That's about to happen again with this post.

First, though, let me recap my coverage of City Utilities and why when I saw what I read today I became very skeptical again of City Utilities.

On April 7th, City Utilities General Manager John Twitty appeared before City Council as they requested a gas rate increase.  This was part of that live blog from that night:

Councilman Deaver’s last question revolved about how some citizens felt they were being penalized for conservation. (Editor’s note: like me…) Mr. Twitty said they don’t see it as a penalty to customers. “The bottom line is if you use less your bill is going to be less.” (Editor’s Note: However…a CU press statement said the rate increase was because people were using less gas. That means the rate is higher because people were using less gas. The “if a customer uses less…” excuse doesn’t really answer the question about people being punished for conserving and using less gas overall that is resulting in CU asking for a higher rate.)

Now I asked Mr. Twitty the same question during a session of Municipal Government Academy and received the same answer.  As I mentioned in the liveblog, Mr. Twitty's answer doesn't answer the question as to whether customers are being punished for conserving and using less gas.

For example, let's take three months where you use gas at a hypothetical rate of $2 a therm.

Month 1:  200 therms at $2 each = $400 bill

Month 2:  You conserve and cut down to 120 therms at $2 each = $240 bill

Now, you keep the levels of month two and other customers do the same thing.  Conservation brings about lower usage across the system.  As a result, the utility announces they need to rate rates 40 cents a therm because people are using less gas.

Month 3:  After the increase....120 therms at $2.40 each = $288 bill

How is that not punishing the customers with higher bills because they were conserving when the rate was lower?  Of course if they only use 100 therms instead of 120 it's going to be a smaller bill but that's not the point.

We still haven't received a straight answer from CU on that.

Then in this post I examined City Utilities claim made both to City Council and at Municipal Government Academy that CU's rates were 20% below the state and national average.  In it, I took the question asked by City Councilwoman Mary Collette and looked at our area's average income versus the state and national average (quote taken from that post):

"The average median income for a Springfield area household is $34,631. The average for the state of Missouri is $44,651. The national average is $48,201.

That means on average a Springfield household is making 22.4% less than the average median household income in Missouri. It’s making 28.1% less than the national average. So if we’re paying 20% less for utilities than the average we’re still paying more on average than other areas if it’s based on income."

It was in the wrap up that I said many citizens don't trust City Utilities right now that we're being told the plain truth and not a glossed over spin of the situation.  It's because of that feeling that a post made by Brad Haller (producer of Ozarks Fox in the Morning on KSFX and personal hair poofer to Rob Evans) made on his blog Haller.4.Me:

"Earlier this year, we got a really high utility bill. Really high. So, starting in March, we shut off the heater, which is the main gas guzzler in our townhouse. The only other thing that uses gas is our water heater. But we're not cutting back on showers, so that'll just have to stay put. Alright, so Springfield City Utilities sends us a bill a month later, which wasn't terrible, and I thought that was an indication of headway. Nope. Today, we got a $245 bill!!!! Why? After several phone calls and bitch fests with the people at CU, we learn that a technician saw a HUGE drop in our gas usage, so he hiked our bill, thinking it was a mess-up on the meter. Big NO-NO. You'd think they would just adjust the $150 in question. Nope. We got an apology and were told there was nothing else they could do. CU has a monopoly on Springfield, so there's nowhere to turn. They DID say our next bill will be back to normal... well, it better be! Otherwise, I'm calling to shut off my utilities entirely and I'll just live like a caveman. I pretty much already do, you bastards!"  (Bolded section was bolded by me for emphasis.)

Well, let's just say that more than piqued my curiosity.  As someone who spent the better part of February and March and April having his thermostat set on 58 degrees to try and keep the huge gas bill down it seemed really interesting to me that someone at CU could just arbitrarily raise someone's reported usage because they thought there might be a mess up on the meter.

So I sent an e-mail to Joel Alexander, the press guy for City Utilties and asked him about it.   First, I asked if he would confirm or deny the report made by Brad on his blog.  Joel's response was that City Utilities does not talk about a customer's account with anyone but the customer.  OK, I can certainly understand taking that position although in this case they're being called out by a customer publicly on that account.  In a sense, Mr. Haller's opening himself up to rebuttal but Joel has to stick by CU policy so I can't fault him on that.

Then I asked Joel "why is it even legal for a technician to adjust what is reported on the meter? How can we as customers believe in the integrity of our utility if workers can adjust the usage numbers at will?"

Joel's answer was "As to your question about adjusting a meter: If a meter is suspected to be defective it is replaced. They are never adjusted in the field. Meters are read monthly, unless weather or other conditions prevent the reading, and in that case the bill would be estimated by previous account history and trued-up with the next reading. Those readings are then transferred to the account history and billed."

I'm guessing my question wasn't really clear because I wasn't asking about a technician fixing the meter itself on location but rather Brad's claim that a tech at CU saw his usage was significantly less and made the call it had to be a defective meter and therefore raised the amount on the meter.

Even if Joel was trying to address that in his comment about estimated usage for the month, that seems to contradict Brad's claim that he was told "a technician saw a HUGE drop in our gas usage, so he hiked our bill, thinking it was a mess-up on the meter." That means it was read by a human being...not an estimate...and that human being made the call to raise the amount on the meter when it came time for the billing cycle.

Is that legal? If so, why? If someone reads a meter and it says someone has used X amount of gas can you really conclusively prove it was a defective meter without taking it into the shop and having it examined? Shouldn't they also inform the customer of the potential metering problem and that a replacement has had to be made?

I asked Joel for some clairification and I'll post that here once I receive it.

I then asked Joel "If this really was a case of the technician changing the value for his bill, why can't the difference be either credited to his account or refunded to him?"

Joel's answer was "If a credit is due to any customer it can be applied to their account, or a refund may be requested." That contradicts what Brad posted regarding just receiving an apology and being told nothing else could be done. So, Brad, you might want to make another few calls to the Customer Service department at CU or perhaps contact Joel to see who you need to speak with to get that credit or refund.

Now, I mentioned that I have questions about my bill now because if someone did that to Brad, how can I know if they did it to me? Or you, who's reading this...how can you be sure it wasn't done to you? There's no real way to know. However, in Joel's response he included some good information regarding conservation that I thought I should pass along:

"Regarding your account, if you have any questions or concerns about your usage, or billing, a customer service representative would be happy to assist you with those questions.
Our Energy Management and Conservation department can provide information on ways to help reduce the monthly bill. Information can be found on www.cuenergywise.com or by calling 874-8200. At CU we strive everyday to provide reliable and affordable utility service to every customer. However with today's rising costs, the best thing anyone can do save money is to conserve."

Now, I don't blame Joel for not being able to really clear up what seems like a really muddy situation for CU.  He's handcuffed by the fact he can't talk about Brad's account to either confirm or refute the claims Brad made within his blog.  Unfortunately for Joel and for City Utilities, this claim from Brad Haller comes on the heels of other situations where the harsh, critical light on CU is getting brighter and hotter.

If what Brad Haller said was true...and being that he's a member of the media and his credibility would be damaged if not destroyed if that post is a lie...then it's possible this has happened to other customers as well.  Unless City Utilities can refute Mr. Haller's claims it might be time for some kind of state investigation into the practices at CU to make sure that people are not being charged more than they should be when the meters are read by human beings.

I am more than willing to consider this was a mistake made by a lone employee and not an overall problem at City Utilities.  The only thing that leads me to wonder if it's not is the fact that Joel said a refund or credit could be offered to someone if a credit is due a customer and Brad is claiming that one is due but was told nothing could be done.  There's a miscommunication somewhere in this system.

I'm sure this post isn't going to win me any friends in the halls of power at CU.  I hate having to raise these questions but as a homeowner who has seen extremely high gas bills and had to wear two layers of clothing on the coldest days inside my own home to try and keep the gas bill at a managable level it concerns me that someone can make the claim their bill was essentially doctored by a CU staff member.

If Joel can't talk about a customer's account then Mr. Twitty or another member of the management team needs to come out and either refute Mr. Haller's claims or provide an explanation for why this situation happened in the manner Mr. Haller reported on his blog.  If not, this is just another blow to City Utilities at a time where confidence in the operations is not high among customers and residents.

City Utilities of Springfield (CU) today released a statement from General Manager John Twitty regarding the findings in the Missouri Public Service Commission staff’s report on the utility’s telecommunications services. The commission staff reviewed CU’s telecommunications activities and found no violations of either state law or the commission’s order, issued to the utility in 1997. The review was prompted by the state audit of CU in 2007.

“The utility works hard every day to do the right things in the right way for our customers. We are pleased the PSC staff’s review found that CU’s telecommunications operations adhere to commission rules and to state law,” CU General Manager John Twitty said.

The utility does not anticipate changes to its telecommunications services as a result of the PSC staff’s
review."

Click here to download the memo and read for yourself.

EDIT to add:

In the News-Leader today there was printed some information that Montee sent in a letter:

While researching how CU ran its SpringNet operation, Montee said her staff raised questions about how the PSC conducted compliance reviews.

"We checked into it and discovered we hadn't done an audit of the PSC since 1991," Montee said. "The PSC is scheduled to be audited this year. One of the things we'll look at is how they check compliance of the entities they regulate."

She emphasized the upcoming PSC audit wasn't in response the the PSC's latest report about CU.

"It's just been a pretty long time since they were reviewed," she said.

I know there are those trying to maintain that Montee is beyond any political maneuvering and never does things out of political motivations but that just smells bad.  PSC says her allegations are unfounded so now they're getting an audit.  Yes, I know it COULD be on the level but this timing really looks bad.

The lone voice against tabling the measure was Councilman Doug Burlison. Why? This is from Doug:

"I voted not to table the natural gas increase because I felt that a stronger message needs to be sent to C. U. I was fairly confident that the opposition votes were there if the measure did not get tabled, otherwise, I would have preferred "tabling" over passage of the increase. My reasoning behind this is that I still feel that the utility has paid only lip-service in their response to the recommendations and spirit of the audit report. I do not feel that it is just a matter of the utility's management not communicating about their reforms well enough; I think what citizens and ratepayers are looking for are obvious actions that indicate less arrogance, and show a truer attitude of service."

Strong words from Councilman Burlison and I think he is really reflecting the opinions of many in the community regarding City Utilities request on this matter. I know I had posted earlier about John Twitty side-stepping the question about the rate increase going into effect because customers were using less gas. The answer of "if you use less gas your bill will be lower" is true enough but that doesn't explain why customers should pay more per therm because they've been conserving enough to create a noticeable drop in usage. We still don't have an answer to that.

Something that really leapt out to me during the discussions of this issue from City Utilities was the constant refrain that CU customers enjoy rates that are 20% below the state and national average. I had the thought...and a few other local bloggers and media professionals shared it...about the income levels in Springfield versus the averages.

The following information is taken from Wikipedia, HUD and US Census Bureau data.

The average median income for a Springfield area household is $34,631. The average for the state of Missouri is $44,651. The national average is $48,201.

That means on average a Springfield household is making 22.4% less than the average median household income in Missouri. It's making 28.1% less than the national average. So if we're paying 20% less for utilities than the average we're still paying more on average than other areas if it's based on income.

Right now, it feels like a lot of people don't trust City Utilities. It's not an active distrust like you may hear from some of the more vocal critics but it's more like that the citizens have stopped giving CU the benefit of the doubt.

If you want to sound off on what's happening with City Utilities and provide them more citizen input on the front end before they send proposals to the Council, you can attend their board meetings. The next regularly scheduled meeting of the board is Thursday at 3pm in the C. Frank Knox Board Room. It's not in the building on the corner where you pay your bill...it's in the building behind that one. A public comment time is scheduled although the agenda doesn't say if you have to register ahead of time to make a comment to the CU board.

COUNCIL BILL 2008-101.     (Carlson) A general ordinance to approve establishing gas rates and repealing previously established gas rates.

So...if you want to sound off on higher gas rates Monday night's your time!

Personally, I find it rather insulting when it was stated that we're going to pay higher prices because customers have used less gas. The rates are already so high that people are scraping along just to keep their gas usage down and now they're going to drive them higher making it even more of an incentive to use less gas. I guess I'll have to keep my house at 50 degrees next winter instead of 55 just to offset the increase (should Council rubber stamp the increase.)

Here's the recap of today's meeting:

Today the Board of Public Utilities approved the following resolutions:

• Expenditure Guidelines Policy:
Establishes guidelines and processes for expenditures within public purposes. To include civic and professional organizations, utility organizations, and other areas that could benefit the operation of the utility.

• Extension Policy Modification:
City Utilities will reimburse developers as applicable on an as-built quantity and not make partial payments. Developer must provide a Bill of Sale, Affidavit, and Cost Summary prior to reimbursement.

• Natural Gas Rate Increase:
An increase of 4.1 percent increase on the base rate of service for natural gas customers. Proposed increase is recommended to cover additional operational and maintenance expenses on natural gas system. This resolution will now move to Springfield City Council for consideration.

Additionally, the Board of Public Utilities was advised of the following:

• Electric Fuel Adjustment Factor (March 2008 – September 2008):
Aligns rates with actual fuel costs. The average residential electric bill will see a $4.40 increase during the above period in comparison to the same period last year.

Water Supply and Distribution:

• Water storage levels are at 100 percent. The historical average is 86.4 percent. This is the highest storage level since 2005 and only the fourth time in 12 years for 100 percent storage.

Storm Damage Claims:

• Fellows Lake spillway was damaged during the storms that occurred the week of March 17. Restoration is estimated at $500,000. Greene County Emergency Management and FEMA will tour the damage next week.

The TIP is a schedule of transportation improvements planned by various agencies in the Ozarks Transportation Organization boundary over the next four years. To be eligible for federal funds, a project must be included in the TIP. The amendments will include:

• The addition of a Roadway Prioritization Study within the City of Ozark.
• The addition of City Utilities Transit projects which include the development of a conceptual plan for the fleet management facility, transfer facility improvements, and bus shelter and bench maintenance (2005-2007 TIP).
• The addition of entrance improvements to the Missouri State University Darr Agricultural Facility, including turn lane improvements on Kansas Expressway.
• Additional funding for the Kearney Street Bridge.
• Removal of the planned guard cable project on U.S. 65.

The Major Thoroughfare Plan is one component of the Long Range Transportation Plan. Amendments to the Major Thoroughfare Plan will include:

• The extension of Seminole Street across the West Bypass as a secondary arterial.
• The extension of Battlefield Road across West Bypass and up to U.S. 60 (Sunshine) as a Primary Arterial.
• The relocation of the proposed Golden Avenue extension north of Kearney Street.
• The reclassification of U.S. 60 (Sunshine) from James River Freeway to State Route 174 from a Primary Arterial to an Expressway.
• The relocation of the proposed Highway ZZ extension.

The amendments will be available for review at Ozarks Transportation Organization, 840 Boonville Ave., Third Floor. Comments may be submitted in writing to the Ozarks Transportation Organization, PO Box 8368, 840 Boonville Ave., Springfield, MO 65801; via e-mail to sedwards@ozarkstransportation.org; or by fax to (417) 864-1881.

The public comment period will begin on March 27, 2008 and end on April 17, 2008. The MPO Board of Directors will review and possibly approve the amendments at its meeting at noon, April 17, 2008, in the fourth floor conference room of the Busch Municipal Building. An opportunity for public comment will be available at this meeting. After reviewing recommendations and public comments, the MPO Board of Directors will decide whether to formally adopt the amendments.

In an article in the News-Leader, Wes Johnson is reporting that it would cost the average Springfield homeowner around $3.91 additional per month.

What struck me funny in the article is that Ray Ross, director of pricing for CU said these things:

"Ross said milder-than-expected winters reduced natural gas sales and cut into revenue the utility expected to receive."

"He emphasized that CU customers’ can still save money on their monthly bills by using less gas.  "  (emphasis mine)

Isn't using less gas the reason they're asking for the increase?  Wouldn't people using less gas mean MORE increases in the future?

The Citizens Advisory Council of City Utilities of Springfield is having a public hearing on Thursday at 3:30 in the C. Frank Knox Board room of City Utilities, 301 East Central, where they will discuss a proposed rate increase...which they haven't made public yet.  After that, the rate increase proposal will go to the Board of Public Utilities.  If the board approves, it goes to the City Council for additional public input.

I really wish the Citizens Advisory Council would have a meeting in the evening when a majority of CU customers aren't working at their jobs.   Give more of the customers a realistic chance to make their voice heard to the Council and to CU.

Well, today was the day I was dreading...the utility bill for the month.  Knowing that the gas had been leaking 24 hours a day I feared the results of the e-mail pointing me to my online bill.  Let's just say it was four times the bill we had in January.  :)

Good thing City Utilities rates aren't any higher!

Remember, this is the same Becky Spence who made allegations toward the city regarding the Arena Site land deal that eventually went to John Q. Hammons.   Her claims were not proven and the city even demanded an apology from her regarding her comments.

KSPR says in their story that they were not able to get a response from Spence regarding this situation and why the utility bill was so delinquent on the property.  According to the KSPR story:

"KSPR has tried to reach Spence for comment on the story leaving messages on her business phone, her cell phone and on her e-mail account.

We stopped by her office on South Avenue and were told that Spence has been in a meeting for a week.

So far no response from Becky Spence on why CU almost cut off heat at her apartment building."

After having my heat turned off this week because of a gas leak this story jumped out of the screen (and not because it was being read by the beautiful and talented Christine Daues.   This aside paid for by the Sucking Up To My Wife Society, Joe Daues, Treasurer.)  When I had to sit in a small room with a space heater because my house was 38 degrees it gives you perspective on what it can feel like to lose heat in the middle of a Missouri winter (as if the ice storm last year wasn't bad enough.)   I hope that Ms. Spence and her company finds a way to get everything caught up so their tenants don't have to face living in freezing conditions within their apartments.

I hope KSPR will continue to follow this story as well.

I know it was you who turned the power off at my house this morning for a few minutes.

This morning as I walked into the shower I didn't expect the feeling of doom that was about to envelop me.  As regular blog readers know, we wondered if there was a ghost in the house after finding a pentagram on the wall of an unfinished room and some other unusual experiences within the house.  That unfinished room is right next to the upstairs bathroom where the previous owners installed a shower that is so small it makes a coffin look spacious and roomy.

So I'm in my water coffin when suddenly the entire bathroom goes pitch black.

My first thought was wondering if "Dave" was planning to pop up and hand me my towel.  I hopped out of the shower completely soaped up from head to toe and wrapped a towel around me before wandering into the house and finding all the power off.

That's when I heard the laughter.  Not from a ghost.  The sound of roaring laughter coming from the northeast...the general area of City Utilities offices.

It had to be John Twitty.  He's to blame for everything, right?

You know he was sitting in his office thinking that he couldn't begin his day unless he specifically messed around with some local citizen.  Flipping on his computer, he began to monitor all water use across the city looking for a bump that would indicate a shower had just been turned on.  Being the general manager of CU he knows exactly what each little increase in water usage means from a quick glance at a computer screen.  He picked up the phone and called someone in the power department to prepare to shut down my house and only my house for literally just a minute so it would spook me out and make me think that a ghost had turned off the light in my bathroom making my water coffin seem even smaller than it is with the lights on.

Can you picture him there?  Sitting at his desk with his feet up telling that staff member..."wait for it........wait for it.........NOW!"

Then the laughter began all throughout the building.

So damn you, John Twitty.  Damn you!

"Still, areas I'd like to see those unnecessary gratuities go for are more help for poor customers struggling with utility bills (the ones who haven't run up years-old records of welshing on their bills and then screaming "not fair" later) ; lower bus fares for poor workers; and more bus shelters for people who have to rely on the bus for transportation."

If CU has the money for "charity" then they could easily make do with helping their customers directly in the ways Sarah suggested in her column.  There also seem to be some improvements that can be made to the Access Express program to help the disabled in our community be more productive and also reduce their costs to use the service.

Charity begins at home.  For CU, that means it has to start with their customers here in the city of Springfield.

If you want to read the entire report (and it's worth your time) then click here for the report in PDF format.

First, about City Utilities taking the money they collect from residents and giving it to charities and charitable activities.  In and of itself, it seems like a good thing but I don't see why we as taxpayers should essentially be donating to charities where we have no say as to the dispersal of the money.  While there may be nothing wrong with these groups I'm not fond of knowing that the money I have to pay for electricity is going to a group that I might not necessarily support in their actions or political activities.  (And yes, some of the charities involved do political activism.)

The State Auditor says that these actions might violate the Missouri Constitution and from the way it looks to me it is in violation.  A public entity cannot use their money or resources to benefit a private individual, association or corporation except as provided in the Constitution.   I'm sure the Urban Districts Alliance and Wonders of Wildlife and Unite of Southwest Missouri and The Kitchen and all of the other charities that received CU money could use those funds.  That doesn't mean it's right for CU to give it when it's taken in abundance from residents.

However, along the lines of things that might be considered "unnecessary expenditures" I'm not thinking it's such a bad thing for the employee picnic or sending of flowers when a staff member has a death in the family.  I want to have City Utilities recruit and keep the best employees possible and keeping morale high is a key factor in maintaining those staff members.  Something as simple as a bouquet of flowers when someone's facing a horrific time in their family's life can speak volumes to say that person matters more than a number on a piece of paper.   Susan Montee can't look at people as people because her job is only to look at the numbers.   She's not allowed to have compassion or concern because that's not in the job of State Auditor...so we can certainly understand her calling these expenditures into question.  Could they have reduced the costs a bit?  Perhaps.   It doesn't mean these are things that need to be eliminated.

As for Montee's suggestion that CU require all employees to get their permission if they take a second job...Hogwash!  If the job doesn't conflict with the employee's position at CU then it's not CU's business (nor Montee's) what that employee is doing when they're not on company time.  I'm sure the powers-that-be at CU would love to have that kind of Big Brother power over their staff but it would not be good for morale nor would it really be good for recruiting staff members.

CU's subsidization of SpringNet is of serious concern.  There is NO reason at all for City Utilities to continue pumping money into the SpringNet system when it's painfully obvious that Springfield has more than enough private companies to fulfill those services.   A subsidy of $1.5 million dollars is simply unacceptable when there are more than enough viable alternatives within the marketplace.

Add in that the Auditor has found CU's SpringNet activities in apparent violation of their agreements with the Public Service Commission and you have a can of worms that I'm sure CU wants to keep closed.  Even CU's internal auditors told the powers-that-be to monitor SpringNet's cash flow separately to be in line with PSC agreements and those were ignored through March 2007.     CU claimed that they discussed this with the PSC and they said there were no violations.  The State Auditor came back and said CU had nothing to prove that claim.  Someone's wrong here.  CU needs to present the documents to back up their claim if we want to believe it's not them in the wrong.

CU needs to present a plan to dump SpringNet if they can't make it profitable on it's own and not take a cavalier attitude toward someone questioning if they're in line with their PSC agreements.

It also appears from the Auditor's report that CU has not been seeking public bidding on items that should have been put out for bid each year.  These items could have reduced overhead costs and as a result put CU in a situation that lower costs could be passed onto their customers.  Will this be something that CU will improve upon in the future?  I certainly hope so.   Annual competitive bidding will make things better for everyone involved even if it means some long time vendors of CU won't be getting the business they had received in the past.

Now, I've seen reports of some people connected to CU running down Susan Montee and questioning her integrity and ability to make this audit.  I certainly hope that this is not the attitude behind the closed doors at CU.  There are legitimate questions that need to be answered and trying to call the people asking the questions into suspicion isn't going to get the job done.  I hope that the board member who disparaged Susan Montee is not representative of all of CU.

Finally, I don't want to make it appear I'm coming down on the side of those who think CU is some corrupt organization frittering away all they money that comes into the door.   They have an internal auditor and it appears they listen to them often.  I'm not opposed to the idea of trying to manage CU as a private business but only if they then keep in mind that this is a public entity on top of it.  As long as we see some of the attitude we've seen from officials within the city this can be a good thing.

And while have low utility rates...it seems we could have them lower.  Let's see CU get that done too.

That smacks of lazy journalism and/or makes you question what the motivation is behind the News-Leader.  Is it to present the whole story to us or just take parts of it to try and cause problems?  If the N-L was responsible then they would have taken that list and found out what the money was spent on and why.  To present this list as they've done today does nothing but put a list of employees under suspicion that they did something wrong.

That's unprofessional and I thought our local newspaper had higher journalistic standards for themselves.

Last night's town hall meeting at the Brentwood Library was fairly uneventful.  As you can see from the photo, there wasn't a really large crowd of people there to talk to some of the movers and shakers of the City of Springfield.

Most of them seemed to be there to discuss traffic on Seminole and when the discussion turned to the city's plan to lower residential neighborhood speed limits to 25 m.p.h. the verbal lashing began in force.  These residents went on and on about people allegedly speeding through their neighborhood, how it endangers their children and how it's St. John's fault for closing down a street.  Their demands to fix it included the completely absurd suggestion to put speed bumps in a major road.  They said their road was a neighborhood road and that until St. John's closed down a street they didn't have traffic problems like this on Seminole.

OK, let me say first I understand wanting to keep children safe and to keep people from excessively speeding through areas where traffic can be heavy at times.  I understand not wanting to hear someone squealing their tires outside your house at 10pm.  I'm not unsympathetic to this at all and as a homeowner now myself I understand how it can be a burden on a neighborhood.  However, let's be real here folks.

First, I've been in the area since 2000 and I haven't once though of Seminole between Glenstone and St. John's as a "neighborhood road."  I've always considered it a major artery and have taken it many times myself when I wanted to avoid traffic on Sunshine.  Maybe twenty years ago it was a neighborhood street but you haven't been since the new millennium began and it makes you look a little naive to claim now that it's just a neighborhood road.   It's your neighborhood, sure.  It may even be your neighborhood's road but that doesn't mean it's some little side street that's not important to overall traffic flow in the city.

I'm sorry to say the suggestion...practically demand by some...to put speed bumps on that road looked absolutely foolish.  That's not a reasonable nor rational suggestion and it's hard to take someone seriously when their suggestion is to clog up only one section of a major road with multiple speed bumps.  This is especially true for a road where ambulances rush to bring people in need of live saving medical attention.

One of the residents says she sits out and takes pictures of cars speeding through and gets their license plates.  She wants to turn them into the police to be prosecuted for speeding.  Chief Lynn Rowe explained that this was impossible because of the way laws are set and some of the residents wanted an ordinance put in place to let them do it like the way citations for red light cameras are installed.  (Chief Rowe said that was not possible either.)

Did this woman actually stop to think about what she was really advocating?  I don't think she did because all she was really doing was opening up a situation where someone with a grudge could take some photos and falsely claim that another person was breaking the law.  Police reports with false information would skyrocket.   It would be open season on anyone.   (Note:  I'm not saying this woman would necessarily use this to go after someone who didn't really speed down her street.  I'm just pointing out that such a system has no way to guarantee the honesty of the person making the report.)

Another suggestion to put empty police cars on the street was a more welcomed idea.  (I think it's a great idea.)  When people see a police car they automatically slow down even if they're not speeding!  This would be a way to utilize city resources that otherwise would be sitting in a lot accomplishing nothing.  Chief Rowe was open to that as well as increasing patrols in that area.  Hopefully, they can find something that is beneficial to these residents without being a burden on all city residents.

You just have to remember that you can't end all people from speeding or teenagers from peeling out.  They're teenagers.  They do that.  More than likely, you did that.

We had the usual comments that the city's looking at small things instead of the big picture.  The hard part of hearing comments like this is that someone's small thing is someone else's big picture.  Usually, the size of that picture is determined by how much whatever's being discussed hits their property or what they want to do.

Some good info came from the meeting as well.  Jodie Adams of the Parks Board talked about improvements that are coming including a new equestrian center.  I asked her after the meeting about it because my first reaction was "if someone's rich enough to afford a horse to go riding on then they should be able to afford to find a private equestrian center."  Turns out this is going to be more than just for horse owners.  Low income families can go out and let their kids experience horseback riding where chances are they never could experience it before this center.   Much to my surprise and delight, the center will also be offering the disabled a chance to get riding lessons and to interact with the horses.  I've seen what this kind of therapy can do to help especially children with special needs and this could be a tremendous blessing for many Springfield families.

We heard about the progress of the Southwest 2 Power Plant and saw some photos of the designs.  Everything is on time and on budget according to CU.

Chief Rowe talked about crime and how "smash and grab" robberies are really spiking right now.

"If you have something valuable in your car that you want to keep then take it inside with you," Rowe said.

Rowe told of incidents where people were inside for matters of minutes and would come out to find smashed windows and valuables gone or in one case the entire car stolen from a parking lot in the middle of the day.  Rowe reiterated that part of helping reduce crime is our being vigilant as citizens and taking a few extra precautions.

Rowe also talked about gangs and having problems getting solid police officers.  He said that perhaps when "our men and women come back from Iraq and Afghanistan we can get some more qualified officers."

After the meeting, I asked Chief Rowe about these two issues.  First, on gangs, he said that in reality these folks are just saying they are gang members without really being gang members.  Rowe said that now you can see people in the same car with different gang colors ("last week I saw a car where one guy had on blue, one guy had on red and two others had Colorado Rockies gear on," Rowe told me.)    Rowe said that it's about "drugs and thugs."  These folks are involved in the drug trade and are out to make the money for themselves.

This is the point that some local media have ignored in the rush to brand a gang problem in the city of Springfield.   Here's the truth of it:  gangs in major cities are out for the good of the whole group and not just the individual members.  Gangs are aimed to make lives better overall and in a sense to help each other overcome problems.  In Springfield, we have people who are involved in the drug trade and may work together but ultimately it's every man for themselves and all about them making money for themselves and that is NOT like gang activity in LA, New York or even St. Louis & Kansas City.   That's why this is not a gang problem in Springfield.

Finally, I asked Chief Rowe point blank:  "Is the fact the city has been underfunding the police pension plan and the fact everyone knows about it a factor in your having trouble finding qualified officers?"  Rowe's face fell and he simply said "yes."  Then a moment later he added that Springfield is also behind when it comes to the salaries of our police officers.  He said compared to other cities of our size the average starting pay for an officer is around $38,000 a year.  In Springfield, it's $31,000.  The city council approved a 3% increase for next year but that's only around $900.  That still doesn't make Springfield competitive when it comes to the best officers coming to the region.  If we're continually lower than the Highway Patrol and other cities of comparable size then unless someone has a compelling reason beyond money and secure retirement to stay here they're gone.

City Council needs to fix the police pension problem NOW.  We need to find a way to seriously increase the pay of our police officers and make Springfield competitive when it comes to the best and the brightest young officers.  I don't know where this money will come from (just being honest) but there has to be a way to find a solution to the problem.  For example, we have this money potentially coming into the city from forcing trash haulers to use city landfills.  If that's the case, why can't some of that money be designated for the police and fire pension?  (Maybe legally it can't be done but the question should at least be raised.)

In a sense, the issues that woman had with traffic on her street come back to an underfunded police force in need of officers.   That's a major problem that needs to be fixed.

Don't forget, LifeofJason is going to have an exclusive interview next week with Mayor Tom Carlson.  He will be asked about the police pension issue and the pay for police officers.  If you have issues you would like to see raised, post them in comments or e-mail me.  I can't promise they will be asked but I plan to ask many questions from e-mails I've received thus far.