No surprise here at least as far as the Finance Advisory Board and its consistency.The Finance Advisory Board (FAB) met last week to further discuss implementation of the Lake Worth Casino Business plan including the issues raised by the Commission about hours of operation and tenant suitability. The FAB after extensive discussion with the City's leasing agent and review of the Business Plan and discussion of the impact on turtle nesting adopted a motion (4-0) supporting 7:00a.m. to 2:00a.m. business hours for the casino facilities.
It doesn't matter what the people have always said that they wanted. Anyone can come to Lake Worth and do anything they damn well please. It doesn't matter who you elect.
ReplyDeleteYou want to pile tons of garbage on your front lawn? Great. Do it. No one around to worry about it anyway. That's the way that it is. Nothing changes.
The broker can't even find a restaurant to operate within normal restaurant hours. No one can give any advice that's worth a hot fig that Staff will listen to or ever implement.
This Board is a total waste. The prior commission was a rubber stamp for the city manager. The new commission, who knows? Let's just do whatever we please. And the city manager has the nerve to bring up the idea of a Charette. NO. We already told you. What a joke.
Mad? Hell yes. Everyone else should be mad too.
No one in government choke on that turkey bone. :)
We should sunset this board and the commission take back the CRA.
ReplyDeleteLet me explain this again. We discussed the hours of operation extensively and concluded that the 2 am closing time was the latest we could support the beach closing, taking into account the potentially legitimate business interests of our prospective tenants combined with sound public policy. We also strongly encouraged Mr. Snitkin to go back to Johnny Longboats and urge them to reassess their business model and see if that could support an earlier closing time. They did, and came back with 12pm Sun-Wed, and 1 am Thurs-Sat.
ReplyDeleteThe rubber stamp label is unfair. We have made a lot of recommendations against staff's and the Commission's wishes. We recommended exploring red light cameras (shot down by Commission), recommended against downtown parking fees (initially shot down by the Commission), dissolving the Conservation Fund (shot down), eliminating the trolley (shot down), against once a week garbage collection (yet to be determined).
Part of the problem is we see these policies too late in the process. We were never, for example, given time to look into the Fire Assessment to see if there were other alternatives. In such cases, we become an oversight board, simply rendering an opinion as to whether or not a policy makes sense without knowing the genesis of the policy, and the reason behind it, as well as any alternatives to it. We as a Board are merely in a position to render an opinion on whether something sounds reasonable, as it is presented by staff. (By the way, I am not casting blame here, just offering an explanation for how things currently work).
We have a ton of talent on our Board, but we are only going to be as effective as the means and way in which we are used, and in the number of times our advice is heeded or taken seriously. We are currently working with staff to change the flow of paper so that we will see things earlier, and perhaps head off problems before they reach the Commission. By getting ahead of the curve, and getting an advanced look at programs or possible directions before they become policy is the only way we will be able to serve the public well, and in the manner they expect and deserve from us.
Sincerely, John Pickett
I agree. The FAB has been handicapped from the beginning. It has never been given enough information.
ReplyDeleteBUT..............
If your only purpose is to agree that the numbers presented are financially sound, then you will always be in lockstep with the CM. It simply appears to me, and I have attended the majority of your meetings, that is what it is and most likely why the CM wanted it.
As a resident, I am looking at policy decisions and should therefore concentrate on the Commission, not the FAB.
If you were really allowed to do the job, it could be different. You, however, are given info on a need to know and you have no authority to really do what it takes. Perhaps I was thinking this would be more like an investigative board. That's where I made my mistake.
Even the simplest of things that were discussed in the very beginning such as making the Financial Report easy to follow, never happened, IMO.
Sorry John, but your explanation just doesn't fly. Your group is lazy to a fault, inept, and without any recognizable knowledge. Below you will find an email written to you in August regarding a small portion of the budget. This concerns the CIP. Another email explains why a sixth grader with a calculator could have done a better job recognizing that a reduction in the price of a kwhr of power was actually a 35% increase. To declare that you are not a rubber stamp to the CM and the Commission is not only disingenuous to a fault, but also falls into the McVoy camp of truth telling. As McVoy just found out, when you leave a paper trail as you did, it may come back to bite you in the butt. There are simply too many instances of your group failing even the most remedial of tests for you to proclaim anything to the contrary.
ReplyDeleteCc: John Pickett
Subject: CIP
I had someone analyze the Utility CIP. Here are the preliminary conclusions--
For starters, the CIP bears no resemblance to the "Electrical Long Range Plan" submitted to the commission in April. Now the city will be required to learn to live with three 'distribution' voltages, 26.4 kV, 13.2 kV and 4 kV. Gone are the plans to convert all of the 4 kV and 26.4 kV distribution to 13.2 kV. This takes asinine to a whole new level. Now, instead of two disparate voltages you have three, and each will be an island unto itself. All power East of I-95 will now become 13.2 kV, with Palm Springs remaining 26.4 kV and the remainder of the City West of I-95 will be 4 kV. To complicate matters, 7th Avenue North Substation will have no backup at all.
I find no cost for new substation transformers at 6th Avenue South, 15th Avenue South and 12th Avenue South, nor is any mention of the costs associated with replacing the existing 4 kV transformers at the main yard. In all, there appears to be about $10 million missing from the budget.
The outage management system appears to have become a slush fund for any division requiring additional dollars. A top of the line outage management system can be purchased, installed and initiated for < $100K
It appears that all distribution transformers to achieve the 13.2 kV East of I-95 will be purchased and installed under an Operations & Maintenance budget and will be in direct conflict with the bonding. This is typically a way to hide budget overruns.
Dear Lynn and Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteLynn, I understand and am sympathetic with your frustration. We are acutely aware of our limitations as a Board and are trying very hard to work with the City's staff to I crease our effectiveness by being able to get out in front of issues, with plenty of lead time, rather than react to them when they are on top of us, and substantially already decided. It is very hard, as you can imagine, for us to do much investigative work and we are substantially beholden to the City staff for any back-up we get. Outside of the city providing us with someone akin to Joan with the CRA, I'm not sure how that changes. I can only say we are trying to do the best with what we have and are working within the system to become more effective.
As to anonymous, although I'm now pretty sure of your identity, your comments are ridiculous, as is your decision to make such comments behind the veil of anonymity. I'd be happy to debate you on the subject of our effectiveness, which I acknowledge could be better for the reasons I have stated ( which we are working on), but I won't do it unless
you do it publicly. But your charge that we are lazy and inept flies in the face of the facts. Every member of our Board has volunteered to spend an inordinate amount of time that they really can't spare working to improve the City; furthermore, if you look at the composition of our Board, you will see we have some extremely bright and dedicated people who are substantially hamstrung due to the circumstances I have described.
I do remember your e-mail, which was once again sent anonymously. Anonymous e-mails with no back-up and no author lack all credibility, and fall amongst the rest of the conspiracy theories so prominent in this town. For all I
know, it could have been written by that sixth grader you mentioned. I would be happy to put that e-mail in front of our Board and Becky Mattey should the author ever decide to step forward and be heard publicly.
Anyway, Happy Thanksgiving to Lynn, and Anonymous, whoever you are.
John
I must say Thank You to the poster above. Someone is finally saying what many of us have thought all along, that this committee is inept and nothing more than a rubber stamp to the CM. And John, while you do a great job of attempting to deflect the blame on everyone but your committee, it is difficult to get past the fact that you have accomplished absolutely nothing to move this city forward.
ReplyDeleteJohn, really, what backup is required to pull a calculator out of your desk and do some extremely simple math while going over the budget line by line? When everyone was challenging the new surcharges on the electric rates, your committee was simply rubber stamping anything and everything that the CM put on paper. What you and the CM claimed to be a small reduction in the electrical rates turned out to be a 30% increase. Where were you and the committed of intellectual giants on this? You and your committee should be ashamed. It required an outside expert to explain to the CM and the commission why the electrical conversion as stated in the initial budget presentation could not work. You claim to be a committee of experts, but who on your committee asked how it was possible to convert the city to 13.2 kV, install a complete Smart Grid system, and underground everything East of Federal for the original $22 million. It required outside experts to pull back the curtains on this hoax. Where was your committee? It required another outside expert to ask why a 138 kV tie line was going back to a redundant source. And your committee was where on that item? Yet another outside expert has questioned why a community the same size and paramaters as LW could install a complete SCADA system for $140K (actually provided the bid package), but LW requires $500K for a similar system. And your committee asked what on this item? And you know what John, not one of these experts charged the city of LW a dime for their advice and knowledge. I could go on and on, but you would simply blame the city staff for not providing you with the knowledge and direction that you needed (the blind leading the blind) to come to an informed decision......no, you would rather bindly follow the CM's lead. Damn good thing that the citizens do not trust you or the CM and go outside for more informed information.
John, sometimes it is simply better to keep your mouth shut and permit people to think that you are not doing your job than it is to attempt to defend your actions and be shown to be a complete waste of the taxpayers faith. I suppose that the true question here is: What the hell do we need with you and your committee?
BTW: The utility has since removed the entire Smart Grid and the underground from the budget as they were brought kicking and screaming to the realization that the Smart Grid, by itself, would have cost every penny allocated for the entire conversion. And.....one Commissioner now has the knowledge to speak intelligently on the turtle lighting situation.....all information brought to the City of LW free of charge from outside sources.
Wow. Quite a back and forth going on here on this Thanksgiving day...anonymous, did you apply for the FAB? If not, why not? Monday morning quarterbacking isn't doing the city a lot of good here - please put your money where your mouth is and reveal yourself!
ReplyDeleteThis Wizard of Oz act of staying behind the curtain is getting old. Come out and throw your hat into the ring -
Anonymous at 3:46,
ReplyDeleteDespite the attempts at misdirection, the "two" anonymous bloggers criticizing the FAB above are actually the same person. Notice that a name is never used, either to identify himself, or the experts he refers to.
Great back and forth. But honestly, I am less interested in knowing who the experts are than why 1) The City and the FAB required independent and outside action to get even a portion of the budget correct, and 2) Why aren't we contracting these same experts to assist with the budget in the first place?. Considering the amount of money we pay our Department Managers, we should be expecting more from them. Sadly, from the info given, we all got short-changed by both the FAB and the City Staff.
ReplyDeleteJohn Pickett speaks of misdirection, but I notice that he did not answer any of the charges leveled at both he and his committee. Why?
ReplyDeleteThis board was set up to fail.
ReplyDeleteI admit to having had problems with both the Casino Business Plan to which John contributed and how FAB addressed what it addressed and what they didn't address during its existence.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it seems inappropriate to me to criticize FAB for technical aspects of their review of the Electric Utility's expenditures.
Also, while the points expressed are important, shouldn't concern be expanded to the quality and quantity of advice given the Commission by all the Advisory Boards. Can the P&Z Board read the construction plans they are reviewing? Is the CRA Board composed of the best and brightest to address blight and adding to Lake Worth's Tax Base? Isn't an Electric Utility Board appropriate given the Capital Expenditures committed for the next several years and the exit from FMPA? The CRB is a whole story in itself.
Just saying.......
Can you be specific as to your concerns on the financial plan regarding our casino? I understand that there are complaints from Commissioner Maxwell but I really have not fully understood what all the concerns are.
ReplyDeleteAs this Board was never given the executive authority to really do the job, I don't see how things will be different in the future. You can't go over a Budget for 3 hours and expect anything meaningful or of substance to come from it. When information is withheld by Staff, there is no way that the FAB can be effective. You should not be making recommendations based on guesses or incomplete data.
The pity here is, I don't ever see anything changing. Ask those 3 members who used to be on it why they 1) quit or 2) why they did not reapply to serve.
Anon at 6:20, the "charges" , of you want to call them that, leveled in this litany of e-mails is that I/our Board is "lazy to a fault, inept...." sorry I have to scroll up here..."without any recognizable knowledge and a rubber stamp for the CM." I refer you to my post at 11:41 today, second paragraph. I also refer you to some of the decisions we have made that swam against the tide of both the Commission and the CM (dissolving the Conservation Fund, eliminating the trolley, eg).
ReplyDeleteLynn, my detailed answer to your question about initial costs was too long, so please don’t think my brevity of answer was intentionally meant to be cursory.
ReplyDeleteThe Casino Business Plan and presentations by the CM & her Staff to the Commission always indicated that the $5,000,000 Palm Beach Grant and the $6,000,000 Casino Loan would pay all the “Beach Project Costs”.
Left out of the Casino Budget were all the normal Development Costs: Architectural & Engineering Fees, Leasing and Legal Fees, etc. These cash costs aggregate approximately $1,000,000.
Since the Casino will be open after dark, the Lighting costs have to be included somewhere in Total Beach Costs. Although listed currently at $2,000,000 they may be ONLY $1-1.5 million.
So, with no additional problems, the cost overruns that will have to be addressed will be $2-3 million.
It should also be mentioned that many people have expressed concerns that the normal underwriting criteria a Lender applies in determining Loan Amounts will result in a Loan based solely on Beach Revenues, as currently constituted, not approaching the $6,000,000 represented.
It seems prudent that these cost overruns be quantified immediately so that planning for the least amount of negative impact on Operating and Capital Budgets can be accomplished.
The problem herein lies not so much with John and his board, but with the city staff and the Commission. No one should expect anyone in LW to understand the city's cash cow (the utility). Bill Coakley and Mary Lindsey are the two who come to mind who could begin to crack that nut, but the Commission would never permit either of them to be on any city board. That leaves John and his group with absolutely no chance of understanding that single largest piece of the pie, and so they may feel compelled to pretend that they do, and pass along the budget on pure faith (I would highly suspect that to be the case).
ReplyDeleteSo, where do we go from here?
We could rely on outside experts as we have apparently done this budget year, but they may not always desire to assist. Jack has a good idea with a utility board, but then again you would constantly be fighting for the good of the city and that is in direct conflict with the wishes of the Anarchist Commission (the Commission that actually passed the budget) and the narcissistic CM. With that option closed, we find ourselves making a complete circle and reverting back to a competent staff, which if many of the postings above are correct, we do not have.
By all appearances, John does not wish to actually address the questions put before him on this blog. So with that in mind, I would like to ask a couple of very straight forward questions simply to gauge his honesty and his boards depth of knowledge. John may chose to answer these, or continue to deflect. That is his option
ReplyDelete1) Were you, or your board, aware that the reduction in electrical service rate (kwhr) was actually a 30% increase?
2) Did anyone on the board question the Asst. Utility Directors numbers for the electrical conversion?
3) Did anyone on the board have the foresight to question the numbers put forth in the CM's quest for additional revenue, and the need for such?
Thank you.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI can only speak for myself, and not the Board, in answering some of your questions:
As to question number 1: I am not aware that the premise you put forth is the case. As of this moment, I have only your say-so that this is true. As I said before, I would be happy to have you make a presentation to our Board if you choose to reveal your evidence and yourself.
As to question number 2: To the best of my recollection, we did not question the numbers of the electrical conversion. I'm not exactly sure what qualifications or background anyone on the Board would have to have the proprietary knowledge to question and understand the technical aspects and costs for such a conversion.
As to question number 3: I assume you are talking about the fire assessment here, and yes, we received a detailed
presentation in the course of the budget presentation on the need for additional revenue.
You seem to be fixated on this utility issue. Speaking again only for myself, the Utility has always been the hardest Fund to get a handle on due to the highly specific and esoteric knowledge you would need to understand all of the highly technical aspects of the equipment and costs. I admit I am substantially beholden to staff to give me an accurate picture of the same.
John
Thank you John for making Jack's point that a Utility Board would be beneficial toward moving this city forward. Admitting that neither you, nor anyone on your board, has any electrical experience or expertise also goes a long way toward turning this ship around. As the utility is the largest revenue generator in the city, don't you think that it would be nice to have some knowledgeable oversight?
ReplyDeleteAs to question #1. Prior to the adoption of the new budget the "base" cost per kwhr of power for a party using <500 kwhr/month was $0.1393. For an elderly couple on a fixed income using 499 kwhr/month the base cost would come to $69.51 (499 * .1393 = $69.91) before the Power Adjustment Charge, the Conservation Charge, the Public Service Tax, and the Gross Receipts Tax were added on to make a final bill of approx. $76. With the City's new rate structure that same elderly would receive a rate reduction to 0.1130/kwhr but would also experience a Cost of Service Charge per meter of $34.50 per month. Now the new bill would become (499 * 0.1130 + 34.50 = $90.89) before the aforementioned adders or a 30% increase in their base rate. This same couples bill would now become approx. $97 after the adders. While this seems a simple calculation for even the least educated, it appears to have escaped the FAB entirely, and the Commission for that matter, but will not escape those persons most in need of a financial break.
Re: Question #2. You answered that honestly and I commend you for that.
Re: Question #3. The following represents a list of new taxes and assessments which property owner's and rate payers will have the honor to pay. As the head of the FAB I would have expected that you would question each and every one. Summing them up? Well,that would simply be too much to ask of you.
Funding for Financial Oversight Services = 0.3145 mill increase, page 66
Street Light Assessment = $50 per property benefited, page 67
Lien & Permit Search Fees = $70 increase per permit, page 68
Residential Electric Rates = $34.50 Cost of Service Fee every month, page 69
Commercial Electric Rates = $25.63 Cost of Service Fee every month, page 72
Commercial Demand Rates = $100 Cost of Service Fee every month, page 72
Water Rate Increase = 5.25% per month, page 74
Regional Sewer Rate Increase = 30%, page 78
Local Sewer Rate Increase = 13% from the current 9%, page 78
Refuse Rate Increase (Residential) = $42/year, page 80
Refuse Rate Increase (Commercial) = 10% monthly, page 80
Thank you for engaging.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI wholeheartedly agree that a Utility Board would be of great benefit. As you duly noted, the Utility Fund represents a huge chunk of the Lake Worth pie. Listen, at the end of the day, I wholeheartedly support any initiative that helps the city function in a better, more transparent way. We are all in this together.
Which brings me to my next point: I'm not looking for a fight here. The FAB is supposed to represent your interests as a conduit to City government. I do not pretend that we are perfect, nor do I pretend that we have all of the answers. My objection to your original criticism was not that you did it ( think I have shown I'm a big boy and am happy to engage in a debate) but the way you made it, in my opinion, personal, calling us lazy and inept. The FAB is a volunteer board of citizens, all of whom have full time jobs and precious spare time. We are asks to keep a citizen's eye on tens of Funds, plus whatever are the pressing issues of the day. And we are asked to do it without any independent staff or help. I mention this not by way of excuse, but by way of explanation. From my seat, it is a
pretty tough task, and the members we have on that Board
are all tremendously bright and care a great deal about
the City. So I have no problem if you tell us we missed something, or made, in someone's opinion, a poor decision---that is good legitimate feedback which we encourage and, frankly, need. We will make mistakes, and
miss things from time to time and citizens have every right to call us out on it.
Having said that, I have sat side by side with some of the members of the Board for over a year, and some for only a few months. I will tell you that each and every one of them cares a great deal for this City and works hard to contribute to the Board's effectiveness. So when we miss something, we just missed it, and that has nothing to do with being lazy or inept, and I will always defend the FAB furiously against that characterization as long as I feel it is without merit, as I did this time.
Anyway, if there is a way for you to copy me or get me the
information you explained above, I would like to ask the
Utility department about it. I would be much happier if you
participated and helped us out with that as you seem to
know a lot about it, but if you wish to remain anonymous, I
will respect that. But see if you can get me a copy of what
you wrote above. I fear it will disappear shortly into the
abyss of Lynn's blog.
Best, John
John--I have written about this very thing on several occasions stating the same stats.
ReplyDeleteEmail to a person with first hand knowledge of the FAB,
ReplyDeleteQuestion: Is John Pickett serious when he says that he wants info on the Utility? Or, is he simply attempting to dodge another bullet and have to answer questions as to why the FAB is so inept? It seems to me that a sixth grader with a five dollar calculator could have done a better job of figuring the budget out than that bunch.
Reply: They made no attempt to figure out the Budget. NONE
Conclusion: There is not a lot of faith in the workings of the FAB.
A group of un-elected citizens should not be giving their opinions to our elected officials.This board is the poster child for doing away with all "volunteer" boards in Lake Worth.Paid city staff members should be doing this work. We can fire them.Some board members have appeared from out of no where. Not even their own neighbors have heard of them. And suddenly these people are on "A BOARD"!I elect Commissioners to make the important decisions . I can kick them out of office if I don't like what they are doing.The FAB is political to a fault,ineffective, and totally at the mercy of the city manager and staff.
ReplyDeleteWell said, anonymous at 8:46. Elected board members have up to 4 year terms--2 years longer than an elected commissioner.
ReplyDeleteI strongly disagree with the poster at 8:46 PM, and a trip down memory lane will illustrate a dire need for outside oversight, especially for the utility. Remember not so long ago when the administration of Boyer, Adair and Srednicki pushed through an agenda for using one-half of the allotted bond monies ($15 million) to convert the entire city to 26.4 kV? The Commission went along with the idea, the FAB saw no reason to contest the idea, and only a very, very select few (Lindsey & Coakley to be exact) voiced a dissenting point of view and said that this would turn out to be the biggest waste of taxpayer dollars since the Global Warming hysteria sent our economies spiraling downward. And remember, these two citizens were the only persons who were correct! The brain trusts (I won't call them experts) at the Utility were incorrect by a magnitude of 800%, the commission of lay people had no answers, and the FAB stood silent.
ReplyDeleteWell.......we recently experienced a similar occurrence and once again it involved the Utility. What the Utility Director, the Asst. Utility Director, and the CM presented to the Commission and the FAB in March of this year was a similar plan, with the absolute certainty of a similar result, only this time they would convert the town to 13.2 kV, install a Smart Grid system, and undergroud everything East of Federal for the token amount of $22 million. Yet again, it required the intervention of Lindsey/Coakley to illustrate the absurdity of the Utilities numbers. This time the Utility partially listened and scaled back its program to include the conversion of one-half of the town and completely eliminated the Smart Grid and the undergrounding of facilities. But without this intervention, the City of LW would have eventually been on the hook for approx. $80 million in upgrades.
The moral of the story is that the Utility and the CM have proven time and again that they are not up to the task. They throw out numbers willy nilly and expect the FAB and Commission to simply go along, and they do. What is needed is either: 1) Fire the Utility Director, the Asst . Utility Director and the CM and replace them with competent individuals, or 2) Form a board of actual professionals to oversee the Utility. There is absolutely no in between.
BTW: Something similar is currently happening with the new SCADA System and the transmission tie line, but this time no one is listening.
I believe that they had a utility board years back. That did not work out--became political. I will check up on the details.
ReplyDelete