Records request shows responsible city staff

One of the obligations of being a some-time critic of City government is, I believe, to also write about things that go right. I still have an outstanding disagreement with the City over the release of public records, but a request for records I submitted this week was answered with impressive swiftness and the documents reassuringly demonstrate a city department being careful about spending taxpayer money.

This week's City Council meeting included on the agenda a request to approve payment of $728,229.90 to trash hauler Republic of NC for economic loss, a result of the City annexing areas where Republic currently collects trash from paying customers. State law allows garbage collectors to receive compensation for this kind of loss as a cash payment equivalent to 15 months of lost income from the affected areas. The payment was approved by city council.

Part of my interest was inspired by a misreading of the agenda item. It describes the annexation as "12 areas." I mistakenly read that as "12 acres" which had me wondering how 15 months of revenue for a mere 12 acres of homes could result in a payment of $728,229.90. In fact, the 12 areas accounted for thousands of customers.

Companies seeking compensation for this kind of economic loss are required to submit detailed documentation to substantiate their claim of loss. I submitted a request for this documentation to Pat Boswell, Director of Public Affairs. Within 10 minutes, she replied that she had received my request. In less than 24 hours, I had the information I had requested forwarded to me by Pat's assistant, Cindy Briggs, and Field Operations Communications Manager Nancy Lindemeyer. Nancy also promptly replied to my follow up questions.

Here is the bottom line: Republic of NC complied with the documentation requirements and the staff of Field Operations verified it through a variety of means. One may not like that these annexations carried this kind of expense, but it was required by law and the amount was carefully substantiated by city staff. Kudos to Pat, Cindy and Nancy for a swift and thorough response to a records request. It allowed this citizen to report good things about the city.

Are there any responsive roofers in Greensboro?

Over two weeks ago, our house sustained some roof damage from a hail storm. Although the insurance adjuster showed up within 48 hours and cut us a check, getting a roofer to do the repairs has been another matter entirely.

We have contacted five different roofers. The results have ranged from multiple messages not being returned to promises of a return call to schedule an estimate not being fulfilled. What a joke. Not one of the five has even given themselves a chance at our business. I would never conduct my business with such disregard for potential customers. Are roofers so damn busy that they just don't care about tarnishing their reputations or are they just slack asses when it comes to conducting business?

Two weeks after the storm we are still trying to find a reliable roofer. If you know of one who wants some business, please let me know in the comments.

Greensboro may adopt some funky vendor pushcart regulations

Sigh.

City Council agenda item #29 would change the ordinance governing push carts. I suspect it is a lack of attention to detail that has the proposed changes eliminating the requirement that push carts cannot exceed 40 inches in width OR 75 inches in length to a requirement that they not exceed 42 inches in width AND 77 inches in length -- a change that could allow for a really, really long push cart.

"Or" means a cart is in violation if either measurement is exceeded, "and" means a cart is in violation only if both measurements are exceeded. So, under the proposed change, a push cart could be 42 inches wide and 100 yards long and would not violate the proposed new ordinance because it does not exceed 42 inches in width AND 77 inches in length. Cool.

Greensboro to pay waste hauler $728,229.90 to not collect trash

Another cost of annexation: Agenda item number 31 for tonight's city council meeting requests that council approve a payment of $728,229.90 to garbage collector Republic Services of NC for "loss of business," a consequence of the City annexing 12 acres of Republic's customers for whom the city will now collect garbage.

It has long seemed to me that annexation decisions by the city of Greensboro lack a bottom-line cost/benefit analysis. I've never seen city staff say, "On the plus side, the additional property taxes will bring in x dollars and in the minus column, the cost of the annexation and providing services will be y dollars." It seems to me that kind of comparison would simply be prudent. It seems to me that a city council person who votes in favor of an annexation without that information is being irresponsible.