In just less than two hours the city commission's worksession will get started. The meeting could get interesting. Not because of what is on the agenda, but because of what might be discussed.
At the last meeting, chief of administration Lane Massey gave commissioners some numbers showing how much the city is losing on its water bills. He also showed numbers that backed up his earlier position, that the higher penalties tried earlier this year had cut back on people paying late.
The city adopted a higher fee for late payers, and adopted a zero-tolerance policy and shut people off after five days if their bill was not paid. The city relented when there was a public outcry, doing away with the shutoff and lowering the fee from %50 to $35.
His figures showed that when the higher fees were in place, there was a drastic drop in late payments, and when the city relented, the number of late payers rose up again.
Also in the mix is the people who do not pay at all, and have the water shut off and the city never hears from them again.
That is the amount the city is losing, and it is around five percent.
"My question to the commission was, is that acceptable," Massey said yesterday.
In the meantime, local citizen Kanyon Ginger came up with her own set of numbers. Her figures from the water department are different than Massey's numbers.
Yesterday, Massey re-did his numbers. He said a lot depends on when reports are taken from the computer, as who has paid when changes daily.
He is planning to give the commission a more simplified version at the meeting today.
Some city commissioners are concerned that they are getting bad information - or inaccurate information - from city staff.
Commissioners Dotty Smith and Mell Kuhn are concerned and plan on discussing the matter at the worksession.
Kuhn said it is not the first time the commission has been given information that was later proven to be incorrect.
Commissioner Patrick McDonald said he thinks its a misunderstanding.
He said Massey answered the questions that were asked, and sometimes people dont know the right questions to ask.
City Manager Steve Archer said he believes the numbers are accurate, and he believes information he and his staff have given the commission has been correct.
Later tonight I will put the numbers up and you all can see whether they are different enough to matter, or not.
I am glad to see that the county is NOT raising the mill levy this year. I am also glad that AC is not raising taxes. To bad that can't be said for USD #470, who did raise taxes slighlty. I guess the 36 million dollar bond was not good enough!!!!
ReplyDeleteWe can't have anyone paying bills late. That might look bad.
ReplyDeleteI have seen the numbers and the problem as I understand it was not that the numbers were wrong but that they were being reported to the city commission in a way that gave a different appearence. Like we were losing more money than we really are.
ReplyDeleteI was trying to explain it to someone else and was having a hard time remembering the numbers. I hope that Kenyon makes them more public than just that one meeting. Because if I ran my business by claiming that I was owed money that was really someone else's I wouldn't be in business very long. JJ can you get her to show the numbers and explain what she is talking about?
Yes i posted something on the web site that explained it.
ReplyDeleteVery basically this is what Lane was doing.
He was adding up all the late fees and adding that to the bill and saying that total amount was what the city was losing.
Kanyon was just saying that the actual amount lost on water is less.
Say you have a $100 bill. Late fees add up to 200.
THey do nearly double after state setoff fees and legal collection fees are paid. something like 58 percent.
In the above scenario, lane was saying the city was losing 200 on water. Kanyon was saying it was 100
thats the simplified version.
Lane was saying that, the city has to pay those fees for collection, so it is put on the bill.
So instead of the city going after hte original 100, and paying 100 in fees, they go ahead and tack it on to the bill.
\
does that make sense?
If the city has to pay the fees, then we are losing that much more money. If they are like any kind of business those fees pay for additional services like turning it on/off, additional clerical like late notes, documentation, phone calls... They might even are there to help offset collection fees when it gets that far. In any and probably all of the cases mentioned it still comes out of our pocket if the city can't collect.
ReplyDeleteThey city charges the extra fees, but how much really goes into turning the water on and off? And filing? Very little extra work, and I'm sure the city employees don't get paid a penny more than usual to handle the late pays, or to turn the water on and off. It's just extra money the city gets without putting out anything to earn it. That should not be included in money the city is "losing", because if everyone paid on time, those fees would not exist.
ReplyDeleteIt's kinda like paying court costs on a speeding ticket when you never go to court. Just another way they stick it to you.
ReplyDeleteThe city pays no fees for collection, to either the state of Kansas or the Collection Lawyer. They are chraged to the account holder and only are collected from the account holder, nothing is paid by the city if nothing is collected and nothing it owed from the cities full amount of the bill incurred by the account holder.
ReplyDeleteThe fees are piled on top of the final bill, which these are not paid by the city if there is no collection. Now keep in mind that the final bill already has the $35.00 disconnect penalty in it as well as the 5% penalty. that total let's say is $100
x 25% Kansas State Offset
125.00
The new total now gets a 33.3% fee added for Collection fees an addtional $41.62
New Total is around $166. is what you will have to pay.
What I am saying is that the city commission was told that the city had already had a lost of over 27,000 since the beginning of 2009 and the Director of Administration was ssaying that he expected it to be $50,000 in losses by the end of the year.
Each year the city balances the amount of money collected and the amount of money sent to collection to determine the loss to the city on water bills.
From Jan- July of this year. Rough Figures
Collected Over $51,000
Sent to Collections $78,000
Current Net Loss to City $27,000
However not quite the real picture
there are
OVER $23,000 in fees
that have no financial impact on the city, meaning we neither gain or lose and they are added in to the amount of money sent to collections. So if you subtract that $23,000 out of the $78,000 you have about
In real money for the city $54,000.
Collected in 2009 $51,000.
Current net loss to city (around) $3,400 not $27,000.
The citizens need to know the real impact numbers as well as the city commission.
Because LAWS are being made that will affect us.
STAY INFORMED
Of the $51,000 collected how much of that was lost this year? It seems to me that if that was collected from losses of past years that reduces the total accumulated losses, but not this years loss. That would by like saying previous years losses don't count.
ReplyDeleteAlso, if the fees are not applied and some collection agency collects and charges the city for it, isn't that still a loss to the city? Can that be figured in or can you discount it completely? It seems as though someone is paying for it though you make it look like it is imaginary.
I just want to be sure everyone else is paying their bill so mine doesn't get raised to pay for them!
the 25% that is added to the bill go to Kansas offset. The 33 1/3% goes to the Collection attorney and is added to the bill.
ReplyDeleteIf the city has a bill of $100. The fees are piled up on top, when paid by any means the entire balance is collected and the city gets it's $100. plus a few bucks because Kansas Offset actually charges less then we are collecting.
As for which years the payment is for they don't specify. Since 1997 through July 2009 the city records list it as coming in at this time. There by making it spendable what ever year it was collected.
The point is that the city commission and the citizens need to know that the loss amount was inflated to include the add on fees. We have a few people each month that have their water disconnected and they don't reconnect, but not as many as the numbers would indicate and that the loss money the staff has listed doesn't easily identify that the money due the city is inflated to included fees that the city doesn't get.
I just want to be sure everyone else is paying their bill so mine doesn't get raised to pay for them!
ReplyDelete---------------
The interesting part of the whole debate is that the goal seems to be to make it more (or the most) expensive for the people that don't pay it on time!
They are most likley juggling their payments to cover what they can with their income!
So, it makes sense that they will pay whoever makes it the most expensive through additional fees and charges.
Then they can get behind on payments with someone else or go without something they might otherwise need!
The higher the rate of low and fixed incomes then most likely the greater the amount of juggling!
Isn't that rate something like 20% or more?
Yes it is.
ReplyDeleteI think the pattern that we keep seeing is the mis-direction when reporting numbers. In Jan 2009 city staff got the then city commission to vote to charge to a $50 disconnect and a $50 reconnect fee staff told the commission that the debt keeps getting bigger every year. Well that would be true, anytime anything is added it goes up.
But they have been using bottom line numbers that have included addtional fees that are not any part of the debt owed the city for at least three years.
So the last two city commissions were told by city staff that the city was losing a lot of money, and decisions were made, laws were passed based on numbers that were inflated with fees. And as citizens that effected us greatly.
Isn't that rate something like 20% or more?
ReplyDeleteYes it is.
Then wouldn't that suggest to you that there is possibly that amount or more that might potentially have a problem at some point in meeting all their financial obligatons ontime?
Numbers are a funny thing - they can be used to prove anyones point/view. It takes people of conviction to find/search out the truth!
Maybe if they could get health coverage, or were not spending all their money on health services or insurance, they could pay their water bills on time.
ReplyDelete