When will that happen?
Who knows.
The financing part of this is unclear, and we aren't the only fish to bite. Many other cities have water lines that are older and in far worse shape.
My advice:
Don't hold your breath waiting to see any real benefit from this asset give-away.
It appears to me that the only way the Department will be able to fund this alleged water replacement "freebie" is by adding a hefty infrastructure replacement charge to your and my future water bills.
So the city keeps all its tax dollars and shifts the infrastructure replacement costs to you and me.
Whoppee
The Clevland Water Department's problems have been well documented.....meter failures, billing errors and, most recently, continuing EPA violations.
https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/investigations/cleveland-water-promises-fix-on-critical-equipment-failures-after-news-5-investigation
Great going, guys
Procedure vs. Practical--Compromise Reached
In my last blog I discussed Council's wrestling match over fast-tracking non-emergency vehicle purchases for the police and fire departments.
Apparently Council members worked out a compromise after that Council meeting.
On Tuesday Council members unanimously agreed to speed up the process by suspending the 3rd required reading of the spending authorization legislation.
No new emergency was involved to justify by-passing the rules but it will get things rolling 2 weeks earlier.
To avoid any similar controversy, Council heard the first reading of legislation authorizing the purchase of the second new police vehicle that Police Chief Jim Cook expected to buy later this year, as anticipated in this year's budget.
Public Comments
For the second Council meeting in a row, former Mayor Tom Hughes took advantage of the meetings' Public Speaking portion to fume about drainage issues in his yard which he claims resulted from the development of an adjoining neighbor's property.
Hughes has made repeated appearances at Council meetings over the last few years raising the issue.
His (to-date unsuccessful) position seems to be that the city's approval of the neighbor's building/zoning requests renders it responsible for fixing his drainage problem.
There is a 3 minute per speaker time limit imposed during the Public Speaking portion.
While that might seem brief, one of the benefits for all stakeholders---Council members, city administrators and the general public in attendance----is that it encourages public speakers not to ramble and to zero in on the point they want to make.
In other words, to think and prepare what they want to say before they get up to speak.
In my observation Council has always been pretty tolerant when enforcing the time limit.
Warnings are given. Speakers are given an opportunity to finish their thoughts and sum up.
Hughes, for example, was allowed to go on for 9 minutes before his speech was gaveled to a close.
In my experience that's been pretty much par for the course every time Hughes has come to Council meetings to speak.
In my experience that's been pretty much par for the course every time Hughes has come to Council meetings to speak.
The former mayor hates the time limit. He thinks it should be eliminated. He told Council:
"I was always delighted when residents of this community came to council meeting because it always gave me an opportunity to talk to them about things of concern to them...If I didn't listen to them then I couldn't hear them, and if I didn't hear them I couldn't represent them....We need to respect the people who come in."
While I think Hughes makes a valid point, the fact is that every Council meeting agenda sets aside time for residents to come, speak and be heard.
Not every city provides that opportunity to its residents.
Imposing a reasonable time limit during the public speaking portion of Council meetings is, for me, a no-brainer.
After all, everyone's time is valuable
That includes the listerners' time as well the speakers.
