Following is a transcript of the comments Elissa Yount made to the City Council during the Public Comments section of Monday night’s meeting:
According to the adopted budget for the City of Henderson, the job of the council and mayor is to legislate and set policy. For this we city taxpayers each year pay you over a quarter of a million dollars, $238,590 to be exact. The job of the City Attorney is to prepare ordinances and provide legal counsel. For this the taxpayers pay each year $66,410. And the job of the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, Executive Assistant, administrative secretary and a records clerk and typist is to guide, lead, and direct all city departments in administrative matters related to and necessary for the implementation of council policy. For these services the city taxpayers pay $364,190 annually. That is a total of $669,190 that the taxpayers pay every year for just the personnel costs for just the management of our city.
You will not be surprised that the folks in Henderson wonder if we are getting our $669,190 money’s worth.
No one will argue that past due bills need collecting and that security deposits are a good thing. But is using a sledgehammer on your water customers the way to financial health?
Also, after reading the response of Manager Griffin to the fiasco created by our city government it appears that the tactic is to blame the customers for your poor policy and its implementation. That is discourteous at best and will neither save face or correct the fiasco.
There are questions that your customers have:
According to Manager Griffin, “Not all of the 375 accounts service was terminated due to payment being received prior to meter readers reaching their home/places of business”. Exactly how did this happen? Were any customers given preferential treatment? How did the city go about the cut-off? Were crews to spread out at night through the 20th Billing District to disconnect water? Do you read “one month arrears” as one day or 31 days?
The next question is: Since the implementation of the policy had a lot of obvious flaws and tonight the policy may be changed, why do these changes not address returning the money required for the reconnection fees? It goes without question that the security deposit must be returned to those 195 who had not been cut off during the past 12 months if ever. And while it might be easier for the City, it is not fair to return this money only through a credit on their water bill. The actual money should be returned tomorrow to either the credit card accounts that were charged or the payee. It is not acceptable just to credit accounts. As many people told me, they might not live long enough to re-coop their money through credits on their water bill. You were very quick to take this money and you should return it just as quickly.
The third question involves safety. Water is a necessary utility and as such necessary caution must be taken when depriving citizens of this utility. The folks in Henderson want to know is there any other place in North Carolina that has a policy as severe and expensive as the one you adopted for your customers even if you adopt the considered new and very insufficient “two day grace period?” The Daily Dispatch editorial said this policy misguided and foolish during an election year. You must consider that it is a foolish policy during any year and correct it appropriately.