These and other rate increases are being made to pay for upgrades to city services – such as expansion of the water treatment plant – or to build reserve funds, city officials say.
The utility rate increases, for instance, will generate more than $5.2 million in additional revenue in 2011.
Three reasons why these rate increase SHOULD NOT have been approved;
1) Rate of inflation over the past few years has virtually been nil. A 14% increase seems a bit ridiculous.
2) A rate increase to ‘build a savings account’ during the worst recession since the great depression is unconscionable.
3) Other cuts to city government could have been made to supplement that $5.2 million revenue.
This vote just proves how out of touch our city government is with it’s citizens, but hey, we already knew that.
What is troubling in this whole matter is this. I heard just now on stormland news the water rates are going up because of decreased revenue caused by citizens not using as much water. Same for landfill rates. They are raising rates, to be passed on to us thru our garbage haulers, because total tonnage has dropped. So we do our part by conserving water and extending the life of our landfill, and are rewarded with a fee increase?
I’m all for sustainability, but if this is the way they are going to go about it, then they will fail.
On top of that, if we are all using less water and less landfill how can the city justify more expense? I’m no economist, but wouldn’t there be less expenses? Maybe we should be cutting fees?
Why hasn’t someone looked at the way city govt. is run and start streamling things. They are way overstaffed down there.
I think overstaffing is attributable to empire-building by heads who always like to see their department grow, and are unwilling to look at reductions even when technology or other factors (like reduced garbage or water use) suggest shrinking the workforce. This is especially irksome because it’s so common in government — overseers (I deliberately didn’t say leaders) forget it’s not THEIR money they are spending.
I was with you re: Kermit for Mayor. He should have listened to my wife and worn his strong dark blue blazer instead of that tan ensemble that made him look washed out and tired. She didn’t even charge him for that advice! But at least Heuther dropped the Chief of Staff or whatever that position was called – but the new fees certainly “offset” that savings.
There’s the right way, the wrong way, and the city way.
The city way is to fine, fee, and raise rates so employees/retirees can live in luxury while the population starves to death or freezes on the streets.
I just don’t believe increases are needed or will go toward stated intentions.
Yet again the shortsightedness of the voting majority is shown. When given the option of candidates that are for smaller govt (even if we have to lay off some of them) and lower taxes they will choose the one that promises the moon and mumbles something about fiscal responsibility.
You would think expenses would go down, but you can’t go laying people off just because you don’t have the work, it’s not nice.
This has become another city where the city limits dreams from the lies to voters while the suburbs prosper from new jobs and citizens seeking asylum from high taxes and failed policy.