City Council budget workshops in November and December because I was troubled by the deteriorating condition of our roads, particularly in residential neighborhoods.
I'd confirmed with the city engineer that he'd been asking for an extra $500,000 or more each year for a couple of years just so he could maintain the current condition of our roads. Regrettably, City Council had not provided this extra funding in recent years.
So I made my pitch and asked City Council to re-order priorities and find more money so we all won't have to pay a lot more later if deferred road maintenance tasks grew into more costly road reconstruction projects.
To my astonishment, on Dec. 19, City Council approved a five-year plan that will increase the line items for road reconstruction and resurfacing, concrete repairs, striping, and crack sealing by $550,000 a year through 2017.
Tah-dah! They listened and now the city engineer might get the money he needs to do his job.
Of course, it remains to be seen just how City Council will propose to fund these line items when it's not taking in as much as it's planning to spend in 2013 and isn't taking any significant steps this year to cut overall compensation to a workforce that has grown 95 percent since the township and former village merged in 1994.
Since we are now paying quintuple the amount both local governments were paying a combined workforce half the size 19 years ago, there would seem to be lots of room for economizing for the sake of our roads.
Where to start? How about the manager of Hudson's local access cable television station? Do we really need to pay him $128,000, with benefits, when a neighboring station that services 2.25 times more households pays its manager 46 percent less?
S. David Worhatch,
To follow up on the previous comment: Yes, the letter has been corrected above and the Hudson Hub-Times apologizes for the unfortunate error. Thanks very much for alerting us to this. -Scott Shriner, associate editor
I just received word that the editor had made the correction to the online version of the letter and that my letter, as corrected, will be re-run in the January 20 edition of the newspaper. I note, with appreciation, that this online version has been corrected and I am grateful that the editorial staff has gone with this sensible approach. Without the word "not" at the end of the second paragraph, the meaning of the rest of the letter was lost. It's funny how a single word can make all the difference sometimes!