NOTES
1. We are amused at the notion that employees are entitled to anticipate future reward of salary or benefits even if the employer believes that the top of the pay scale or benefits for some in the organization has become more than it either wants to or can afford to pay. The employer has the right to seek limitations on how much future pay it can afford, and this can certainly be a part of negotiations in a union shop as well as a non union shop. If the agreement is that the top of the scale will be limited, the choice of a lower paid employee who has his or her future prospects curtailed is to find another job that is more to his or her liking. Collective bargaining should benefit of both the employer and the employee, but as already stated, the employee always has the option of working elsewhere if they do not like the deal. Vested rights should not be disturbed, but it is unacceptable to propose that future expectations of grade creep or expansions of higher ranking positions are guaranteed. Keep in mind, any government can abolish a service and buy it elsewhere as long as it is willing to live up to obligations under it existing contracts, whether within or without a union
2. We were curious about the dispute raised in the blog about the fire at Eclectia during hurricane Floyd a few years back. An electrical fire caused the gift shop to be burned. The newspaper reports indicate that during the fire, the fire department did respond and that the wind was so severe fireman could not get water streams to stay on the fire. Further, as we recall, the bridges were closed due to high winds and the only equipment available was on the Beachside. It is likely that the fire department report will resolve any dispute of this and the Shadow will try to get a copy.
3. The Shadow did not think that buying one of the most desirable pieces of property for a new fire station made a lot of sense and thought that expanding the Columbus avenue station made more sense for the City. To expand the Columbus Avenue station might require using eminent domain to acquire a house behind it to provide a drive through arrangement, but that would be would be a more economical. The word on the street was that the City was afraid of the negative publicity from taking a house from a widow who would lose her cheap homestead, but this can not be true because the City could always figure out how to compensate her. The Shadow would like see this decision revisited.
1. We wish the City would start to fix the problems that are vexing and upsetting the taxpayers so that we can spend more time on the rip-offs at the School Board and Bert Fish. Why, just the other day we found out that the Public Relation officer at Halifax Hospital was paid a paltry $75,000, while our Bert Fish PR official is paid $115,000. Now that is interesting, since Bert Fish is clearly a fraction the size of Halifax Hospital (about 4,500 employees). So, we called Halifax and asked for the compensation package of the Public Relations staff, the Comptroller and their Chief Executive Officer. There are two positions vacant at Halifax, Marketing Director at $75,000 and Public Relations Director also at $75,000. The CEO, however, is provided a salary of $450,000 with benefits of about $125,000 (that’s almost $600,000 folks), and the Comptroller receives a salary of $115,000. These salary levels are right in line with the Home Depots $200 million severance package given its most recent former CEO, but they are a for profit private sector company, which Halifax is not!
2. Why is Bert Fish taxing the community for the $400,000 that it forks over to the City Community Development fund? Bert Fish is a minnow compared to the shark, the School Board, which has a voracious appetite for money and a sieve for holding it.
3. We are having a hard time keeping straight the number of issues that are not being addressed by the City, as well as the small things that are nettlesome but will not make or change the world if not addressed immediately. Let's face it. It took 20 years for the City to work its way into most of this mess, but only a couple of years for an incompetent Utilities Commission to figure out how to turn a successful business into a disaster area that they will try to unload at a fire sale price to the only bidder, FPL, who will buy cheap and provide a monopoly service. There is hope that tomorrow night the City Commission will take those bold steps necessary to resuscitate the Utilities Commission, stem what looks like large losses at the golf course, and bring in some experts to come up with a plan to bring the costs of fire and police services to a level that this City can afford. Now is that asking too much from our elected officials?
NSBShadow.com.... Published Weekly, Direct from the Web.
Look to Us for the Latest Intrigues and
Tell Your Friends About Us!
Visitor on this Site This Week.
(Nearly 2000 hits last week. Thank you, enjoy your visit and come back to see more.)
You are:
“Best Blog of the Week”
Monday, 1/1/07, 8:56 PM
D.A.R.E. doesn't work, study finds Students in program used same amount of drugs as others By Jim Avila, NBC News Correspondent CHAPEL HILL, N.C., March 18, 1998-- The D.A.R.E. anti-drug program may be a good idea gone bad. A new study concludes that the program is not working and, in fact, may actually be hurting drug-abuse prevention efforts in some communities. The six- year study followed 1,800 Illinois kids from fifth grade through high school. FOR MORE THAN 23 million children 80 percent of America's schools the nation's antidrug mantra is I pledge to lead a drug- free life. That pledge comes from a program called D.A.R.E., which stands for Drug Abuse Resistance Education. At McDougle Elementary School, in the Carrboro School district of Chapel Hill, N.C., D.A.R.E. is one of the favorite subjects among fifth-graders. Though popular, Chapel Hill is thinking about dropping the class. The body of research about D.A.R.E. says that it has no long-term effect for drug-abuse prevention, said Susan Spalt, the health director for the Carrboro School District. In the most comprehensive study yet on D.A.R.E., researchers followed 1,800 students using techniques endorsed by D.A.R.E. itself. Its author concluded that D.A.R.E. is a waste of money $220 million in tax money and donations last year alone with no beneficial effect on drug use. It hurts me to sit here and tell you that D.A.R.E. does not work, said Dennis Rosenbaum, the author and head of the Criminal Justice Department at the University of Illinois. But it's time for us to go back to the drawing board and figure out how it can be improved or what better ways we can spend our money on drug education in this country. Rosenbaum's six-year study finds that kids in the D.A.R.E. program used the same amount of drugs as others. Perhaps the researcher’s most surprising conclusion: D.A.R.E. actually appears to have an adverse÷ effect on drug activity in suburban communities. Kids in the suburbs who were exposed to the D.A.R.E. program, who participated in D.A.R.E., actually had significantly higher levels of drug use than suburban kids who did not get the D.A.R.E. program, said Rosenbaum. This was very disturbing to us. It's a mystery the researchers say requires further study. Bill Alden, a former U.S. Drug Enforcement agent and spokesman for D.A.R.E., calls the study outrageous.÷ NBC News provided him with a copy and asked him about its findings. I don t have an answer, he said. For its part, D.A.R.E. embraces one study from Ohio State University that says the program does work, if students are given additional anti-drug classes through high school. But an overwhelming majority of students do not take such classes and a dozen other studies have flatly concluded that D.A.R.E. does not deliver on its promise to teach kids to resist drugs. D.A.R.E. officials are pushing to add more programs in junior high and high schools. It's not that D.A.R.E. doesn't work, said Bill Alden, deputy director of D.A.R.E. America. D.A.R.E. does work. But it dissipates. It erodes. What has to happen ... there has to be more, not less. Alden said D.A.R.E. is a popular program. We've got thousands and thousands of principals, he said. Millions of parents say, D.A.R.E. made a difference in my child's life. But the two key federal agencies evaluating drug abuse programs do not recommend D.A.R.E. on their lists of acceptable programs, leaving school districts like Chapel Hill with a difficult choice.
“CO- Best Blog of the Week”
(not am regular Feature)
Craig E. Young
Tuesday, 1/2/07, 6:25 PM
Port Orange, ceay@bellsouth.net
An unnamed writer wrote Tuesday 1/2/07, 4:50 PM, "We cannot fix the property tax problem without fixing the police and fire departments. From the way it looks, next year the property tax money may be down as much as 20%. Something ugly is going to have to happen. We might as well face up to it now.” Well, here in Port Orange, the pension plans for Firemen and Police Officers consume nearly 19 cents out of every property tax dollar collected-but it wasn't always that way. (See chart below) And while property taxes have increased 124 percent since 2001, pension plan costs have increased 2366 percent in that same period! Year Total Property Tax Contributions to Pension Plans % 2005 $10,515,409.00 (pension portion $1,939,433.00 -18.45%); 2004 $8,145,088.00 $1,607,431.00 (19.7% ) 2003 $7,440,383.00 $687,562.00 (9.6%) 2002 $6,903,499.00 $467,412.00 (6.8%); 2001 $6,175,000.00 $107,626.00 (1.7%), (I also suspect that NSB is in this same boat.) But armed with this knowledge, I attended our City's last budget hearing, and noted the above information. All I got from the City Council was a few nods-of a few heads and a Thank-you. Of course, a month later the City Council approved a new Police/Fire Union contract that called for annual 4 percent raises-and NO changes to the pension plans. I guess that means our City Council hasn't faced up to this problem yet! And I have to wonder if they ever will? I also should note that even as the taxpayer's contributions to these Pension Plans have increased so dramatically, the amounts that individual employees contribute to their own retirement have plunged to nearly nothing! All of this largess is courtesy of our own elected leaders! But now you know why the Unions get-out-the-vote for City Council elections! ref. Figures from 2006-2007 are from the City Manager's Budget Memos Figures from 2001-2005 are from Certified Annual Financial Audits on the web @
The Shadow will be pleased to print, unedited, any reply, comment, or article submitted by the Minister, Deacons, or other spokesperson for First United Methodist Church, or the NSB Police Department in response to Mr. Yambor’s blog.
January 8th, 2007
The last meeting of the Personnel Board, City of New Smyrna Beach, was on April 21, 2005… 621 days ago. We will keep a tally until their next meeting.
For more information about the personnel policies of the city, go to the following website: www.cityofnsb.com, click on links, then click on municipal code, when the municipal code appears, scroll down on the left side of the window and click on "appendix A, Personnel Policies”, ENJOY!
THE BEACH
Jan 8, 2007
The Shadow has learned that the State Department of Environmental Protection has offered to pony up $6 million for beach renourishment, but the County before January 11, 2007, must confirm the offer, in writing, or the money will be lost. Our information is that the County has been reluctant to agree to take the money because there may be hidden strings that are binding, and that it may not be clear that the State agency has authority to make the grant. Why will the County not sign? If they do not sign, $6 million allegedly goes down the goes down the chute, and if the State is right, the County taxpayers will pay for their reluctance, particularly, those in the Ponce Inlet Tax District (all taxpayers East of I-95). Can someone explain this to us, maybe Joe Nolan, the beach sand “guru.”
The Beach is being studied and by the end of 2007 there is likely to be an approved plan that will permit the County and State to fund putting that pesky sand back on the denuded portion of New Smyrna's beaches. The formula is 65% County money and 35% State money. The amount bandied about so far has been in the $30 million range. No Federal money because it is stated that the City refused to fund the necessary studies required to prepare a Federal plan. These studies some reason take six to eight years, and they only started last year. We do not know whether this was more of the prior City Manager’s doing, or whether the elected officials made the call. What we do know is that it was delayed, and that the usual beach restoration contribution by the Federal government of 50% will not be available for the first tranche unless our U.S. Senators force the appropriate Federal offices to use the County and State studies. Maybe they could use an earmark!
A PUBLIC SERVICE MESSAGE #1
(COPIED AND EDITED FROM CITYOF NSB.COM WEBSITE)
MAYOR JIM VANDERGRIFFT WILL HOST A TOWN HALL MEETING FROM 9:00 A.M. UNTIL 11:00 A.M. ON SATURDAY MORNING: JANUARY 13, 2007. THE MEETING WILL BE HELD IN THE CONNOR LIBRARY, OLD FORT PARK, LOCATED ACROSS THE STREET FROM CITY HALL ON SAMS AVENUE, NEW SMYRNA BEACH. ALL RESIDENTS ARE INVITED TO ATTEND THIS CASUAL, OLD-FASHIONED MEETING FOR OPEN DISCUSSION OF ANY SUBJECT. RESIDENTS WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOICE THEIR CONCERNS OR OPINIONS OF CITY GOVERNMENT AND SERVICES RECEIVED WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY. YOUR IDEAS COULD HELP US IMPROVE THE WAY THAT WE DO BUSINESS IN OUR CITY. THIS WILL BE A ONE-ON-ONE MEETING! PLEASE PLAN TO ATTEND! THANKS IN ADVANCE FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM YOU, IF NOTHING MORE THAN TO COME BY AND SAY HELLO.
COFFEE AND LIGHT REFRESHMENTS WILL BE AVAILABLE!
ALL YOU BLOGGERS, HERE IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY!
MUST ASK QUESTIONS FOR THE JANUARY 11th JOINT CC/UC WORKSHOP
The City and Utilities Commission have a joint workshop scheduled for Jan 11, 2006. This may prove to be an extremely important meeting if the City Commission steps up to the plate and does their job by demanding answers as outlined below.
It has been about 2 ½ years since Vaden resigned as General Manager of the U C. He resigned stating the City Commission lead by the efforts of Bill Rogers appointed Diesen and Para to the UC. He stated that after speaking with both Diesen and Para he felt they both had personal agendas that would lead to the destruction of the UC. It has been 1 ½ years since Turano was terminated after not following Diesen and Para’s agenda.
On the Telecom side they took a profitable $12 million per year business of which the city was receiving $3/4 million to offset taxes, shut it down, and lost over $9 million in the process.
Please take note of the fact that in FY03 telecom had a profit of $525,000, in FY04 there was a loss of $862,000, prior to the auditor’s adjustments that expensed out an amortized cost of $1.1 million), FY05 showed a loss of $3.5 million, and the auditor moved an additional loss of $1.5 million back into FY04. In FY06, there was a loss of $2.8 million, and in the first month of FY07, the loss was $60,000.
The current plan is to keep the fiber Head End Building, remove all the equipment not internet related, which drastically reduces the value of that asset, and utilize the residual equipment and connectivity to provide only service to City and UC buildings, not the public who pay the bills. If they were unable to run a profitable telecom business, perhaps they can run a successful fiber network for themselves and let the public pay for it through their utility bills. The current plan is a waste of assets, and will lead to additional losses, year after year, that will also be attributed to telecom, another cover up. The Fiber To The Home tangible assets and business should have be sold as a complete package.
On the Electric side, there has been one base-rate increase and two other increases, one attributed to the cost fuel, and the other to the cost of purchasing power shown on the customer’s bill. They have broken a record by making the UCNSB the third highest electric utility among 35 in the state. The stated reason for the base-rate increase was due to customer growth, and that the two increases for fuel and purchased power were due to cost increases for purchasing these two commodities. This is simply not true. The reason for the rate increases is the overall UC cash flow.
Rate stabilization funds for the various utilities were set up several years ago at the request of City Commissioner Hathaway. The reason given for the request was to establish a means for the city to track cash flow at the UC. This turned out to be an excellent tool for the City and UC. In September of 2006, the UC transferred $8.8 million from the electric rate stabilization fund to the telecom; water, wastewater, and reuse water rate stabilization funds to remove the negative balances of these funds. This was the reason for the increase in base-rates.
They also transferred $1.1 million from the fuel and purchased power rate stabilization fund to the Renewal and Replacement fund. Public Service Commission (PSC) tariffs do not allow this practice because it is a surreptitious means of raising electric rates without proper disclosure at public meetings. These transfers account for about 25% of the latest increase in the fuel fund. Natural gas and oil prices have been declining for a year and these decreases will flow down into the UC energy cost. As with the base-rates increase, the only reason for this increase is the overall UC cash flow.
After eliminating $9.9 million in cash reserves held in the rate stabilization funds, they abolished the funds making it difficult for the City to track cash flow. The UC is now funding the entire utility from one general reserve fund that has a negative balance. Cash flow is manipulated by borrowing from funds set up to make debt payments, customer deposits and funds set aside for projects, and so on. In other words, they are borrowing from Peter to pay Paul!
The UC has a debt reduction fund set up by Vaden with a balance of around $1 million to cover future debt payments. The UC received $3 million in payment for a land sale that was ear marked to pay debt that was incurred to purchase acreage west of I95.
The alleged reason for the joint meeting is to discuss building local generation in an effort to convince the City they need more money to burn. This is only a smoke screen to take attention away from the real issues outlined in this article. It is much more costly for a city the size on New Smyrna Beach to generate instead of purchase their electricity. Bottom line,
In summary, the path steered by Diesen and Para over the past 2 ½ years has lead to the demise of the Telecom business. Depletion of $9.9 million in cash reserves, unnecessary increases in the electric rates. Interest income lost from cash reserves leads to rate increases, rate increases lead to fewer purchases, and fewer purchases lead to more rate increases, and so on.
The City Commission should ask questions demanding straight forward answers or the City of New Smyrna can soon boast as having the highest rates in the state.
Questions
1. When the UC determined they could not run the phone business profitable why did they continue to run the business for two years draining the UC reserve funds instead of selling the business as a whole?
2. When the UC determined they could not run the fiber business profitable why did they shut down the TV and phone over FTTH greatly reducing the value of the asset instead of selling the business as a whole.
3. Why is the UC planning on stripping out parts of the equipment and using the Head End for IT and connecting City and UC facilities?
4. Did the UC transfer $8.8 million from the electric rate stabilization fund to cover negative balances in the rate stabilization funds for Telecom, Water, Wastewater, and Reuse and increase electric base rates to cover the transfer?
5. Did the UC transfer $1.1 million from the fuel, purchase power fund to the R&R fund, increase the fuel, and purchase power fund?
6. Did the UC abolish these funds?
7. Are there any plans to use the $1 million debt reduction fund and the $3 million for land sale for any purpose other than debt reduction?it.
ELECTRIC SYSTEM MISMANAGEMENT?
YOU BE THE JUDGE!
The Utilities Commission would like consumers to believe that the increase in electric rates is due to an increase in oil prices or to losses incurred through telecom. That is untrue! The real villain for the increase in rates may be the change in the way power is purchased.
In very broad terms, there are a number of ways to obtain power, some more economical than others. There are fixed power contracts, curtailable power contracts, interchange purchases, and even the possibility of generating one’s own electricity. An efficient utility will use the methods that provide the consumer with the cheapest rates, regardless of the effort it takes to do so, especially a public utility. Unfortunately, efficient methods often cause a great deal of stress on employees, and therefore are not popular with staff.
Until two years ago, UCNSB used curtailable power contracts. This was not a popular choice, but the price of electricity then was the lowest consumers experienced in a decade. Curtailable power contracts require that a utility be ready to start and run its generators within a ½ hour notice. Typically, this happens two to three times every peak season, but saves millions of dollars a year. In reality, the power purchasing system is a very complicated mechanism with many contract layers and the explanation provided in this paper is simplistic so that consumers can follow the process easily.
Firm energy contracts, which the Utility currently uses, typically cost $100,000 a day. A curtailable contract for a 50 MW load costs $75,000 a day. On the rare occasions when generators must be started, the cost for one hour of generating power is $7,500 an hour. However, this only happens for a few days each season. Utilities can only enter into curtailable contracts for the load they can generate, which in the case of the UC is 50 MW. That is why the Generators were purchased and placed at Field Street. When you do the math, a $25,000 savings a day amounts to over $9.1 million a year. Of course, this is not the net savings, because the UC must generate its own power during peak times, which as mentioned above, is very expensive. In any case, the savings amount to millions of dollars per year.
Assuming a savings of $3 million a year, which is a very reasonable number, the cost per 1000 kWh would be reduced by approximately $7.50 per month, or 90.00 per year, based on the 400,459,785 kWh energy load served in the past twelve months. This is a sizable savings per consumer. For consumers with a 2,000 kWh usage, the amount would be $15.00 a month or $180.00 a year. So, for the average ratepayer, that would be a savings of about $100 per year
Is this mismanagement, laziness, or just plain stupidity…You be the judge! It is costing you big bucks on your utility bill.
A PUBLIC SERVICE MESSAGE #2
To All Concerned New Smyrna Beach Community Members:
On January 9th, 2007, the City Commission is scheduled to hear proposed changes to the City's Land Development Regulations titled "Compatibility Requirements.” (See attached copy) This ordinance purports to address concerns of the P&Z Board, City Commission, and residents related to new and infill development that is not compatible with existing development patterns, in terms of character and scale. The ordinance would affect virtually every property in the City, including all non-residential, multi-family, single family, and exterior additions/alterations with construction costs in excess of $2,000. Additionally, its provisions would be above and beyond those already required by existing zoning standards and those of the Corridor Overlay Zone, I-95 and SR 44 Activity Center standards and in some cases would require properties in other areas of the City to comply with additional design guidelines. Entitlements expressly permitted by zoning such as building height, setbacks, and even uses can be overridden by provisions of this ordinance.
Numerous provisions of this ordinance are written in an ambiguous manner and rely on qualitative terms and phrases such as "excessive," "inappropriate," "Use of similar materials in an important way . . .," etc. Additionally, the ordinance leaves the determination of these ambiguous provisions up to the discretion of City staff rather than using clear, easy to understand standards that allow for the charm of diversity and creative expression and avoid the pasteurization of our city's architecture. The world's most famous and most photographed residence, designed by Frank Lloyd Wright and known as Fallingwater, would be discouraged from being built in New Smyrna due to its flat roof (see Section 1007 (e)), even though most of the commercial historic buildings and many residences in town have flat roofs with parapets. Furthermore, an owner or developer may spend thousands of dollars in design and engineering fees only to be told that the project is not compatible in the subjective eyes on the Planning Department, even though it meets all the requirements of the LDC. More importantly, the proposed ordinance does not reference or appear to be based on any comprehensive studies, surveys, or analyses of the various built contexts within the City, nor does it appear to be guided by any specific community-based visioning or policy initiatives. As it is written, the City Planner has the ability to dictate the size, style, and character of every building to be developed in New Smyrna Beach.
In short, an ordinance that is supposed to promote compatibility and variety/diversity in architectural design appears to have little or no analytical foundation, and in many cases, ignores conditions of the built environment that it is intended to protect. As written, this ordinance needs significant modifications or it should be discarded altogether. Due to the broad-reaching scope of the ordinance and its potential impact on nearly any property within the City, we are asking you to contact members of the City Commission immediately to request this matter be removed from the 1/9/2007 Commission agenda, and instead be scheduled for a workshop where concerns can be adequately aired and the ordinance can be better explained.
Issues related to compatibility, community image, and high quality designs are valid and appropriate concerns of the City. However, these issues should only be addressed after a significant amount of data collection, analysis has occurred, and new proposals are guided by the input of all affected residents, businesses, property owners, and community members. Immediately contact the City Commission and demand postponement of the 1/9/2007 first reading and request a workshop for the proposed ordinance. Contact information is included below:
Mayors/City Commission Office: 386-424-2112 or e-mail jlowry@cityofnsb.com
Sincerely,
SCHWEITZER*WALDROFF ARCHITECTS, INC.
137 Canal Street
New Smyrna Beach, FL 32168
Website: swansb.com
(386) 426*0456 VOICE
(386) 426*5018 FAX
WHAT THE SHADOW GOT FOR THE HOLIDAYS
1. Greater Public awareness of the issues concerning the City of New Smyrna Beach, Volusia County, and the State of Florida.
2. Utility Commission ratepayers understanding how the mismanagement of the New Smyrna Utilities Commission over the past two years has cost the ratepayers millions of dollars and that the mismanagement falls totally upon the current Commissioners and its general manager to whom the Commissioners recently gave a raise, possibly for losing more money than they thought possible.
3. A public discussion of the disgraceful hiring practices of the City and the totally unjustified salary gift to the “greens keeper” for whom it seem the major green he has kept is taxpayer dollars.
4. Hearing from Terri Roberts in a posting that she will answer questions about her ex-husband, you know the ex City Manager, if she is questioned.
5. Councilman Jack Hayman won, Barbara Herrin lost, Jeannie Diesen and Gracie Barck lost by supporting a loser against an incumbent--We thought they were Republicans!
6. A lot of interesting documents and embarrassing e-mails to share with readers.
