McMasters for Council?
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.
Posted 20th January 2021, 4:57 am
Posted 27th January 2021, 1:13 am
Posted 23rd February 2021, 12:20 pm
Posted 25th February 2021, 6:11 am
Posted 6th October 2021, 10:48 am
News: McMasters for Council?
I don't believe anyone made deceptive arguments against why the city could not address the water issue. There is a difference of opinion on how to proceed….either reactively or with a life cycle management plan that has yet to be developed that includes identifying the funding sources and plan of action. It is inappropriate to compare the infrastructure issues that the city owns to the revitalization efforts that are largely commercial activities designed to generate a profit for the private sector.
I will state it again. I do not believe residents should vote yes in May or ever if Council does not require staff to provide written read ahead materials so we can check and contribute to the wise spending of our money. They should not vote yes until simple things like a web page that shows all the costs and revenues associated with major projects like the Brandt Pike Revitalization project are available and comprehensive. They should not vote yes until a professional, executable 5 year Capital Improvement plan is published.
All these things could be done by May and if they are not then the vote should be no. Then they could all be done by November and we can assess whether the vote should be no or yes.
I'd also mention that the reason that the city has the infrastructure issues it has includes the inattention to infrastructure and life cycle management of numerous past administrations, including your administration during your tenure as Mayor. Your sudden interest and rhetoric regarding the city's infrastructure has not been matched by your previous actions.
In reality, I harped over and over again about the need for a 5 year capital plan (even though one is required in the City Charter there was not one for many years before I took office and as much as I mentioned the need on the Dias, I could not get Schommer and staff to produce one until two years into my term.) Though I was glad we finally started producing one I often noted it was not up to business standards.
Specifically on water, note this exchange from 2014 which can be found at this URL:
Couple of Special Meetings next Tuesday ( Admin Committee, Water and Sewer Board) - HuberResidents.org
Here is the text of an email I sent to staff with my observations and questions concerning the water and sewer reserves:
Subject: Five year plan on water and sewer
I believe if the intention really is to borrow the money from the Water and Sewer funds the city needs to do a five to ten year projection of water and sewer needs. Things to include:
Short term and long term water and sewer needs
Project yearly sewer line replacement
Other capital improvements or maintenance
Projected TIF (development) borrowing and Carriage Trails subsides
Expected amount to be lent
Expected direct investment
Expected amount encumbered by promise
Projected ability to maintain rates
Payment schedule and mechanism for ensuring it occurs
Expected balances by year
Minimum reserves to maintain present services, rates and projected water and sewer needs and the calculations to show that this borrowing will not cause the funds to fall below that level.
Additionally, the concept of city wide water softening was highly regarded in the 2010 survey with more than 70% of the city showing support. This matches my own read from people I talk with. However, I've not been able to find anywhere on the city website a discussion on this subject. It would be beneficial to have a white paper available on costs, time frame, feasibility. If this turns out to be feasible show a plan that puts the water fund back to a place where it could support such a project.
If these are already available, I'd appreciate seeing them in their present form.
Mayor of Huber Heights
937 985-6275 (H) 937 985-6431 (D)
Is Mr. Bell's comment, seen in this video where he claims if council were to budget $4 of the $21 million you mention is needed for the immediate water infrastructure needs, Montgomery County would throw his budget back at him, even remotely close to the truth?