In December, the city council was informed that the city utilities operating fund had been exhausted, ostensibly by rising costs not offset by rate adjustments, and was asked to approve a 10-percent permanent rate increase for electric and water utilities customers. After an initial 8-1 vote to approve the rate hike on the first reading, the council suspended its rules after a lengthy discussion (an agreement made simply to avoid having to return for another meeting during the holidays), and voted 9-0 on the second and third readings to approve the rate increase.
The council, in its entirety, failed to adequately represent the city's utility rate-payers when it chose to dismiss its responsibility to take the time to investigate more thoroughly the causes of the operating funds' depletion and the long-term rate needs of the city's utility services before acting on the rate hike. It is quite possible the rate hike could have been instituted on a temporary basis until the operating fund reached adequate proportion at which point rates could have been rolled back to a lower level. And, had council members taken time for thorough investigation, the council could possibly have approved such a measure that could have been renewable annually until financial stability was attained.
If Mayor Ockomon's announcement that city finances are in such a critical situation is correct, and that cuts in funding/spending will be necessary, then it seems even more important that the city council launch its own investigation into what happened to the money in the utility operating fund and openly provide explanations as to where the city's financial management of the fund went awry during the previous administration.
Further, Mayor Ockomon's plan for the financial recovery of the civil city should not focus on just a few of the city's funding areas, but should require equal, across-the-board austerity measures among every city department except safety services, which were cut beyond minimum standards during the previous administration.
One perception among many citizens regarding the utility operating fund fiasco is that the previous administration transferred utility funds to the general fund to support selected administrative salaries, to fund administrative pay raises, and to subsidize the general fund in order to prevent an immediate property tax increase for the 2007-2008 year. And, this is an even more amazing situation when one considers that our city's former leaders also spent the city's share of the Indiana Major Moves money and much of the food and beverage tax distribution on infrastructural improvements, while it was using rate-payers' money to fund salaries and raises outside of the utility services.
The public also recognizes that our fire and police services were reduced significantly during that same time while city administrative departments remained untouched and some head administrators' salaries increased. It appears there may have been more to the story of the "disappearing operating balance" than simply "rising costs not offset by rate adjustments."
The city's current leaders should revisit the utility rate hike approved by the city council in December, but only after careful study and public disclosure of the facts of how the depletion of the utility operating fund truly occurred. The rate hike that does emerge should be temporary and renewable on an annual or biennial schedule only until restoration of the operating fund is achieved.
In the meantime, the mayor and city council, as part of the austerity program to stabilize city finances, must eliminate any civil city salary monies being paid from utility funds, even if this means salary and wage cuts or job consolidations, and enact a city ordinance that permanently forbids this type of inappropriate redistribution of utility dollars for civil city business.
City leaders have used the utility operating fund as a "slush fund" for far too many years. It is time to end this financially unsound, destabilizing, and unethical practice, and it is time to get this city's financial management in line with this city's tax revenue base.
Anderson, IN
Technorati Tags: 
Very well written and your
Very well written and your facts are correct. The previous administration has put this city in such horrible shape, it may take 4 years to get it straightened out. Lets hope not though.
Perhaps this will explain
Perhaps this will explain why so many people received a much higher bill this last time around. 10% is quite high in my opinion. I'm afraid to have my utility service turned back on now.
Every administration blames
Every administration blames the previous administration...many can reach back to the Lawler years to "explain" what we are presently dealing with. The sad truth is that politicians have motivators that are not readily apparent to we who pay their salaries. We blindly support our candidate based on "blind" political alliances that we've developed through the years.
The F&B Fund has been a slush fund for Lawler, for Smith and now for Ockomon. Put in straight forward terms, this tax should have been rescinded the moment it was determined that the city was not going to use it for its intended purpose.
As a result, we've built a Chrystal arch with these monies, we've paid Winkler, we're now paying a portion of city payroll from this money. The same is true with the utilities fund.
All of this is a shell game. I'd like to open the discussion to the area of motivation. Unless we believe that those we elect are completely incompetent, there are motivators to behaviours that are contrary to common sense and serving the public that need to be unearthed.
A note on energy. I have
A note on energy. I have been involved with energy and thermal dynamics for over 20 years. It is time for citizens to individually focus on your personal well-being where the future of energy is concerned. The government will NOT be of any help to you.
My sources in natural gas (Cincinnati Ohio Futures) tell me that we can expect the costs for natural gas to triple within the next five years.
Electricity will continue to climb, but not to the extent that natural gas will. (This sentence is where I tie in to the topic of "utilities") -
Homeowners need to prepare now to institute plans for energy retention - be it heating or cooling. Energy efficient furnaces, air conditioners are good ONLY if functioning in a confined area that retains either heat or AC! Using today's natural gas costs, a new "high efficiency" furnace has a fuel savings pay-back time-frame of over 20 years. If natural gas prices triple, your payback-time on a new energy efficient furnace will be longer than the life of the unit. In other words, sunk money.
I would advise all to look at their homes, being careful to not create a toxic situation by being TOO air-tight, but seeking ways to retain your energy! (I'm not offering services or products here - it would diminish my warning and concern for what is coming. Here's my advice: Research)!
Another subject change and a COMPLETE side note having nothing to do with utilities: I noticed with interest the Simpler Times Village articles that have provoked quite a ruckus lately by those living in proximity to this proposed project. My interest is from the vantage point of seeing how forward-looking the Brown's are in regards to current and pending (future) energy costs with their buildings.
It looks to me like they are two of the very few in this county who know what's coming down the road and are preparing for it!
Post new comment