Have you seen your... yes, the Water and Sewer bill is in the mail

The water and sewer fee schedule (you will receive a bill 4 times a year) was revised in 2008 and 2009, and was implemented in 2 phases.

SEWER RATES
In early 2009, the sewer fees went from a fixed fee of $120, to a fixed fee of $90 PLUS $3.25 per 1000 gallons of WATER USE.  In other words, everyone was charged a fixed fee in the past, but we are now charged a fixed fee AND a fee based on our metered water use (I guess they assume we use all our water to flush toilets and to shower).

In early 2010, the sewer fees were stepped up again - $95 fixed fee plus $3.65/1000 gallons of metered water use.

WATER RATES
In early 2010, the Water fee structure was completely changed.  In the past, we were charged a fixed fee of $5 PLUS $3.25/1000 gallons of metered water use.  Now we are charged NO FIXED FEE, but we are charged $4.65/1000 gallons of metered water use.

OK, for easy reading, here's the summary:

Prior to Jan 1 '09:       Rate/1000 gallons      Fixed Charge

Sewer                                      $0                    $120

Water                                      $3.25                 $0

2009

Sewer                                      $3.25                 $90

Water                                      $3.25                   $5

2010

Sewer                                      $3.65                    $95

Water                                      $4.65                    $0

Summary -

If you used 40,000 gallons of water during the 3 month period between March and May 2008, your water and sewer bill would have been $255.  If you used 40,000 gallons of water during the same period in 2010, your water and sewer fee will be $427.  That's a 67% increase in 2 years.  


Because they introduced the increases in "steps", your 2010 bill when compared to your 2009 bill went up "only" 20%.  That figure is misleading because they chose to spread the increase over a 2 year period which alleviates the sticker shock of the 67% increase.  This is the REAL IMPACT OF THE DECISION TO INCREASE THE SEWER RATES THAT WAS MADE IN 2008, AND THE WATER RATES IN 2009.

40,000 gallons of water use per quarter is considered "high end use".  I'm told, but I have yet to verify, the typical single family home uses an average of 20,000 gallons/quarter.  That would still generate an increase of 37% from your 2008 pre-fee structure change.

A few caveats -

1.  Your water use increases SIGNIFICANTLY during the Summer months, but then drops dramatically over the Winter months.  Expect to see an increase in gallons of about 65-85% over the Summer, and a drop of 20% in late Fall and the entire Winter.  Basically, just take the gallon number from your current bill, multiply by 4 and add 10% for a guesstimate of your full year water use (that formula works for me, but take a look at the past 2 years of your water use to verify).

2.  Since your water use is an arbitrary metric to determine your sewage fee, to soften the blow they use your WINTER WATER USE (GALLONS) to determine your Summer Sewer fee.

3.  The fee structure is punitive to high end users - anyone who uses more than 25,000 per billing period - 100,000 gallons per year.  Hopefully, the knock on effect will be a renewed focus on water conservation at the household level, but I do not like government dictating citizen behavior. 

4.  Having said that, even if you only use 20,000 gallons/billing period (80,000/year), you will still experience a 37% increase in fees over your 2008 bill.

 

Remember, use your 2008 bill as your benchmark (starting point).  The ordinances that changed the fee structures were phased in over a 2 year period, so your 2008 bill was calculated using the structure in place BEFORE any of these ordinances went into effect.


More on this later, including how they are spending this new found cash...

Some well deserved praise and recognition - Gary Lewis, a class act

As I mentioned in my previous post, many thanks to my Campaign Committee, friends, and "army" of supporters  who helped make this Primary Election campaign a success.  Many thanks to my Campaign Chairperson CHRISTINA RENFER  for making all of this possible.

I would also like to take the opportunity to recognize and thank Gary Lewis for the manner in which he carried himself throughout this election campaign.  I met Gary for the first time at a TC meeting in early April.  He approached me to introduce himself, we spoke and he and I agreed to "keep our campaigns positive, and never to allow negativity to creep into the process - no personal attacks, run on why we thought we should win, not why the other guy shouldn't.   I held up my end of the bargain, and even when things did get dicey, GARY NEVER WAVERED AND STAYED TRUE TO HIS WORD. He was also the one of the FIRST to call me after election the results were made official.  This will never be forgotten and Gary Lewis should be recognized by all as a man of principle and integrity.  I sincerely wish him well with all future endeavors, and I look forward to working with him in a variety of capacities going forward.

In addition, I would like to thank the members of the current Township Committee who, in an effort to help unify the Republican Party, reached out Wednesday to congratulate me and my campaign committee for our Primary Election success.  Special thanks to Don Kostka and Mayor Jim Sandham for their gracious and considerate post election kind words, and to Lisa Lobiondo for calling me immediately after the election results were made official.

We Won !!

Thank you for all your support throughout this Primary Election campaign !

I will continue to post on this site (not as often this Summer, but I will definitely post).  My focus will be on the issues, and on our General Election campaign beginning in July.

Thank you again for all your support.

Scott

I have added short summaries to the top of each post

In an attempt to "get to the point", I have/will add a short bullet point summary to the beginning of each post.  This should give you a general overview of the key points and summary.... in case you are not interested in reading the entire body of the post.

http://www.scott4montville.com/

CLICK HERE TO contact me via email

The REAL Experience that MATTERS

• Real world private sector experience is more valuable than government experience
• Fiscal conservatism applied in the private sector CAN and SHOULD be applied to government
• Responsibly deliver necessary services and programs within the same budget constraints we experience in our own personal lives 
• I have a proven track record of successfully operating large businesses through financial crises
• I have a proven track record of successfully operating large businesses during long periods of austerity where true fiscally conservative values and principles were necessary

25 years working in the private sector for a large Fortune 500 company has given me the "EXPERIENCE THAT MATTERS".  For those of you who feel that government should be run more like a business, a candidate who has a proven track record of success operating large businesses for many years should be the clear choice.

I joined UBS (a Swiss bank) in 1986 as a trainee on their Foreign Exchange trading desk.  It was a sink or swim environment, so I had to learn quickly and become productive  -or I was gone.  Nine months later, I became a junior trader.  In 1989, I was recruited by the Managing Director responsible for Chemical Bank's Foreign Exchange business in his effort to completely overhaul their business in New York.  The current group had become stale, were not willing to think outside the box, and were not performing at peak.  Eighteen months later, I was promoted, and became responsible for the FX trading business in New York.

We experienced two major mergers in the '90's.  Chemical Bank merged with Manufacturers Hanover, and several years later we merged with Chase Manhattan Bank.  The integration process for these mergers were never fun, often disruptive to the core business, and if not executed properly, would have a significant negative impact on the company.  We developed a successful process, and our goals were always the same - eliminate expenses to avoid unnecessary layoffs (relying exclusively on layoffs to reduce expenses would impact our ability to deliver a high level of service to our clients - never a good thing), challenge the assumptions regarding how the business should be structured (think outside the box, and do not try to protect your own turf), raise the bar that people look to as the barometer of success (motivate everyone to perform at peak and redefine the "peak").  There were many more goals, but I'm trying to keep this post under 10,000 words....

Austerity, Austerity, Austerity

We experienced two additional significant mergers (Bank One and JPMorgan), and several major "reorganizations" (combining business units, folding entire Divisions into another Division  - that's a lot of moving parts and it impacts thousands of employees). Why is ANY OF THIS RELEVANT ?

I spent the majority of my professional career managing large business units (essentially, a "CEO" within a larger organization) through nearly two decades of self imposed austerity.  This "do more with less" mentality became woven into the fabric of our corporate culture.  We did not simply "review our budget and expenses once a year", or only during a merger - I WAS ASKED TO DO THIS ON A QUARTERLY BASIS FOR ALMOST TWO DECADES.  When you are forced to run your business this way, you tend to develop a method to identify areas that were once considered "must haves", but could now be eliminated because they are really "nice to haves" (not really necessary to get the job done).  This isn't about an accounting perspective - it's how fiscal conservatism is successfully applied in the private sector (we called it "operating in a fiscally prudent manner").  I am not a CPA, but I was, in essence, a "CEO" of a large, complex business unit within a fortune 500 company.

Over my career I was responsible for a variety of  businesses in the Foreign Exchange and Commodities Division (I was also responsible for a global sales business with a "9 figure" operating budget) .  Each business experienced significant growth in the bottom line (most sales and trading businesses in other Firms are evaluated on their ability to generate revenue - I had to bump revenue and manage down expenses).  We did more with less  - CONSISTENTLY.

THE BOTTOM LINE - I AM A FISCAL CONSERVATIVE
I RAN MY BUSINESSES AS A FISCAL CONSERVATIVE, AND THIS WAS A MAJOR DRIVER OF MY SUCCESS IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

I walk the walk, and do not just talk the talk - everything I have learned can and SHOULD be applied to how we operate our Municipal government.

As an aside, if you are not familiar with the term "Foreign Exchange", it's basically currencies.  There were no "complicated structured products", and this was an international business - we were not permitted to trade or sell mortgage related products or credit default swaps..... I thought I would mention that in case someone tries to "misinform" you regarding my background.



http://www.scott4montville.net/

Welcome to my Blog

I thought it would be helpful if Montville Township voters had access to a blog that contained more detailed information regarding my views and background.  


I will be adding content over the next 5 days..... so stay tuned.


All the best,


Scott


My email - campaign@scott4montville.com