ulterior motives,
Mayor Tom George
There is nothing wrong with agendas or political motives in a political year. Support or opposition to sewer or street improvements is a legitimate political issue.
Lakewood's sewers and streets need repair and the money has to come from somewhere.
What's the word on debates? I hear different versions of who is avoiding a debate.
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 9:10 am
by Ed FitzGerald
Mayor George:
Do you recall the budget hearings that year, when your administration promised that all of the capital projects, including sewer projects, were NOT dependent on raising either income taxes, water rates, sewer rates, or any other "revenue enhancements"?
After the budget was passed in March of 2006, you announced that the city had borrowed so much money that no more could be borrowed to finance capital projects. At a special meeting of council, your administration admitted that the "credit cards had been maxed out." When we asked for an explanation of how this multi-million dollar mistake had been made, we were referred to the finance director, who had just quit.
So, there was no way I was going to vote for a 30% rate increase under those circumstances. You later sent out an email blaming the increase on Cleveland's water rate increase, which was a half-truth at best; of the 30% increase, only a third could be attributed to Cleveland's rate increase; the rest was because we had "maxed out our credit cards."
Bill, its this kind of issue which explains the mayor's ducking of debates- the record just doesn't stand up to the light of day. There will be some candidate forums starting in September, so I suppose we will have to wait for those.
money
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 9:22 am
by Bill Call
Ed FitzGerald wrote:.... At a special meeting of council, your administration admitted that the "credit cards had been maxed out." When we asked for an explanation of how this multi-million dollar mistake had been made, we were referred to the finance director, who had just quit.
First thanks for weighing in.
I was told by the previous finance director and others that the City had maxed out its debt load. The administration has denied that any kind of credit limit has been reached.
Hopefully a real debate will shed light on this issue. Of course the debate can take place right here on line.
Look, if I am offered a detailed plan of action for infrastructure improvements backed up by real numbers and real cost control I am willing to support a
tattattax increase.
This isn't a judgement on anyone's motives but -- What we need in a candidate is someone who would rather tell it like it is and lose. I guess that's bad political advice but there it is.
thanks for your version of history
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:18 pm
by Thomas J. George
Councilman at Large,
Thank you for your version of history. Others may differ.
As of yet, we've yet to hear what you plan to do about basement flooding.
Are you part of the solution, or part of the problem?
No ulterior motives,
No hidden agendas,
Mayor Tom George
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:30 pm
by Ed FitzGerald
Mayor-
I'll back it up with transcripts from the meetings.
And I have no ulterior motives or hidden agendas when it comes to basement flooding.
Would you like to debate this issue? With some of what's been said so far in this campaign, I would suggest the waste water treatment plant for a location.
Water & Sewer Rates and Debt Position
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:36 pm
by Jennifer Pae
Here is the summary of the Lakewood City Council Committee of the Whole June 2006 Meeting's on this subject, as well as a December 21, 2006 letter to the editor of Sun Post I wrote on these subjects. I apologize that is a lot to read through, but hopefully it will shed some light on the reasons for the rate increases.
These actions also helped the City to avoid "maxing out its credit cards" (i.e. General Obligation Debt) by using the appropriate financial mechanism to fund these critical infrastructure projects.
I also have a very detailed Power Point presentation that was given to Council on June 29, 2006. Please e-mail at
jennifer.pae@lakewoodoh.net, if you would like a copy.
July 7, 2006
Re: Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds (Ordinances 51-06 & 52-06), and Corresponding Rate Increases (Ordinances 53-06 & 54-06)
Dear Members of Council,
The Council of the Whole met on Tuesday, June 27 and Thursday, July 29 to discuss the four ordinances before us tonight. On June 27, 2006, Acting Finance Director Pae, Virginia Benjamin of Calfee, Halter & Griswold, and Al Baucco of A.G. Edwards, provided information related to proposed water and sewer revenue bonds and the proposed rate increases. On July 29, 2006, Ms. Pae gave a presentation that summarized the June 27th Council of the Whole meeting, and answered questions along with Ms. Benjamin and Mr. Baucco, relating to the proposed ordinances. The following is a summary of what four ordinances remedy and addresses as discussed at these two meetings:
Establishes a means for the City to permanently finance water, wastewater and sewer system capital projects for 2005 and 2006 by issuing water revenue bonds of an amount not to exceed $12.5 million, and sewer revenue bonds of an amount not to exceed $16.5 million. By deferring water and sewer projects in the past, the City must undertake two massive water and sewer line projects this year, the Clifton Water main – approximately $4.0 million and the Detroit Sewer Line – approximately $7.0 million, in order for the County to repave these main arteries beginning in 2007.
Generates the funds for necessary water, wastewater and sewer system capital projects for 2007 and beyond, and to maintain the City’s street reconstruction program of approximately $7.5 million annually, which also includes water and sewer line replacement, as well as other critical wastewater treatment plant projects such as the filter presses, and sewer system issues like the Edgewater Interceptor repair.
• This also begins to identify funds to remedy sewer system issues identified in the Long-Term Control Plan in order to ensure mandated EPA compliance.
Introduces a financing mechanism to relieve the City’s General Obligation (G.O.) direct and indirect debt limits, and to charge users of the systems rather than solely burdening City property owners via G.O. debt.
The City must continue to develop strategies to maintain a reasonable capital program to address immediate and necessary infrastructure needs, while ensuring there is sufficient direct and indirect capacity to issue current and future debt.
Strategies Include:
• Continue to identify expenditure reductions through efficiency and effectiveness processes like CitiStat, and reductions in staffing levels
• Debt Service Reduction
• Revenue Bond Financing
• Leasing
• Paying cash for smaller capital projects and equipment
• Comprehensive Five-Year and Beyond Capital Improvement Planning
• Linking Preventative Maintenance Schedules to Planned Capital Improvements
• Identifying the need within departments for smaller capital items and equipment, and setting aside funds to pay cash at a later date.
• Identify additional revenue enhancements
Introduces higher rate reduction to the water and sewer Homestead accounts for the City’s qualifying senior and disabled persons (see Substitution for 54-06).
Introduces a program that upon customer’s request, summer sewer bills would be based on an average of sewer bills for the previous 9 months (see Substitution for 54-06).
Considers the impact of the City of Cleveland’s bulk water rate increases totaling over 25% through 2010.
Considers the impact of reduced water consumption of approximately 2% each year on water and sewer revenues.
Provides sufficient coverage above 115% to meet existing and proposed Revenue Bonds covenants, while also meeting the issues presented above.
The rates increases will have a financial impact on Lakewood water customers, and allowances have been made for those with fixed incomes, as well as a reduction to the increased sewer charges during summer months due to watering lawns. The entire City will benefit from the needed capital improvements that have occurred and are planned to occur, and delay will only compound the problems. Finally, the Revenue Bonds help the City to relieve its un-voted General Obligation debt burden, which will permit additional debt capacity in upcoming years.
Sincerely,
Robert M. Seelie, Council President
December 21, 2006
To the Editor,
If you have been following the headlines, water and sewer rates are increasing all throughout Northeast Ohio. The City of Cleveland has increased its water rates on a ‘historic’ level this year, as will the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District in the coming year, and the City of Lakewood which maintains its own water and sewer system is not without exception.
On January 1, 2007, City of Lakewood water rates increased 14% from the 2006 rate of $3.85 per hundred cubic feet (ccf) to $4.75 ccf of water used. Sewer rates also increased 25% from the 2006 rate of $1.97 per ccf to $2.47 per ccf of water used, since sewer use is based on water consumption. Therefore, if your household uses 10 ccf of water per month, your average 2006 water and sewer bill would be $59.70. This amount includes a $1.50 monthly customer service charge. In 2007, your average monthly bill would now be $72.20, an overall increase of 17%, and would not include a monthly customer service charge.
Up until two years ago, the Lakewood has not experienced a water or sewer rate increase since 1996. A decade without incremental rate increases to support a reasonable capital program has caused the City to defer critical water and sewer infrastructure projects. The recent large rate increases are to help Lakewood catch-up on necessary projects such as the $4.5 million Clifton Boulevard Water main project and the $5.5 million Detroit Avenue Sewer project.
Lakewood City Council approved these rate increases in July 2006 primarily to support the issuance of a $10.285 million water system revenue bond, and a $14.32 million sewer system revenue bond. The rate increases and use of revenue bonds will accomplish the following:
• Generates funds for necessary 2005 and 2006 water, wastewater and sewer system capital projects and for 2007 projects and beyond. Especially funds to begin to remedy sewer system issues identified in the Long-Term Control Plan in order to ensure mandated EPA compliance.
• Uses a financing mechanism to relieve the City’s General Obligation (G.O.) direct and indirect debt limits, and to charge users of the systems rather than solely burdening City property owners via G.O. debt, since revenue debt is not included in debt capacity calculations.
• Includes the financial impact of the June 2006 City of Cleveland’s bulk water rate increases totaling more than 16% through 2010 since Lakewood purchases water directly from Cleveland as a master meter suburb instead of Cleveland controlling Lakewood’s water system. This could not have been anticipated during Lakewood’s 2006 budget process.
• Considers the impact of reduced water consumption of approximately 2% per year on water and sewer revenues.
• Provides sufficient coverage to meet revenue bonds covenants, which the City is legally bound to have rates to support the debt payments at 115%.
The increase in rates and issuance of revenue bonds will help to stabilize the City’s financial position by decreasing the City’s G.O. debt burden, improve public safety by installing appropriate water pressure for fire hydrants on the north side of Clifton Boulevard, bolster the housing stock by addressing the issue of basement flooding, and spur economic development by improving our infrastructure to meet the demands of a vibrant City.
Sincerely,
Jennifer R. Pae
Director of Finance
City of Lakewood
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:45 pm
by Suzanne Metelko
May I suggest that since this throw down has occured on the LO deck that it is time to schedule the debate, sponsored by the LO. The mayor's comfort level is a deep concern to the community groups that would traditionally sponsor a debate and so "forums" have been scheduled. But he's obviously very comfortable with the LO gang.
As the LO is a non traditional group and resource, I propose that they should take the lead and get this on the schedule. Obviously Councilman Demro and FitzGerald are ready to rock and role.
So Jim, when, where and who's moderating? I think you'll need the civic auditorium for this one.
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:59 pm
by Ed FitzGerald
Ms. Pae:
What you posted was the Administration's correspondence justifying the water rate increase. It is not a summary of the committee hearing on this subject.
You may recall that when I asked you at the committee meeting, which I believe the mayor did not attend, why the Administration's projections were so far off what had been promised, you replied that Mr. Nogalo, the former Finance Director, was responsible for those projections and was no longer with the city.
We were never given an adequate explanation of why rates had to be raised so much, so fast, without any of the proper planning which should precede such a rate increase. And, in my mind, blaming the errors on a former employee was not a sufficient excuse for such a major budgeting mistake.
Increase
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 1:36 pm
by Jennifer Pae
Councilman FitzGerald,
Financial projections, whether for a major corporation, your personal finances or a municipal government, is looking forward with the best information that you have at a particular point in time.
As you know, situations change, as it did in this instance, and it is up to leaders to make the decisions to address the challenges in order to go forward, instead of pointing fingers, or saying "but we were told."
These major water and sewer projects were originally planned to be funded using General Obligation (G.O.) debt. However, on May 15, 2006 we were notified by the County that if we were to issue this debt, the City would exceed our indirect (10 mill) debt capacity. Therefore, the City could not go forward with the G.O. debt issuance. Lakewood's indirect debt capacity is impacted by the issuance of debt of outside entities, such as Cuyahoga County and RTA, that also levy property taxes on Lakewood residents.
Furthermore, the City of Cleveland significantly increased the amount it charged Lakewood for its water.
These two critical pieces of information were not known when the original projections were made.
When they became known, we realized that we needed to go forward with these critical infrastructure projects, and the water and sewer rates were increased in order to support the revenue bonds. We also instituted a summer sprinkling program, and increased the homestead exemption, to help ease the impact of the increases.
We acted in the most fiscally responsible manner possible with the best information that we had at that time. In doing so, the projects are being completed, our current General Obligation debt capacity allows the City to continue its capital program, and we can begin to address sewer projects to remedy basement flooding and other sewer projects identified EPA's Long Term Control Plan.
That is more than "adequate explanation of why rates had to raised so much, so fast." You can have the best planning mechanisms in place, but no one can predict everything. Can you?
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 1:59 pm
by Ed FitzGerald
One thing I can predict is that when tough questions are asked, the mayor disappears, as has happened in this thread.
Yes, the City of Cleveland did raise its water rates. Some cities, who maintained a proper balance in their accounts, did not have to pass that rate increase onto their consumers, because they had enough in reserve. Because our reserves have been essentially exhausted, we no longer have that option.
Budgetary projections are always estimates. But these estimates were wildly off the mark, and it cannot be blamed on RTA or other outside entities. We were told at the time that no one knew why the Finance Director made the projections he did, and that you were not privy to them.
However, wasn't the mayor involved in that process? Since he ran partially on the basis that he had municipal finance expertise, wasn't he conferring with the Finance Director about whether a 30% water rate increase would be needed? And since the mayor takes credit when things go our way financially, doesn't the buck stop with him when something like this happens?
Speaking of water, there's an old saying- if you take credit for the sunshine, you deserve blame for the rain.
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 3:44 pm
by dl meckes
Suzanne Metelko wrote:But he's obviously very comfortable with the LO gang.
And you and your candidate aren't?
You have written on the Deck and for the paper, so you are part of the "gang."
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 5:12 pm
by Kenneth Warren
The bottom-line question for me right now is whether or not Councilman Fitzgerald and, for that matter Councilman Demro, accept as credible and determinative Ms. Pae’s justification for the issuance of bonds and the rate increase.
My question is: Setting aside what was said in committee deliberations and any issues with the Mayor’s content and/or style of presentation, would you vote yes or no on the basis of Ms. Pae’s justification for the issuance of bonds and the water rate increase to accomplish sewer work on Detroit and Clifton?
Kenneth Warren