WHAT HAPPENED AND DID NOT HAPPEN IN NOVEMBER The following votes occurred or were to occur at the November 10th regular meeting of the Board of Aldermen. NOTE: The numbers correspond to the picture of the meeting agenda found in the comments below. 3c - YES - APPOINTMENT OF TERRY KATHCART TO PLANNING AND ZONING EXPLANATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission is an advisory board providing recommendations to the Board of Aldermen. The Board approved the appointment of Mr. Kathcart 6 - 0. 7 - WITHDRAWN, but I would have voted NO - OWNER AND OCCUPANT HELD JOINTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENTS DUE FOR WATER AND SEWER EXPLANATION: Over the last several years, the city has accumulated tens of thousands of dollars in unpaid utility fees. This ordinance sought to hold the owner of rental property responsible for unpaid water and sewer utilities of a tenant. At the beginning of the meeting it was announced that the proposed ordinance had been withdrawn from the agenda. Subsequently, during the citizen input period, seven property owners spoke in opposition to the measure, expressing a desire to try to work with the city but unhappy with the prospect of being held responsible for the debts of others. BACKGROUND: For years, the city has paid to run credit checks on all new applicants for water and sewer service, but did not use those checks when extending service. In other words, we used your money to pay for credit checks, didnt bother to base the parameters of extending service on those checks, and accumulated tens of thousands of dollars in unpaid bills. Recently, the Board did vote to increase the deposit of anyone “red-flagged” during a credit check by $100. 8 - NO - WAIVING UTILITY DISCONNECTION FEES FOR SOME BUT NOT OTHERS I voted no. The mayor occasionally waives the sewer and water disconnection fees of some residents late in the payment of their bill at the request of non-profit organizations assisting them. Passage of the ordinance granted the mayor the legal power to continue doing so. The ordinance passed 5 - 1. EXPLANATION: Laws should apply equally to all. If not applied equally, the formation and application of law becomes nothing more than a mad rush by special interests – whether corporate interests or organizations representing the non-wealthy – to manipulate the power of government to their own benefit, and ultimately ends up serving those with the money and influence necessary to get what they want. My job is to vote in favor of laws that preserve liberty and apply equally to all, not just selectively to some. Id gladly vote to allow the mayor to waive reconnection fees once per year for those fallen on hard times and being assisted by a non-profit, provided the same once-annual waiver were extended to everyone unable to pay, forgetful to pay, or mistaken in not paying. But I wont separate one from the other for the same reason I wont vote to give tax incentives to select big businesses to the detriment and expense of smaller businesses, that is, were all supposed to be treated equally under the law. Id also point out that this vote allowed for the waiver of reconnection fees for select people responsible for not paying utilities on time, while the preceding agenda items was to have held select people responsible for the utilities debts of others. 9 - NO - 2015 BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF WILLARD I voted no. This ordinance sets the budget for the City of Willard for the year 2015. Department heads anticipate $5.2 million in revenues and $5.1 million in expenditures. The ordinance passed 5 - 1. Another alderman intending to vote no voted yes by mistake as the result of a momentary distraction, but it wouldnt have made a difference in the outcome. EXPLANATION: During the meeting, I didnt bother to explain why I was voting against the budget. My views on correcting the course of our planning, budgeting and borrowing are so far removed from what Willard has historically practiced that there would have been little point in expressing any opposition. Willards practices are, for the most part, the rule for many municipalities. But there are exceptions to the rule, and Im in favor of the methods of the well-managed exceptions. The budget does contain a few minor improvements, but they are offset by a number of questionable inclusions, for example, hiring more personnel for public safety, a 50% pay raise for the office of mayor (from $3600 to $5400 annually) and various other 5% raises beyond the annual 3% increase for all employees. Deserved or not, moving forward these obligations and expansions will be institutionalized and we dont have the money to pay for them. Ultimately, I voted against the 2015 budget ordinance because the citys plan for anticipated future improvements involves little in the way of actual financial pre-planning. The current plan can best be summed up in three little words: Borrow more money. And, just like the rest of the country, when creative financing options are eventually exhausted or tough times inevitably occur, borrowing more money will result in higher taxes, default, or both. 10 - YES - BID APPROVAL FOR A POLICE DEPARTMENT SECURITY SYSTEM I voted yes to approve the purchase of a video security system for the police department. The system was approved 6 - 0. EXPLANATION: Willards is the only police department headquarters in the surrounding area without the video equipment necessary to track the movements of suspects, officers and evidence within the building. After bids, the approximate cost of the equipment and installation is $15k. There are, on occasion, things I regard as needs rather than wants. This video system is one of them. 11 - VOTE / DISCUSSION OF PROCEEDING WITH ALTERNATIVE LIGHTING FOR THE RECREATION CENTER EXPLANATION: In my opinion, City of Willard facilities should upgrade to LED lighting when the cost benefit justifies making the transition away from CFL. However, Id like to see an accurate assessment of the cost of performing that transition ourselves versus having an outside company perform the work. Outside companies qualify for and profit from sizable rebates offered by Empire Electric for the purchase and installation of LED lighting. As a municipality, we also qualify for the same rebates if we perform the installation in-house. The parks department submitted a cost comparison of having an outside company perform the work versus doing the work in-house, but the comparison did not take into account that we also qualify for the rebates. The Board asked to see a comparison that took the rebates into account.
Posted on: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 02:07:34 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015