Comment Up
Long lists were to be condensed into short lists.
Did I misunderstand something last night regarding the choice of our energy provider--that the commission was supposed to eliminate about half of the providers in order to create a Short List from those who answered the RFP but they had no cost comparisons? We were told that the City has "legal obligations--they can't let bidders know where they are in the bid process." Ok. I get that.
Everyone sitting in the chamber was confused--did the commission know the costs? Did they not know the costs? If they knew the costs then what was the problem in eliminating those companies that did not fit our needs? But guess what-- I just verified that the commission along with the Chair of the Electric Utility
Advisory Board were given ALL of the costs by our consultant Sue
Hersey, president and owner of Energy Advantage Consulting. They just couldn't make it public. SO, as it turns out, the only people really in the dark are Suzie and Joe Public.
ALL the prices from the various companies were removed (redacted) from the documentation as they are "trade secrets." The Vice Mayor said that questions on costs have not been answered. I suspect that there are missing parts but I just now learned that at least they did have the cost comparisons between the various companies as to selling price to Lake Worth. So what was all of this stuff about apples, oranges, etc? Once the Commission chooses an energy provider, the cost will become public.
There were three pages of a decision matrix that were in the back-up but only one condensed page with 6 categories was given as a final to the commissioners to make their choice. I would imagine that the one page matrix was explained in their one-on-one meeting with whomever devised it, but it did cause some confusion--this is not the first time that a city matrix had a lack of clarity for some.
On the dais last night: all the commissioners, Steve Carr Finance Director and Lisa Maxwell, new Chair of the Electric Utility Advisory Board. This Board is supposed to advise the commission and give recommendations. Commissioner McVoy requested that the Utility Board give a written recommendation regarding their choices on an energy provider to the commission. Essentially, Lisa told him to read the minutes and/or listen to the audio. The Commission was supposed to take hours of its time looking up Minutes and listening to audio in order to compile information? Our high priced energy lawyer then said, "It is advisable that the
Electric Utility Advisory Board give a written recommendation."
The way I heard it, our Utility generates $55 million and gives back 8% to the general operating fund. Lake Worth is smack in the middle of all cities' percentages that use their utility company for city operating revenue. This was a revelation. Lake Worth is not the odd ball city--every city does it and our city is "average" when it comes to extrapolating money.
Once this Commission chooses an energy provider, it will take two to four weeks for the final negotiations. This sounds optimistic even if we get to a Short List and at the rate we're going, one has to wonder.
Maxwell, wanting the lowest cost of electricity to fulfill our needs for the short-term, voted against the motion to develop a Short List of energy providers. It failed on a 3/4 vote with Maxwell, Triolo, Amoroso and Lisa Maxwell dissenting and McVoy, Muvehill and the Finance Director, Steve Carr, voting yes.
We must get this one right and fear is what drove this meeting. We have one of the best energy consultants hired by Lake Worth. We have a top energy lawyer as well. All reputable companies have presented and have told us what they will do for us. All we want to know is what the cost will be to the consumer and at what cost is the provider selling it to Lake Worth? If the commission feels it does not have enough information, please get it to them on a silver platter. The fate of our city is in their hands.
3 comments:
What is Maxwell's problem that he can't do a matrix?
"Lake Worth is smack in the middle of all cities' percentages that use their utility company for city operating revenue. This was a revelation. "
This statement gives the impression that all things are equal and we are right in the middle.
The matrix I'd like to see is the statement above in relationship with lots of other information such as size of city, per capita income, electricity rates, "cost of service charge" and effect on their respective tax rates or other quality of life issues.
Then compare all us fortunate ones, that have all the control, to cities of like size who do without a cash cow and how they do it and have a much lower tax rate and better amenities and can attract large power consuming businesses that employ people.
The point was--all of you keep screaming that we are taking 9 mil from the utility to operate our city. It is 8%. The entire point of getting out of FMPA AR was to reduce our rate even possibly by 25%. Can you give anything a break here? The benefit of using our utility for revenue is to FIX THE POT HOLES IN OUR STREETS if need be as we are in this housing value downturn caused by outside sources. We have ALWAYS BEEN A POOR CITY. Are you just realizing that one too?
As far as your last paragraph, let's see examples of cities of our same demographics attracting all of these businesses especially when we have no land other than the Park of Commerce that we have no money to develop infrastructure.
Post a Comment