Tuesday, March 31, 2009

FYI - Commissioner Jennings is attending the workshop meeting by phone tonight - AGAIN!

Commissioner Jennings is calling for us to "radically change" our water demand - she is saying that the responsibility is on the Commission to fundamentally reduce water use the in the city. She "implores" this Commission to devote a sizable sum of money to promote conservation. (I think we are going to the one shower a week program Commissioner Golden employs.) Mayor Clemens is NOW talking about re-negotiating the water contract, but not doing the RO plant, with conservation measures. Didn't the County already vote against (3-3) not to break the contract? What negotiating leverage do we have with the County? None. If we are going down the conservation path, you can do it by either carrot (rate structure, education) or stick (code enforcement)? Does this mean that we focus our code enforcement on water use? The city is suddenly going to become an educator on water use?

Attorney Karns says there is no way to get out of the contract other than spending a lot of money to the county (lawsuit) and not get the water in exchange.

Commissioner Golden keeps talking about the 3-3 vote at the county and thinks they will reconsider it. She says that there will be new commissioners now.

Commissioner Lowe is talking about "crying over spilled milk" and that the County will sue us if we get out of it. Commissioner Mulvehill is saying that if they act in unison as "amicably" breaking the contract - they are talking about getting on the county agenda as an item. This is somehow doing it different now than it was before. They want it formally placed on the County Commission's agenda - requested by a letter from our City Commission.

Commissioner Golden is talking about "tricking" the County Commission and talk about stimulus money for the RO plant and slip the contract in for re-negotiation at the same time. Commissioner Jennings doesn't think it's a trick. The Mayor isn't buying this strategy.

I think madness rules. Mr. Bates points out that bonding may be more expensive since the underwritters will be looking at the decision-making process and our lack of performance with previous bond issues (electric and RO Plant.)

Don't we have the small matter related to the $5 million for our beach? Do we think we operate in a vacuum?

No comments: