Mayor's Weekly Update 2/6/10 Please explain To Me

[jpw]

Originally Posted by momathome

The five dollars is what they are getting extra on the increase by splitting it up instead of giving it to us all at one time.
Sorry if I did not make that clear

Gotcha, and what you've shown is a simple explanation of compounding.

Either way, it's a huge increase, and they all ought to be run out of town for giving us this increase while still stealing from the electric fund to pay for other things.

On a lighter note, with this increase, it only takes 16 customers or so to pay for the coffee fund!

[Bill Rook]

Originally Posted by jpw

Gotcha, and what you've shown is a simple explanation of compounding.

Either way, it's a huge increase, and they all ought to be run out of town for giving us this increase while still stealing from the electric fund to pay for other things.

On a lighter note, with this increase, it only takes 16 customers or so to pay for the coffee fund!

JP, I'm going to insist that Ralph pays my share.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Bill Rook

To address the traffic light expenditure item that is listed in the budget, I did a little research and found an interesting article of case studies done to estimate signal costs. A typical incandescent traffic light at $0.08 per kWh can use as much as $600 worth of electricity in one year. In applying that estimation method, each traffic light in Lebanon costs $50 per month to operate on a 24/7 basis. In addition, that doesn't include the power required to operate the traffic light control systems. I don't know how many individual lights and control systems we have, but that can add up to a large chunk of change. I'm not sure if we also pay for electricity that is used by MoDOT maintained lights and controls, but I expect we do, so don't forget to count those too.

http://www.climatemanual.org/Cities/...astructure.htm

Water and Wastewater infrastructure also requires a great deal of electricity to operate. Pumping, treating, delivering, collecting and cleaning water are significant expenditures. Maybe the budgeted electricity costs for those should be removed from electric and included in each of the respective budget areas. We can either pay for them in one place or divide it up into two separate expenditures. In doing that, the electricity costs still have to be paid from revenue.

Just saying....

The transfer out of the electric fund wasn't to pay for electricity used by the traffic lights or waste water plant. If that was the case the money would be flowing into the electric fund from the other two funds. It was transferred out to pay items in the waste water or traffic signal account.

[Bill Rook]

Originally Posted by Luke

The transfer out of the electric fund wasn't to pay for electricity used by the traffic lights or waste water plant. If that was the case the money would be flowing into the electric fund from the other two funds. It was transferred out to pay items in the waste water or traffic signal account.

Meaning what? Waste water pumps, new signals, cash? You have specifics?

[knee jerk reaction]

Originally Posted by piratexox

Again I have to ask:
Why weren't these rebates passed along to the individual consumer?
I realize they were used to fund projects for the City, some good some not so, but were is the law that says that rebates go to the city?

The City is the entity that bought from Sho Me Power so they get the rebate. The citizens buy the power from the City.

Sho Me offers rebate to City, but the City does not have to offer a rebate to the citizens. The Auditors Office made a recommendation to the City as to what they should do. This administration is like the last. Do as they please.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Bill Rook

Meaning what? Waste water pumps, new signals, cash? You have specifics?

There is not much specific in the city budget. On page 135 on the December 2009 budget document for Electrical Expenses there is a line item for "Transfer to W/WW Constr." in the amount of $65,885.20. There is also a line item for "Utilities-Traffic Signal" in the amount of $30,000.

[Bill Rook]

Originally Posted by Luke

There is not much specific in the city budget. On page 135 on the December 2009 budget document for Electrical Expenses there is a line item for "Transfer to W/WW Constr." in the amount of $65,885.20. There is also a line item for "Utilities-Traffic Signal" in the amount of $30,000.

OK, I found it. Aren't we expanding the WW Treatment Plant? If so, electric infrastructure upgrade/expansion should be part of that. I may be wrong though.

I would bet that "Traffic Signal" is just as it appears, power to energize signals and controls.

Did you do a double-take on the $200k expenditure for "Street Lights-New"? Probably Elm Street.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Bill Rook

OK, I found it. Aren't we expanding the WW Treatment Plant? If so, electric infrastructure upgrade/expansion should be part of that. I may be wrong though.

I would bet that "Traffic Signal" is just as it appears, power to energize signals and controls.

Did you do a double-take on the $200k expenditure for "Street Lights-New"? Probably Elm Street.

My point is all three of expenses you mentioned should not be charged against the electric fund which corresponds directly to a raise in electrical rates. There is a special tax which the citizens of Lebanon are paying to do the Elm Street project which should cover both the street lights and traffic signals. Waste water should be covered by the sewer fees. None of the costs have anything to do with the direct or indirect costs of providing electricity to the citizens. When I voted on the Elm Street tax I did not realize I was also voting to raise my electric rate to fund the installation of street lights.

[beancounter]

Wasn't there a grant to cover the Elm Street lights?

[Bill Rook]

Originally Posted by Luke

My point is all three of expenses you mentioned should not be charged against the electric fund which corresponds directly to a raise in electrical rates. There is a special tax which the citizens of Lebanon are paying to do the Elm Street project which should cover both the street lights and traffic signals. Waste water should be covered by the sewer fees. None of the costs have anything to do with the direct or indirect costs of providing electricity to the citizens. When I voted on the Elm Street tax I did not realize I was also voting to raise my electric rate to fund the installation of street lights.

Luke, I don't see why anything other than the cost of power required to operate street lights and traffic signals related to Elm Street should be within the Electric Department's budget either.

Here's an item you may not remember... The following is an excerpt from Mayor Craig's Civic Center Plan letter I found from 2008:

[In addition, the current Capital Improvements Sales Tax Fund (Fund 21) was used to fund the acceleration of the Elm Street project in the amount of $1 million dollars. This money is to be re-paid from the Streets Improvements Sales Tax initiative which was voted upon and passed at the same time as the Capital Improvements Sales Tax cited above. This money can not be repaid until such time as the Street Tax takes affect and monies are collected. This will begin January 1, 2010.

(Editor's Note: Mayor Craig added this note after he wrote the letter. “You are correct about the Elm St Project. The advance did come from Electric Reserve and Council directed re-payment to that fund from street tax revenues.”)]