March 13, 2007
WOULD YOU TRUST THE MLGW WITH YOUR BANK ACCOUNT OR CREDIT CARD NUMBER?
The recent response by John McCullough of the MLGW to questions raised by watchdog concerning the mountain of unrestricted cash that the MLGW is piling up is demeaning and amounts to talking down to their customers. He compares the MLGW to ratepayers in that they need to keep enough cash in their checking account to pay their current upcoming bills.
I know many people use the automatic deduction system where the utility bill amount is automatically deducted from their bank account. Maybe I am old fashioned, but I want to see my MLGW bill before I pay it. I pay on line electronically but not before it is due and after checking my bill. I only keep enough cash in my account to cover current bills and keep the rest invested. I assume and hope that the MLGW does the same as we all want to keep this surplus cash working.
I checked the changes in net assets for the past few years and here is what I found.
Change in Net Assets for MLGW’s three Divisions
• Year ending 2002 plus $39.5 million
• Year ending 2003 plus $31.4 million
• Year ending 2004 plus $52.3 million
• Year ending 2005 Plus $79.8 million
• YOU HAVE TO ASK THE QUESTION, HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH? AT WHAT POINT DO YOU START RATE REDUCTIONS? I HAVE ATTACHED THE CITY CHARTER PROVISIONS CONCERNING RETURNING SURPLUS TO THE RATEPAYERS IN RATE REDUCTIONS.
Something struck me about the above numbers. Joseph Lee took over on July 1, 2004. Keep in mind that the City and the County used the water division of the MLGW to fund over $60 million dollars for the FedEx Arena. This is what happens when you keep the honey pot full of honey and local politicians get hungry and possibly want a new football stadium. It is your money and you should want some of it back in rate reductions.
Click here to read the city charter which requires surplus cash to be used only for reduction of utility rates
WOULD YOU TRUST THE MLGW WITH YOUR BANK ACCOUNT OR CREDIT CARD NUMBER?
The recent response by John McCullough of the MLGW to questions raised by watchdog concerning the mountain of unrestricted cash that the MLGW is piling up is demeaning and amounts to talking down to their customers. He compares the MLGW to ratepayers in that they need to keep enough cash in their checking account to pay their current upcoming bills.
I know many people use the automatic deduction system where the utility bill amount is automatically deducted from their bank account. Maybe I am old fashioned, but I want to see my MLGW bill before I pay it. I pay on line electronically but not before it is due and after checking my bill. I only keep enough cash in my account to cover current bills and keep the rest invested. I assume and hope that the MLGW does the same as we all want to keep this surplus cash working.
I checked the changes in net assets for the past few years and here is what I found.
Change in Net Assets for MLGW’s three Divisions
• Year ending 2002 plus $39.5 million
• Year ending 2003 plus $31.4 million
• Year ending 2004 plus $52.3 million
• Year ending 2005 Plus $79.8 million
• YOU HAVE TO ASK THE QUESTION, HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH? AT WHAT POINT DO YOU START RATE REDUCTIONS? I HAVE ATTACHED THE CITY CHARTER PROVISIONS CONCERNING RETURNING SURPLUS TO THE RATEPAYERS IN RATE REDUCTIONS.
Something struck me about the above numbers. Joseph Lee took over on July 1, 2004. Keep in mind that the City and the County used the water division of the MLGW to fund over $60 million dollars for the FedEx Arena. This is what happens when you keep the honey pot full of honey and local politicians get hungry and possibly want a new football stadium. It is your money and you should want some of it back in rate reductions.
Click here to read the city charter which requires surplus cash to be used only for reduction of utility rates
posted by watchdog at
11:54 AM
2 Comments:
Evidentally the charter has no teeth. It is ignored with no consequences.
What's the point in having it?
By
Anonymous, at 2:29 PM
You need to go to an MLGW board meeting to publicly challenge the BS that in-house bean counter tried to peddle in his letter to the paper (and you need to write another letter to the CA debunking his BS).
Speaking of the paper, what is the actual status of the lawsuit that's mentioned in today's article, the one filed as a class action by attorney Curtis Johnson? It was filed THREE YEARS AGO, but we haven't heard any more about it.
By
Anonymous, at 1:40 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home