To the editor:

To the editor:

On April 5, city council is poised to approve approximately $4-million in spending for a supposed "pilot project" for smart meter infrastructure for businesses and volunteer residents.

After they spend this money, it will eventually make implementation to residents a foregone conclusion. Please consider the following:

One of the main arguments for implementing smart meters is to reduce peak demand. Unfortunately, the feasibility study estimates a peak demand savings of only $4.37 per year per ratepayer. This makes that argument into nothing more than a hoax.

Total taxpayer cost over 20 years is projected at $13.8-million.

The city expects a $28-million return on investment over 20 years. The city is being extremely deceptive in promises of return on investment. How does the city make $14-million over and above cost in 20 years?

One way is through higher bills for residents. They will pay $6.2-million extra over 20 years due to faster-running electric and water meters.

The $4.7-million in savings over 20 years is due to not having to replace older meters during that time. This is a deceptive statement because once all these electric and water meters reach the end of their 15- to 20-year useful life, we'll have $4.7-million (or more) in replacement costs again. It is not a savings, just a delayed expense and should be categorized as a maintenance item instead of a savings.

The feasibility study assumes $12.6-million savings from eliminating meter readers. However, the study also said the cost per read was only 60 cents per month per household. So 60 cents X 16,000 households X 12 months for 20 years equals $2.3-million. Even if the 60 cents per month is an understatement, it's a large gap between $2.3-million and $12.6-million.

In addition, the maintenance of the infrastructure is roughly 30 cents per month per household meaning the savings is not $2.3-million but $1.15-million.

In addition, some of the savings appear to have been double counted, meaning even less actual return on investment will be realized.

The promise of return on investment seems to be deceptive in order to get this program passed by council without residents paying attention.

There are subtle benefits to smart meters. However, they are not cost-effective over time and will end up making energy usage more expensive.

While it is true the country is going in this direction due to federal taxpayer-funded stimulus spending, the taxpayers should be told the hard truth about smart meters.

The truth is this: Smart meters alone will not save you money. Smart meters and their resulting "green" energy programs will cost you much more than you are being told. You will only save if you use less energy. In coming years, you will be forced to spend more of your precious time trying to determine ways to save on energy costs and your life will become more complicated in regard to your energy usage. The government and environmentalist movement is working hard to create a world where energy becomes so expensive that you are forced to use less of it (gasoline included), resulting in a significantly lower standard of living in America.

Joanne Grose

Westerville

To the editor:

It seems to me that Peg Duffy is the one who has a hard time listening to what is being said at Westerville school board meetings.

I am the elementary teacher who spoke to the school board. I expressly told the board that I was speaking in response to comments made by Peg Duffy and others who continually complain that teachers make too much money and that the board was foolish in granting us an overly generous contract.

My point was teachers reinvest much of their salaries back into the classrooms and into the community. In no way did I intend to criticize what the district provides. The main idea here is that Westerville is a lean district, but we who are part of it stretch ourselves to best meet the needs of our students.

As a side note, I heard about the STEM curriculum for the first time at the board meeting, too. My take on it was that I was proud to be a part of a school district that is doing such positive things for our students. I wonder if we were truly at the same meeting.

I am happy to submit a copy of my remarks to the school board so that you can judge for yourself what was said and meant.

I love my students and I feel as though I have the best job in the world when I'm in my classroom with the kids and with the door closed. When I leave the school building, however, and read the papers or listen to the news, I'm depressed. How did we get to the point we are today where teachers are the scapegoats for problems we did not create?

Cathy Monteiro

Westerville