TDBS Input on City Manager Recruitment, and Water Rate Increases

A couple of items of interest arose from the City Council meeting last night.

First, the city maintains the pretense of keeping property tax rates constant, but water rates increase six percent.  Water rates have been on an upward trajectory for quite some time; and it leads observers to believe this has been to provide a source of increased revenue in lieu of higher property taxes.  Maintain the appearance of flat real estate taxes, but keep on jacking up water rates.

Mike Baron, of course, has been maintaining that the water rate increases are at least partially attributable to the costs associated with the dam, even though water consumption has been decreasing.  And of course, the diminished revenue due to decreased water consumption would tend to push taxes or water rates higher, all other things being equal.

Second, council member T. Diane Bellamy-Small objected last night after the recruiter for the city manager position made his presentation.  She was unhappy that he had not initially suggested presenting the final candidates to city employees for their input. 

I wonder whether her approach is the best way to run an organization.  I wonder how many large private employers do that kind of thing.  It seems there can be risks associated with having employees choose their boss.  Would the interests of taxpayers and citizens be given sufficient weight if employees are granted the opportunity to sway decision-making?

 

Comments

[Stormy]

Joe,

This is another governmental conundrum. If your objective is to increase water revenue in a period when usage is decreasing, then a rate increase does not obtain the desired result. A rate increase will only encourage users to further reduce usage, thus ultimately reducing revenue. It seems that government never gets it. You have to reward behavior, not punish it, to obtain the desired behavior.

[brandonB]

"It seems that government never gets it"

--I think this particular govt just doesn't care. They know they are all on their way out the door.
I can not wait until Small is out. I'll give it to her, she fights for what she wants, but, c'mon, letting THIS council have anything to do with anything "Greensboro" is just asking for trouble. Just let them flounder around for 6 more months, hopefully they wont break anything else.

[Joe Guarino]

Stormy, one of the dangers here is that the city is slipping to us a de facto tax increase by raising our water rates. But by increasing this instead of property taxes, it somehow might seem bit more palatable, at least to some. That is yet another danger.

Brandon, I suspect at least a couple of council members will be reelected this fall. But I don't know which, or how many. Incumbents still have a big advantage for various reasons.

[WaterBaron]

The City of Greensboro pitched the Randleman Dam as the only solution to a water demand that was supposed to steadily INCREASE. RISING water demand (water sales)would haved payed for a large percentage of the costs associated with the Randleman Dam.

But the well kept secret for a decade now is that water use has DECLINED which means WATER SALES has declined. The City is not selling the amount of water is projected so it is in BIG TROUBLE. It does not have the revenue it needs to run the water works.

It has to keep DECLINING WATER USE a secret or else people will question why it is declining.....and then question why we went to Randleman for water....and why we bought so much of Randleman Lake (53%).

It's a cover-up! Don't expect the City to give you the truth about what's happening with water.

To learn the truth about Greensboro's water fraud Google just two words---dam scam.

[Joe Guarino]

Thanks, Mike. It is a fairly artful technique to make citizens think their taxes are not being raised, and then increase revenues through other means-- for instance, through water fee hikes.

Your blog, Mike, continues to be very instructive.

[Roch101]

Mike, I have a question for you. Does the money collected for our water bills go solely to funding the "water works" or does it get commingled with the general fund for use in other areas?