Finance Advisory Board getting Political?

Comment Up
Over two months ago, the Finance Advisory Board recessed until it received further clarification from the City Commission as to its goals and objectives. Were they to be pro-active or reactive? All that the Board members had to do was to read its own Mission Statement but the Board's goal was having much more authority and clout. They couldn't stand being ignored.

In the Joint Meeting, the Commission told them to do their own thing in that regard but to come back and give them a list of what they felt important to focus upon and they would do the same. Last night they compiled the list. A motion was made and passed last night to be a Pro-Active Board. It wants to be so proactive that it wants to meet more than one time per month.

What this now means is that the Finance Advisory Board, after taking a vote on an issue, a direction, a plan, will get the respect it believes it deserves from the Commission at least to the point of listening to the Board’s recommendations and the reasoning behind them. Quarterly joint meetings are projected.

The Mission
This Board was created and established to serve in an advisory capacity to the City Commission and the City manager. Its purpose is to promote transparency in the City’s Budget process and allow for additional citizen input on major financial decisions. It further states that the Board shall consult with and advise the CM and the City Commission in matters affecting the annual operating budget, capital improvement program and all financial policies.

The evening started out with a few members taking the lead. John Pickett stated that they had never formalized how to report findings and did not give enough time on how to communicate to the Commission. It was clearly stated by Mayor Varela at a city commission meeting to put it in writing to him and the Commission. Later came the Red-Light camera revenue issue. Although the Commission already has said "no" to Red-Light Cameras, the Board is putting this back on its list. They don't like the word "no."

Bill Thrasher said that the City Manager was concerned that the board could not be insolated from politics. This is a valid concern as it was clearly political last night from two of the Board members, Pickett and Plotkin. Bill also said that the views and thoughts should be theirs and not influenced by the public. I believe that this is somewhat contradictory to the Mission Statement but agree that proposals should all derive out of a Board consensus.

Pickett wanted to discuss the Union arbitration law suit ruling that just occurred on January 24 and the impact to our budget. He added this to the Agenda. This was a surprise because some members were not aware of this ruling as it had not yet reached the public. Even our Finance Director, Steve Carr, was taken back and was not prepared to speak to the issue. It seemed that a few Board members want to decide whether or not the City should file law suits at all or even defend itself by weighing the pros and cons. These legal decisions are up to the City Attorney and the City Manager, not this voluntary Board. The Board is not qualified. Carr advised that it will cost the City $60,000 in medical benefits that affected 42 employees. The Unions love to sue.

Picket said that he could not find any benefit in owing our own Utility...could "not think of one." Well, there are many benefits to owing our own Utility. The main one is Control. We have control on our pricing, distribution, and capital improvements. We have lost control of our police and fire and this is problematic for the City. We tried very hard to lose control of our water and thanks to this Commission, we regained control with our Reverse Osmosis System. We don't pay any taxes on things that we purchase for our Utility. It is not a public company so we don't have to pay a dividend.

One complaint was franchise fees. By State law, other cities to whom we provide utility service can charge a Franchise Fee of 6%--Palm Springs. Even though we provide service out of the City limits, I do not believe that the County is charging a franchise fee but this is unverified. Where the Board might be able to free up revenue is to look into the various city departments, etc. where we are charging ourselves for electricity.

The Casino was brought up--again. Members Pickett and Plotkin were still complaining about the finance plan for it. Mr. Pickett's friend, who works for him, devised the Finance Plan for the Casino and he had approved of it. So now what's the beef? This has already been voted upon by the Commission and the Casino is going forward. Another concern of Pickett's was putting the "right" tenants in the Casino building and this did not necessarily mean the present ones. The beach tenants have been leasing space form us, some for nearly 40 years, and it has been the desire of the Commission to have local as well as our present tenants occupy the spaces. If they can no longer pay market rent when the building is ready for occupancy, they will no longer be there. We have said all along that they will pay market.

All in all, I thought that this was the most political meeting the FAB has ever had, not only from a few of its members but the public as well. It went along election "lines" and the losers are still bringing up the same old stuff that has already been decided upon by the Commission. If I were the Commission, I would be annoyed if this Board insisted that it is "right" and the Commission is "wrong" and force the Commission to reconsider decisions already made.

The Board has no clout and does not have the authority by Ordinance to ever have clout. Just advise and your mission is done.