Reflections on the State of the City Address - 2011

Let me say that I think State of the City, County, State and Union addresses are good things.  Traditionally, in a municipal setting, the job for delivering this sort of speech goes to the titular head of the local government.  So, last night our ceremonial head of our local government gave this sort of speech at one of our great local institutions - the Lake Worth Playhouse.  I was unable to make the live address due to a work-related schedule conflict.  It is my understanding that the crowd numbered somewhere in the 20s, although it sounds a little more robust on the recording done by LWNAPC.

Mayor Varela renewed this practice last year after a two plus year hiatus at the hand of previous Mayor Clemens.  I think that our residents deserve this sort of report and were cheated during the two years there wasn't one.  The problem is that when our Mayor indicates he wishes to make such a speech, he is not afforded prime time, wall-to-wall coverage on the major networks.  Hardly!  This brings up a long simmering issue:  When is the city going to make arrangements to have events such as this, City Commission meetings, CRA and various advisory board meetings - carried on Comcast - at least?  More needs to be done within the city public relations-wise to keep a steady stream of information coming out of city hall.  (Said for the thousandth time)  Any break in the wall of Fortress Lake Worth is appreciated and long over due - something not really dealt with in this state of the city address.


If you were hoping for some earth-shattering news from our Mayor, you would be disappointed.  It was mostly a laundry list of the accomplishments of the past year, set in front of the city's glaringly poor fiscal condition.  He did point out that a study by the US Conference of Mayors, their annual convention attended by Mayor Varela a few weeks ago, indicated that our region will experience one of the "most rapid economic growths within the next 4 years."  He seemed to indicate that if the city keeps performing at a "higher level," this will be possible here.  Hmmmm.

To his credit, he doled out a lot of props to PBSO for the marked reduction in crime experienced on our streets.  He said that in order to rid the image of "crime infested streets," we need the same effort applied over a period of eight (8) years.  Do not expect him to be a proponent of doing anything different with PBSO and police services, other than seeking budget concessions of some sort.  This is my prayer.

Regarding utilities, I flinch when numbers are casually thrown about without knowing what the assumptions behind them are.  Such is the case when the Mayor talked about the 800 conservation audits "resulting in an estimated savings of 2M gallons of water usage and 500,000 kilowatt hours of electric usage."  Please.  Over what period of time?  If it's over a year, that amounts to 208 gallons a month per household - a tenth of my recent historical water use.  For electric, this amounts to 52 kilowatts per customer per month.  In November, I used 680 kilowatts of electricity and that was a low bill.  There was no discussion of the benefit to us citywide, other than the claim of less water and electricity used.  Are they looking at differences in utility bills?  That would be a good idea, but probably would yield little useful information since the stories are widespread about the extreme variation experienced amongst neighbor's bills with similar houses and number of occupants.  There was no mention of a forensic audit on the utility - something that Mayor Varela paid lip-service to during his campaign.

Apparently, the new mantra in utilities is "we have the power to..." which the Mayor related to a "can-do attitude" allowing them to "finish with their own team-oriented goals."  Really?  I won't do it here, but I bet you can finish the phrase "we have the power to..." a  number of different ways based upon your own personal experiences.

One piece of a good newsworthy item, was the Mayor's plan to "reduce our general fund dependence  on the franchise fee that [the city] charges the electric utility.  This is the single quickest and most dramatic way to decrease our utility rates."  In the face of other budget issues, noted throughout, one wonders how this will be possible.

Lots of talk on recreation and related programs but no mention of the demolition of the Suffleboard Court building and creating a new park in its place, by a railroad track and two major roads.  Perhaps more study is needed?  How about a conscious public decision made by the City Commission in a public meeting?

Under Community Development Accomplishments, he shows his lack of understanding of planning and zoning by stating "They have spent the lion's share of their time...shepherding the process of developing land designation regulations for the comprehensive plan."  Whoa!  Let's translate:  They have spent most of their time working on something that cost the city over one million dollars and should have been done four years ago.  This something was the re-writing of our Zoning Code, also known as Land Development Regulations.  (Which I understand is being reviewed by the Planning Board, but at a haltingly slow process where most of the conversation is about the inability to have a strikethrough and underline copy. My hand to God...)  No mention of the city's comprehensive plan being contested and may not be deemed "in compliance."  Hmmmm.

Much time was devoted to discussion of the beach project in various places throughout the speech.  No surprise here.  This assertion leaped off the page: the Commission "adopted a business model that would make the entire beach financially self-sustaining..."  Really?  Is this the plan that needs to be revised now that we are increasing the amount of public space that would not contribute to the revenue stream?  Is this the plan that will cater to existing tenants to stay in the rehabilitated building at less than market rents?  By tenants that amply contribute to the majority of current city commission?  Is this the plan that will take $6 million out of the city's cash portfolio, the same city that faces a $4.5 million projected shortfall in next year's budget?  Is this the same plan that didn't look at the possibility of demolition of the existing building, building a new building west of the Coastal Construction Control Line?  Is this the plan that instead of preserving our 1922 Casino building destroys 80 percent of it?  I guess it is, we just call it different things.

I am not sure about the validity of this statement: "We cut the cost of your government by 6% and did not raise your taxes."  The city raised its millage rate to near the legal limit and many properties dipped below the value threshold and now qualify for the minimum tax of $333 per year.  There are many property owners that have to make up the difference Mayor - especially given our spectacular record losses of property value compared to other Palm Beach County municipalities.

In talking about what is at stake, he says that "this process will require your constant input and more importantly tolerance and confidence."  Is anyone convinced that people on the dais and in the administration are wanting "our constant input?"  I have the opposite impression.  That is, unless it is what they want to hear.  So much for the integrity of the process - quickly losing tolerance and confidence in the process, I am.

That's about the bulk of the speech.  I will address the Mayor's plea for a "more civil city" in a separate post.