Navigating the Sea Change...

The above list is taken from the transmittal memo penned by City Manager Susan Stanton and Ed Fry, OMB Manager (click here for highlighted copy).  It is what they consider to be policies that may be impacted by a new "directive" resulting the the recent election.  As usual, Ms. Stanton frames these issues as requiring "extensive dialog" - between who, when and where will be determined by her.  The City Commission meeting on Monday will only be directly dealing with the first two, and other low hanging fruit that can be plucked from the FY2012 budget that has already been approved by the former City Commission.  Disposition of these issues would have significant budgetary impact - so I am not sure why these are being culled out from the immediate changes suggested in the transmittal memo.  How can you make a decision related to the recommendations contained in the memo, that make up for the elimination of the Fire and Street Light Assessment?  I guess we can think of this as a requirement due to the immediacy in the desire to rid the residents of the assessment burden.

Before going much farther, I have always been wary of the proposed street light assessment.  The way that it had been communicated made it seem as those residents that were blessed with working street lights in the vicinity where they live, or even own property, would take on the lion's share of the financial burden.  Those in areas under-served, or not served at all, would pay a lesser assessment - less than those that live in areas with adequate lighting.  First of all, objectively figuring out which areas have street lights and those that don't is fraught with problems related to equity.  Relying on our world class bureaucracy to determine an equitable assessment, or what a team of consultants (which are immediately considered experts if they come from more than 50 miles away) can come up with, is not likely to work.  This would not only spend money we don't have but would end up with something likely to be indefensible.  In the end analysis, this assessment would have been just another device to circumvent the 10 mil state limitation on taxable property value.

One of the over-riding themes here is that the previous City Commission(s) of recent history did their best to undermine the importance of ad valorem revenue based on property tax valuation - they had to.  It was almost as if they kicked the chair out from under the value of our city's real property in order to make "living" here affordable to low and very low income people.  Do not be fooled...this was the underlying principle of the past City Commission majority.  By diminishing the importance of that factor in the overall budget "pie" they could say "no" all day long to redevelopment - which they tried their best to do by not having a coherent set of land development regulations and draconian height restrictions that prove unworkable in the real world.  There are those, like the other blogger with the same name as a popular 70s country singer, that think there is only one switch that has an "on" and an "off" position when it comes to growth.  Much to her surprise, we can set the development dial anywhere we want so that moderate and sustainable growth in Lake Worth is accommodated.  We have that chance now and we'll see how that takes shape at the up-coming tri-joint meeting of the City Commission, Planning and Zoning Board and the Historic Resource Preservation Board on November 30th.

Back to the issue of adequate street lighting: It is one of those bug-a-boo issues of mine that I stressed during my attempts at running for office that apparently wasn't an important one shared by candidates who succeeded in their attempt, as little has been done over the past six years to remedy what I refer to as our "rural" street lighting conditions for an urban area.  Sometime when you  are out driving around at night, go down any of the residential streets in the south part of West Palm Beach.  You will find almost uniformly lit streets, most with actual pedestrian-scale street light standards rather than the telephone pole mounted sodium vapor lights we have in most areas of Lake Worth, when we are fortunate enough to have them.  Street lighting in Lake Worth is not uniformly dispersed and some areas are permanently dark, or temporarily dark when the bulbs cease to work due to age.  Have you ever tried to get a light on your street replaced?  Think of the efficiency of the utilities customer service office and you will have an idea.  The bottom line is if we are going to have an assessment for something like street lights, it should be part of an overall improvement program to make sure neighborhood lighting meets some sort of minimum accepted standard - on a city-wide basis.

The one glaring item that is missing from the above list is a category called "contingent liabilities."  Deep within the memorandum (page 10), we find out that the City may owe FEMA $2,553,000 related to storm recovery costs from 2004 and 2005.  From the memo:

"...given the length of time since the storms and the multiple changes in City staff, there is no one currently with firsthand knowledge of that time period.  The City used private contractors for most of the work.  Those contractors have subsequently been involved in other disputes with the City and have been unwilling to assist the City in providing the FEMA required documentation." 

We found out about this situation as a bomb dropped during a discussion related to improvements to the pier - which are proposed to be shelved for a while as part of these budget adjustments.  We haven't heard anything more about this since.  I am not going to dissect the above statement, but let's just say it is consistent with trait.  And I am sure that if the City is found to owe the Federal government money, it will be due and payable immediately and maybe with a penalty or interest, for good measure.

Just prior to that section of the memo, we are reminded that "...the City has yet to receive a final ruling from the Public Employee's Relations Commission..." related to the City's Declaration of Financial Urgency and that "...the City may be required to make substantial back-payments to employees based on the Union's assertion that the City's declaration of Financial Urgency was unlawful and not justified by economic conditions."  No dollar amount is given for this substantial amount - one presumes it would be in the multi-million dollar range - due and payable yesterday.  True to form, the City Manager includes much of the background of this challenge by the union in the back-up material, adding sufficient padding to the 192 page document.  I sincerely hope people do not feel compelled to print out the "tomes" that come from 7 North Dixie Hwy.

And as long as we are speaking of contingent liabilities, there is no mention of standing lawsuits against the city, legal fees related to their defense and projected outcomes of such court challenges.  The one that immediately comes to mind is the Greater Bay lawsuit, which in my mind should be included in any calculation about the actual cost of the beach and casino project.  Looking down the barrel of a trial, the city recently requested a whole new round of depositions of witnesses, all with an associated price tag.  Earlier in the year, we heard an estimate emerge from the dais that the amount to defend the city would reach $600,000 - that is one-tenth the cost of the NEW casino building.  What is the total now?  What is the likelihood that the city is going to prevail?  What are the range of damages that could be ASSESSED by the court if the city does not prevail?  Where will this money be coming from?  Suddenly the beach project is looking more expensive...and what is the end financing solution again?

What about the spreadsheet of all legal actions with which the city finds itself involved?  Last we knew, one was being prepared by an intern in the law department the city had during the summer.

The point to all this is that the previous City Commission and administration did all they could to keep the lid on information - some of which, if let out, would damage the political prospects of those currently on the dais and those with a vested interest to see that majority was maintained.  Well, that didn't work out too well and one just hopes that a new light will shine into every corner of every city building - including the one occupied by the Lake Worth Community Development Corporation - so that we, the public, finally have a sense of how bad and messed up things really are.  We already had a good idea and it is looking more like a worst case scenario.

More on the suggested cuts later.  Something to make it even more difficult to sleep is that the proposal to be discussed Monday night includes the essential elimination of any meaningful level of reserves.