Comments re the April RPMUD Meeting

Bob Smith (Robert R. Smith) was asked if he voted for the $5,000 bonus and $6,739 raise for Ginger Seyfang, $6,000 bonus and $8,528 raise for the maintenance supervisor and $10,000 bonus and assuming upwards of $10,000 raise for the previous manager in 2002.

At first he did not want to answer the question, saying it was not on the agenda. Finally he said he did vote for it and compared this action to what is done in the corporate world when bonuses/incentives are eliminated -- a raise is given to make up the difference. But, both were given. I don't get it. Does this mean bonuses were given in previous years? It is hard to tell what is going on when a salary request is made and what is received is an hourly rate for the salaried employees. This bonus/raise issue would not have been apparent if the hourly rates had not jumped so much in that year. (You may remember we were told it was a raise or a bonus. Then we found out it was both.) And Harvill said he voted for it, too.

Did not have the amount of raise for the manager, but, based on the other increases which were more than the bonus, am using a conservative number of $10,000, giving a total of $47,000 for raises and bonuses, voted on in one month for three employees. Smith dismissed half of that, saying it was for raises which were paid out over the year. It is still money being spent. We are dealing here with taxpayer monies not corporate profits. There was no actual reason given for the raises or bonuses. However, it appeared that this was the end of the bonus program. Didn't know we had a bonus program.

Nothing was mentioned in the previous minutes about these raises and bonuses, so we can only go by what they say.

I have been asked why I am dwelling on 2002 bonuses and raises. It is because all future raises were calculated on that 20.5% raise. From 2003 through 2008 RPMUD paid close to $40,000 more than if Ginger had received a 5% yearly raise.

Ramirez suggested a 15%-20% raise in water and sewer rates. Jack Curtsinger wanted to decrease expenses before an increase was considered. The others did not pursue any discussion of decreasing expenses. Harvill wanted the vote on increases to be made by the new board, so they would not have that on their record. The discussion of water rates was not supposed to be on the agenda until June. Don't know why they added it to April's agenda and then decided not to do anything. But, at least, we now know what amount they were considering.

Bob Smith brought up at a previous meeting a list of MUDs' and the City of Conroe's water rates, which were all higher than ours, as justification for raising rates. What do their rates have to do with our rates? Our rates should be based on our numbers and what we need to manage this MUD properly.

Ramirez discussed an alternative for the belt press for the sewer treatment plant. Instead of paying $500,000 for a belt press, another option would be to have the sewer treatment plant cleaned by an outside source on a periodic basis. Actually, Jack is the one who discovered this system and informed Ramirez.

The final bond payment will be made shortly. How much sooner could this have been retired had there been a handle on expenses?

This information and more will be on www.riverplantationforum.blogspot.com. If you would like to comment or contribute to the blog, please feel free to do so. If you have trouble signing up, just let me know.

Vote for new directors on May 8!