What did take me back was the information that I had not known that he was a "Partner/ Member of the Burdette Group". And his being a member was not the surprise but that the group was a consulting firm which I interpreted as lobbyists? The issue here is that the current West Virginia Secretary of Commerce- Keith Burdette seems part of it also? That would in my simple mind be a major conflict of interest? Now if and I hope it is correct that Mr. Burdette has removed himself from the firm for the moment; than all is somewhat well? But, the obvious conflict of interest in a small area like this and the State is not hard to have to consider. As I said above the door between Business and Government at all levels swings open and often.
Questions on why he was leaving were humorous to me in that he has had his second child and his wife just completed her doctorate. In simple terms, I would hope- money.
And then up jumped the Devil; I have staunchly stood on the fact that Government should not compete with business and here the Roundtable owns the Coldwater Creek Building. I used to think that we had Realtor's both in private dealings with residential and with business on buying and selling land/ buildings. We even have investor groups called "REITs" that do large scale investments to manage/ sell/ buy business properties They are Real Estate Investment Trusts. I bought into one years ago and made some good returns until it decided to become just a bank in California.
I also noted where the City Atty. had his news article in the media and I read it and thought, this is not the same guy who sat in the Council Meetings? My opinion from yesterday stands as written. There are going to be some very, very unhappy people who may face him on the bench in the future should he prevail? I am thinking, not from his decisions, but how he arrives at them? Think twice; vote once.
And Ms. Conny is in motion also? You may or should remember her as one of the "wanna bee's" for the open Council seat last year subsequently won by Mr. Azinger. Her platform as I noted at the Candidate Forum along with Mr. Conley was to bring jobs to Vienna. My question to her in my letters, etc.; where would you put them? This City does not need another sit-down/ drive through food site. We have plenty of minimum wage jobs now. And I felt then as I do now that a person working for a Government Entity and being on a Governing body at City, County or State level is probably a conflict of interest? do one or the other but not both.
Read yet more on the Claywood Park Water District and its requests for the 15% rate increase. It noted that they are using 2000 wage/ income data to get a 1% loan. Yet if this does not fly NOW, they would be required to use 2010 wage/ income data and thereby not be eligible for the favorable terms. Again, I am surprised at how this State operates in doing business? Does the State/ Water District/ PSC think those income levels for 2010 are bogus? Will admit could very well be the way things in the State are going downhill at the moment? I fully understand the need for a base; but 15 years out?
And it seems to me from the Vienna Public Works meetings that we provide a lot or maybe all of their water? How will our soon to be new rates also affect their rates? Or another sweetheart deal with allow them the needed cushion to get around that raise we will face? And the PSD Atty., says if no action, than the rates automatically go into effect? Then why the dog and pony show? The good folks in the Claywood Park area are what I call "screwed", no matter what happens. Anything but the 15% will in all likelihood mean the PSD will be back to the County shortly anyway with their hand out for more? Never a dull moment for West Virginians'.
But remember this when Vienna comes a lookin'? Automatic if nothing done anyway? Oh, are we also gonna get screwed when our turn comes? Mr. Gainer on the lack of increase for COLA's in the end will carry little weight; maybe for a tiny while at best?
Now one thing that the Claywood Board needs to be honest about is the minimum charge that is charged to customers for NOT using above a certain amount of water. As the above increase whatever it turns out to be goes forward people are going to think they can have some control over their bills? This is true to a point, than the infamous minimum water charge kicks in and no matter the actual usage, there is a charge that the user cannot get below. If anything, it will appear to go up as the water used goes down. The more accurate the readings, the more likely a reduction in income as explained below for Vienna.
I have noted before that I have gotten trapped on this before because of faulty readings in some months that showed up in much lower usage the next month. The billings/ readings do NOT always balance out. The over charges on one month can put one up against the minimum the next month so the user has a combined higher bill than if with correct readings. Now with the much more accurate readings from the solar meters, the Vienna revenues are down on "average" 14%. This reduced usage may and probably is putting more and more of us in the "minimum" billing amount. I asked before if the City was going to go in and adjust that minimum? As usual, no response. But the City crying poor mouth now for money in the Water accounts is not likely to do anything to further reduce income? This is not very likely as it helps the customers who are not primary with this City?
The "our opinion" column today follows my comment some days back on Ohio legalizing pot. They are absolutely correct in the explosion of problems along the Ohio/ WV. border. In fact people will drive from the middle if not farther East for the goodies. And the poor people here don't have enough problems literally and figuratively? ' nuff said.