Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Monday, November 29, 2010
Amended City Council Special Meeting Agenda
The City Council Special Meeting Agenda for tonight's meeting, November 29, 2010, has a last minute addition under B. NEW BUSINESS. City Council Special Meeting Ammended Agenda
Please try to attend this very important meeting. Thank You.
Please try to attend this very important meeting. Thank You.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Important Meeting Monday, November 29th at 6:00 PM
If you are wondering what meeting we are talking about, you are not the only one.
If you have not been to the Post Office over the last few days, or have been out of town over the holiday weekend, you more than likely did not hear about it. No "complimentary notification" was sent out to those individuals who have opted in to receive emails from the City for their meeting agendas. No notice was posted on the City's Official web page, and we were not even able to find a record of this meeting agenda in the city archives. The link here is to a picture we took of the posting in the post office so you all can have a copy and know what to expect. November 29, 2010 Special City Council Meeting Agenda
By the lack of notices sent out, this is more than likely a meeting you DO NOT want to miss. Why is the city being so sneaky about this meeting? Technically, they did put out notification, at the post office, but obviously they didn't want too many people to see it.
The most important item on this agenda is the "New Business" item #2, Outsourcing of Operations for Water and Wastewater. This is a big deal and can substantially impact all Polk City Utility customers residing both in City limits and in the county. Have the Council members been given ample time to research this new contract? Where and when was this request for sealed bids advertised for the past 30 days, as required by Ordinance 2010-09. Were at least 3 sealed bids received before this contract is going to be considered? If the city does end up going under, will the County be bound to this new contract the City will be considering? We need to know! Will the city residents be the ones stuck paying high rates for the remainder of the contract? Will the public be able to get these questioned answered or will we be forbidden to speak once again!!
PLEASE TRY TO ATTEND THIS VERY IMPORTANT MEETING.
If you have not been to the Post Office over the last few days, or have been out of town over the holiday weekend, you more than likely did not hear about it. No "complimentary notification" was sent out to those individuals who have opted in to receive emails from the City for their meeting agendas. No notice was posted on the City's Official web page, and we were not even able to find a record of this meeting agenda in the city archives. The link here is to a picture we took of the posting in the post office so you all can have a copy and know what to expect. November 29, 2010 Special City Council Meeting Agenda
By the lack of notices sent out, this is more than likely a meeting you DO NOT want to miss. Why is the city being so sneaky about this meeting? Technically, they did put out notification, at the post office, but obviously they didn't want too many people to see it.
The most important item on this agenda is the "New Business" item #2, Outsourcing of Operations for Water and Wastewater. This is a big deal and can substantially impact all Polk City Utility customers residing both in City limits and in the county. Have the Council members been given ample time to research this new contract? Where and when was this request for sealed bids advertised for the past 30 days, as required by Ordinance 2010-09. Were at least 3 sealed bids received before this contract is going to be considered? If the city does end up going under, will the County be bound to this new contract the City will be considering? We need to know! Will the city residents be the ones stuck paying high rates for the remainder of the contract? Will the public be able to get these questioned answered or will we be forbidden to speak once again!!
PLEASE TRY TO ATTEND THIS VERY IMPORTANT MEETING.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Wishing you a Happy Thanksgiving
We would like to thank all of our readers for your continued support and wish you and your families a Happy Thanksgiving. Take time to enjoy the simple things and appreciate all of God's blessings.
Sincerely,
Concerned Citizens of Polk City
Monday, November 22, 2010
Unlimited Billing and Questionable Practices for GAI and Tom Cloud
We've done some further research into the relationship between Attorney Tom Cloud, a partner in the Gray/Robinson Law Firm, and Mr. Gerald Hartman, Vice-President of GAI Consultants, Inc., both from Orlando. They have been working together as a team for many years in handling sewer/water disputes and consultations for towns in Florida. Like ambulance-chasers, these guys refer business to each other when they see a vulnerable situation where there is a lot of money to be made. Tom Cloud uses Gerald Hartman as an expert witness in his legal disputes in the courts, and Gerald Hartman recommends Tom Cloud when his contracts require legal advice. Many of the small municipalities do not have experienced city officials, and rely blindly on the advice of these "highly experienced" professionals with very impressive resumes.
But this experience comes at a price, and in most cases this price is very unpredictable, even if a contract is signed. As in the case of a joint utility committee that was composed of Indian River County, the Town of Indian River Shores, and the City of Vero Beach hiring GAI to provide a comprehensive evaluation of complete consolidation, partial consolidation, or status quo for the water, wastewater, and reuse systems that exist within the three jurisdictions. The County decided not to participate in the study, and Vero Beach and Indian River Shores entered into separate contracts with GAI Consultants and Attorney Tom Cloud as a legal consultant.
GAI was retained by the Town of Indian River Shores on July 22, 2010 to negotiate a franchise agreement and purchase and sale agreement for the Town. On August 17, 2010 The City of Vero Beach entered into a similar agreement with GAI. Here is a link to the "estimated" costs of these services, both from Tom Cloud and Gerald Hartman for GAI. Utility Management Consulting Fees. Page 2 of the link gives the background for the study, and Page 4 shows the agreement entered into with the City of Vero Beach. Mr. Hartman then approached Tom Cloud, of Gray/Robinson Law Firm to represent GAI Consultants regarding certain services for the City of Vero Beach. If you scroll down to Pages 9-11 you will see Tom Cloud's letter addressed to Gerald C. Hartman of GAI Consultants, Inc. discussing his fees for this particular case. He states, "an initial estimate would be a range between $25,000 to $35,000, not including litigation fees and costs." This contract is very open-ended since his, "firm charges for services on an hourly basis." He goes on to say that, "I will be primarily responsible for all matters, but we reserve the right to utilize other members of the firm whenever, in our discretion, we deem it appropriate." "Further, computer research, and other technology may also be utilized if and when appropriate and in your best interest. You will be billed for the use of the same." He also states that, "we have a legitimate business concern in being paid in a timely fashion."
On page 1 of the above link, the GAI Proposal to perform Utility Management Consulting Services is in the amount of $49,900.00. Page 8 of the same link shows the rate schedule for GAI Consultants, Inc. Environmental Group. GAI entered into an agreement with both the Town of Indian River Shores and the City of Vero Beach separately and simultaneously over the same issues. Conflict of interest issues were raised prior to entering into these contracts, but GAI insisted that this was not going to be a problem, due to his professionalism.
On November 18, 2010 the VeroBeach32963.com website published the following article:
Double Billing Issues with GAI This article reported that invoices GAI Consultants sent to the Shores and to Vero had the same 4 consultants working for both parties, including possibly billing them for reviewing work the Shores had done themselves. Based on the article in the VeroBeach32963.com article, Shores Councilman Gerard Weick made a motion which passed, to hold up payment until the GAI Consultants clear up the charges at the October 28, 2010 Town Council Meeting.
Statements were also made that GAI favored the City of Vero Beach in their evaluations. In this link, 3-Way Water/Sewer Talks May End in Consolidation, "GAI's Gerald Hartman, an engineering consultant who is recommending Shores residents cast their lots with Vero, glossed over two important factors..the financial strength of the competing bidders and projected long-term rate stability." "GAI did not even raise the fact that Vero's rates were slated to rise drastically over the next five years until the last City Council rescinded the rate increases. The decision was made with no financial analysis or modeling of the aging system's capital needs going forward." An angered County Commissioner, Peter O'Bryan, also noted that GAI provided the Shores proposal to Vero Beach before any member of the Shores Council got a look at it.
"The county claims the Shores' consultant, GAI, sent the county a proposal so riddled with legal quandaries and impossible deadlines that it could not even respond." "The proposal as written would have required the county to purchase the Town's assets, purchase Vero's assets in the Town and be ready to service the Town by Jan. 31, 2011, not withstanding the fact that Vero Beach still has a franchise to serve the Town until Nov. 2, 2016. County Commission Chairman Bob Solari, directly connects the problems with the proposal sent to the county to the fact that GAI is working for both Vero Beach and Indian River Shores. "We certainly do see it as a conflict of interest," Solari said. "In any event, by any standard that I grew up with in N.Y. and have come to understand in Florida, in no way you can say this is in any way a level playing field."
"We are very anxious to work with the county to discuss the consolidation of the water and sewer systems," said Vero Beach Mayor Jay Kramer, noting that he sees consolidation as a way to "drive the costs down."
"Throughout GAI's presentation to the Town, Hartman reminded council members and the audience of his four decades of experience, his credentials as a certified appraiser and his vast knowledge in the field of utilities." (Sound familiar??) "That only led critics to suggest Hartman should have known better than to write a flawed proposal to the county."
With Mr. Hartman always touting his expertise, will anyone question his "facts" and "findings"? Why did Mr. Hartman write a study blatantly favoring Vero Beach and did not include key factors which would have substantial impact on the study? Were they paying him more money? Do we really want a company that operates with questionable ethics working for Polk City? We think NOT!! Is Mr. Hartman going to approach Polk County to utilize his expertise for a utility study next?
But this experience comes at a price, and in most cases this price is very unpredictable, even if a contract is signed. As in the case of a joint utility committee that was composed of Indian River County, the Town of Indian River Shores, and the City of Vero Beach hiring GAI to provide a comprehensive evaluation of complete consolidation, partial consolidation, or status quo for the water, wastewater, and reuse systems that exist within the three jurisdictions. The County decided not to participate in the study, and Vero Beach and Indian River Shores entered into separate contracts with GAI Consultants and Attorney Tom Cloud as a legal consultant.
GAI was retained by the Town of Indian River Shores on July 22, 2010 to negotiate a franchise agreement and purchase and sale agreement for the Town. On August 17, 2010 The City of Vero Beach entered into a similar agreement with GAI. Here is a link to the "estimated" costs of these services, both from Tom Cloud and Gerald Hartman for GAI. Utility Management Consulting Fees. Page 2 of the link gives the background for the study, and Page 4 shows the agreement entered into with the City of Vero Beach. Mr. Hartman then approached Tom Cloud, of Gray/Robinson Law Firm to represent GAI Consultants regarding certain services for the City of Vero Beach. If you scroll down to Pages 9-11 you will see Tom Cloud's letter addressed to Gerald C. Hartman of GAI Consultants, Inc. discussing his fees for this particular case. He states, "an initial estimate would be a range between $25,000 to $35,000, not including litigation fees and costs." This contract is very open-ended since his, "firm charges for services on an hourly basis." He goes on to say that, "I will be primarily responsible for all matters, but we reserve the right to utilize other members of the firm whenever, in our discretion, we deem it appropriate." "Further, computer research, and other technology may also be utilized if and when appropriate and in your best interest. You will be billed for the use of the same." He also states that, "we have a legitimate business concern in being paid in a timely fashion."
On page 1 of the above link, the GAI Proposal to perform Utility Management Consulting Services is in the amount of $49,900.00. Page 8 of the same link shows the rate schedule for GAI Consultants, Inc. Environmental Group. GAI entered into an agreement with both the Town of Indian River Shores and the City of Vero Beach separately and simultaneously over the same issues. Conflict of interest issues were raised prior to entering into these contracts, but GAI insisted that this was not going to be a problem, due to his professionalism.
On November 18, 2010 the VeroBeach32963.com website published the following article:
Double Billing Issues with GAI This article reported that invoices GAI Consultants sent to the Shores and to Vero had the same 4 consultants working for both parties, including possibly billing them for reviewing work the Shores had done themselves. Based on the article in the VeroBeach32963.com article, Shores Councilman Gerard Weick made a motion which passed, to hold up payment until the GAI Consultants clear up the charges at the October 28, 2010 Town Council Meeting.
Statements were also made that GAI favored the City of Vero Beach in their evaluations. In this link, 3-Way Water/Sewer Talks May End in Consolidation, "GAI's Gerald Hartman, an engineering consultant who is recommending Shores residents cast their lots with Vero, glossed over two important factors..the financial strength of the competing bidders and projected long-term rate stability." "GAI did not even raise the fact that Vero's rates were slated to rise drastically over the next five years until the last City Council rescinded the rate increases. The decision was made with no financial analysis or modeling of the aging system's capital needs going forward." An angered County Commissioner, Peter O'Bryan, also noted that GAI provided the Shores proposal to Vero Beach before any member of the Shores Council got a look at it.
"The county claims the Shores' consultant, GAI, sent the county a proposal so riddled with legal quandaries and impossible deadlines that it could not even respond." "The proposal as written would have required the county to purchase the Town's assets, purchase Vero's assets in the Town and be ready to service the Town by Jan. 31, 2011, not withstanding the fact that Vero Beach still has a franchise to serve the Town until Nov. 2, 2016. County Commission Chairman Bob Solari, directly connects the problems with the proposal sent to the county to the fact that GAI is working for both Vero Beach and Indian River Shores. "We certainly do see it as a conflict of interest," Solari said. "In any event, by any standard that I grew up with in N.Y. and have come to understand in Florida, in no way you can say this is in any way a level playing field."
"We are very anxious to work with the county to discuss the consolidation of the water and sewer systems," said Vero Beach Mayor Jay Kramer, noting that he sees consolidation as a way to "drive the costs down."
"Throughout GAI's presentation to the Town, Hartman reminded council members and the audience of his four decades of experience, his credentials as a certified appraiser and his vast knowledge in the field of utilities." (Sound familiar??) "That only led critics to suggest Hartman should have known better than to write a flawed proposal to the county."
With Mr. Hartman always touting his expertise, will anyone question his "facts" and "findings"? Why did Mr. Hartman write a study blatantly favoring Vero Beach and did not include key factors which would have substantial impact on the study? Were they paying him more money? Do we really want a company that operates with questionable ethics working for Polk City? We think NOT!! Is Mr. Hartman going to approach Polk County to utilize his expertise for a utility study next?
Friday, November 19, 2010
Magnitude of Polk City Utility Overbilling Revealed
We have sited one specific example of gross over-billing on our blog back on November 15, 2010 in this post: Proof of Utility Meter Software Problems and Gross Incompetence
Based on statements in the November 8th, 2010 City Council Meeting made by the Temporary Utility Consultant from FGUA, Mr. Sanderson, we had confirmation that there were system-wide issues with the water meters. We had no idea how widespread the system problems were or to what magnitude until now.
A public records request was made to the city requesting:
1) Total gallons billed per month for Polk City Utilities, including breakdowns of total water, total sewer and total irrigation - For billing cycles May, 2009, through October, 2010.
2) Monthly reports from the meters at the well heads showing number of gallons of water pumped for Polk City Utilities - For May, 2009, through October, 2010.
Here is the PDF file containing the requested information received from the City on November 17th, 2010. Monthly Billing Summary for Polk City Utilities
If total gallons pumped exceeds total gallons billed, this can be explained by instances where the water system might be flushed out, the fire department uses water to put out a fire, or flushing fire hydrants. When total gallons billed exceeds total gallons pumped out of the ground, the only explanation is over-billing. Essentially, utility customers are getting billed for water that is supposedly passing through their water meters, but that volume of water never was even pumped out of the ground by city utilities equipment!
This report shows that between the time frame of June 10, 2009, to present, there were only 4 months where the gallons pumped exceeded the gallons billed, the rest of the time the gallons billed far exceeded the gallons pumped. Over the 18 months we received data on, on average utility customers are getting over-billed over 10 MILLIONS GALLONS per month!! The most extreme month was back in July of 2009. That month alone, gallons billed exceeded gallons pumped by over 95 MILLION GALLONS!! This is quite significant considering in the August 17, 2010, City Council Workshop minutes, Pam Lawson, the City Finance Administrator stated that there are approximately 2,000 water users and approximately 900-1000 sewer users. Don't forget, the accounts with both water and sewer get double billed for both gallons in and out.
How much UNEARNED revenue this over billing has generated for Polk City over the years, one can only guess. Even if we figure it conservatively, just for over-billing for the month of July, 2009, at the lowest increment of the 1-6000 gallons usage rate schedule at the old rates of $1.74 per 1000 gallons, this over billing would have generated an extra $166,000 for the city that month. Just looking at July, 2010, to present, when the new 62% higher rates are effective, on average the customers were over-billed approximately 16.5 million gallons per month. Conservatively figured, this over-billed 16.5 Million gallons per month at the 1-6000 gallon usage rate of $2.62 per 1000 gallons comes to an extra $43,000 every month in extra unearned revenue for the city. You know that not all of these extra gallons are being charged at the lowest usage rate, so this figure could actually be significantly higher.
In a City Workshop on April 20th, 2010, Pam Lawson, the City's Finance Administrator stated that on average 40-45 customers per month get their water shut off for late or non-payment. Each customer is then charged a disconnect, reconnect, and late charge totaling an additional $105, bringing in an average of $4,725 extra revenue per month. Since the the 62% rate increase effective July, 2010, the number of shut-offs each month has likely increased. Over the July 4th weekend, 2009, over 200 customers ended up getting their water shut off because the deadline for late payment, July 5th, landed on a Sunday. A line of people were standing at city hall to pay their utility bills when the offices re-opened Monday morning. They were told that if they had only dropped their payment in the drop box instead of paying in person, they could have avoided the $105 in fees. No exceptions were made. That month, the city made over $21,000 extra revenue on those 200 plus customers who got their water shut off. Some customers were so angry they are now on a list of individuals who are banned from entering city hall because of the threats that were made. Is this any way to run a utility system that supplies a life sustaining service?
The city is having severe difficulty paying it's bills now with the benefit of all this extra revenue, it is basically stealing from its utility customers. There is no possible way the city would be able to afford to operate if it charged ONLY for ACTUAL services it provides it's utility customers. If this happened at a gas pump, and there was proof the business owner knew this level of error was occurring on a regular basis, the gas station would be shut down and more than likely the owner/operator would face criminal charges. The same should happen to Polk City!
Which figures will this new $43,000 utility study be using to show revenue flow? Actual or Inflated? Why are the existing utility studies which were done at NO CHARGE TO THE CITY by both Hydro Solutions, in November 2009, and FGUA, in Spring of 2010, not being used? Obviously, these rather recent studies would reflect a more realistic population growth projection than the study previously done in 2006, which was mentioned at the November 15th, 2010, Workshop as being outdated and inaccurate. The only major change that might need to be added is this year's 62% rate increase. Maybe the results of these studies do not show the city in a favorable light enabling City Attorney, Tom Cloud, to use them as supporting documentation to argue for the city to maintain the utility system. With Mr. Hartman's impressive credentials, from GAI, would anyone even question the accuracy of his new study? Mr. Tom Cloud sure spoke very highly of previous dealings with Mr. Hartman when he had been an expert witness for him in other cases involving utility issues.
The City did not entertain any other quotes or bids from other companies for this study before agreeing to give this job to GAI. As REQUIRED by the recently approved, on November 8, 2010, Resolution 2010-09, states:
Section 3 – Sealed Bids
The City Manager shall advertise for and receive sealed bids for purchases or contracts in excess of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) and present the same to the City Council with a recommendation. If the City Manager recommends the acceptance of a bid other than the bid with the lowest total price, the reason for the recommendation shall be given.
Does our new City Attorney suffer from short term memory issues? Why did Mr. Cloud encourage the council to approve getting this study done with GAI when there were no other bids even submitted or considered. There were never any advertisements placed for this job, either. He was present at both meetings so he would know that this resolution was just approved unanimously the week before. This vote for the GAI study should be thrown out due to this violation.
Based on statements in the November 8th, 2010 City Council Meeting made by the Temporary Utility Consultant from FGUA, Mr. Sanderson, we had confirmation that there were system-wide issues with the water meters. We had no idea how widespread the system problems were or to what magnitude until now.
A public records request was made to the city requesting:
1) Total gallons billed per month for Polk City Utilities, including breakdowns of total water, total sewer and total irrigation - For billing cycles May, 2009, through October, 2010.
2) Monthly reports from the meters at the well heads showing number of gallons of water pumped for Polk City Utilities - For May, 2009, through October, 2010.
Here is the PDF file containing the requested information received from the City on November 17th, 2010. Monthly Billing Summary for Polk City Utilities
If total gallons pumped exceeds total gallons billed, this can be explained by instances where the water system might be flushed out, the fire department uses water to put out a fire, or flushing fire hydrants. When total gallons billed exceeds total gallons pumped out of the ground, the only explanation is over-billing. Essentially, utility customers are getting billed for water that is supposedly passing through their water meters, but that volume of water never was even pumped out of the ground by city utilities equipment!
This report shows that between the time frame of June 10, 2009, to present, there were only 4 months where the gallons pumped exceeded the gallons billed, the rest of the time the gallons billed far exceeded the gallons pumped. Over the 18 months we received data on, on average utility customers are getting over-billed over 10 MILLIONS GALLONS per month!! The most extreme month was back in July of 2009. That month alone, gallons billed exceeded gallons pumped by over 95 MILLION GALLONS!! This is quite significant considering in the August 17, 2010, City Council Workshop minutes, Pam Lawson, the City Finance Administrator stated that there are approximately 2,000 water users and approximately 900-1000 sewer users. Don't forget, the accounts with both water and sewer get double billed for both gallons in and out.
How much UNEARNED revenue this over billing has generated for Polk City over the years, one can only guess. Even if we figure it conservatively, just for over-billing for the month of July, 2009, at the lowest increment of the 1-6000 gallons usage rate schedule at the old rates of $1.74 per 1000 gallons, this over billing would have generated an extra $166,000 for the city that month. Just looking at July, 2010, to present, when the new 62% higher rates are effective, on average the customers were over-billed approximately 16.5 million gallons per month. Conservatively figured, this over-billed 16.5 Million gallons per month at the 1-6000 gallon usage rate of $2.62 per 1000 gallons comes to an extra $43,000 every month in extra unearned revenue for the city. You know that not all of these extra gallons are being charged at the lowest usage rate, so this figure could actually be significantly higher.
In a City Workshop on April 20th, 2010, Pam Lawson, the City's Finance Administrator stated that on average 40-45 customers per month get their water shut off for late or non-payment. Each customer is then charged a disconnect, reconnect, and late charge totaling an additional $105, bringing in an average of $4,725 extra revenue per month. Since the the 62% rate increase effective July, 2010, the number of shut-offs each month has likely increased. Over the July 4th weekend, 2009, over 200 customers ended up getting their water shut off because the deadline for late payment, July 5th, landed on a Sunday. A line of people were standing at city hall to pay their utility bills when the offices re-opened Monday morning. They were told that if they had only dropped their payment in the drop box instead of paying in person, they could have avoided the $105 in fees. No exceptions were made. That month, the city made over $21,000 extra revenue on those 200 plus customers who got their water shut off. Some customers were so angry they are now on a list of individuals who are banned from entering city hall because of the threats that were made. Is this any way to run a utility system that supplies a life sustaining service?
The city is having severe difficulty paying it's bills now with the benefit of all this extra revenue, it is basically stealing from its utility customers. There is no possible way the city would be able to afford to operate if it charged ONLY for ACTUAL services it provides it's utility customers. If this happened at a gas pump, and there was proof the business owner knew this level of error was occurring on a regular basis, the gas station would be shut down and more than likely the owner/operator would face criminal charges. The same should happen to Polk City!
Which figures will this new $43,000 utility study be using to show revenue flow? Actual or Inflated? Why are the existing utility studies which were done at NO CHARGE TO THE CITY by both Hydro Solutions, in November 2009, and FGUA, in Spring of 2010, not being used? Obviously, these rather recent studies would reflect a more realistic population growth projection than the study previously done in 2006, which was mentioned at the November 15th, 2010, Workshop as being outdated and inaccurate. The only major change that might need to be added is this year's 62% rate increase. Maybe the results of these studies do not show the city in a favorable light enabling City Attorney, Tom Cloud, to use them as supporting documentation to argue for the city to maintain the utility system. With Mr. Hartman's impressive credentials, from GAI, would anyone even question the accuracy of his new study? Mr. Tom Cloud sure spoke very highly of previous dealings with Mr. Hartman when he had been an expert witness for him in other cases involving utility issues.
The City did not entertain any other quotes or bids from other companies for this study before agreeing to give this job to GAI. As REQUIRED by the recently approved, on November 8, 2010, Resolution 2010-09, states:
Section 3 – Sealed Bids
The City Manager shall advertise for and receive sealed bids for purchases or contracts in excess of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) and present the same to the City Council with a recommendation. If the City Manager recommends the acceptance of a bid other than the bid with the lowest total price, the reason for the recommendation shall be given.
Does our new City Attorney suffer from short term memory issues? Why did Mr. Cloud encourage the council to approve getting this study done with GAI when there were no other bids even submitted or considered. There were never any advertisements placed for this job, either. He was present at both meetings so he would know that this resolution was just approved unanimously the week before. This vote for the GAI study should be thrown out due to this violation.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
City Hall Open Only 2 Days Next Week
Just a friendly reminder that the Utility Office at City Hall will only be open for business next week on Monday from 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM and Tuesday from 9:00 AM - 1:00 PM due to the Thanksgiving Holiday. Since Thanksgiving falls on November 25th this year, be sure to pay your utility bills by Tuesday, November 23 to avoid the $5.00 late charge.
There are two payment drop boxes located in the City Hall parking lot where you can deposit your payment in the form of a check or money order only.
There are two payment drop boxes located in the City Hall parking lot where you can deposit your payment in the form of a check or money order only.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Possible Flaws in Polk City's Master Utility Plan
The latest Ledger article states, "Polk City Wants Master Plan To Map Its Struggling Utilities' Future."
In case you were unable to attend the Special City Council Meeting this past Monday, November 15th, 2010, there were proposals discussed to get a set of utility studies done on the existing city utility systems. At a cost of $43,000, the council approved to hire experts at GAI Consultants of Orlando to do the set of 5 studies. The 5 studies to be done are:
At face value, this sounds wonderful. But Councilman Kimsey had a very valid point when he questioned the timing of getting this study done now, when there is a possibility that the County may be taking back the Mt. Olive Utility System within the next year by voiding the contract signed with the city back in 2008. If this happens then the "plan" that GAI will be suggesting will be worthless.
From our perspective there are additional issues that have not been brought up before voting on going forward with this study. Public questions were not permitted at this past Monday's meeting. The first is regarding the numerous meter reading errors occurring system wide, as stated by Utility Expert Mr. Sanderson from FGUA. If the misreading is challenged by the customer, are they simply being resolved by issuing a monetary credit to the account? Are the meter readings for usage in the system being adjusted to reflect numbers closer to the actual usage, instead of the extremely inflated usage numbers that are originally being billed? If not, how is this study going to even be close to accurate? This is not taking into consideration how many other misreadings are happening which are not being challenged or corrected.
This reminds me of a common phase used in computer lingo, "Garbage in; Garbage out." If inaccurate numbers are being used in the calculations of this $43,000 study, the answers resulting from these calculations which will be used to base all of GAI's recommendations on will also be inaccurate. In the example we sited in this previous blog post Proof of Utility Meter Software Problems and Gross Incompetence a customer was charged for approximately 15 times more than his actual usage. Mr. Hartman, from GAI, spoke quite a bit about when customers' actual usage exceeds what is typically expected when they put in a meter, which is what the impact fees are based upon. He stated that if customers excessively use the resources, it will raise the cost for everyone on the system. How can he accurately get these calculations when the meters are consistently providing inaccurate inflated data? Does that mean that the software glitches causing these misreadings will ultimately end up with the false appearance of justifying further rate increases, when actual usage is far less, in reality justifying a dramatic rate decrease? Is the study going to show that in just this ONE example 44,000 gallons of water and sewer usage went unpaid? How will this effect the balance sheets when all of these monetary corrections have been made without the usage corrections and the total amount of gallons used shows God knows how many millions of gallons unpaid for? The math will be so messed up there will be no way to even be close to reality. How can this study move forward knowing that these errors exist?
Understandably, the City Attorney, Mr. Tom Cloud would be greatly assisted by having data that a study like this can provide. The county is challenging the city's ability to financially support such a utility system as well as questioning the fairness of current utility rates. This study will shed light on both these issues assisting Mr. Cloud to have "facts" to base his arguments on. If this entire study is done using inaccurate data to begin with, the tax payers are spending $43,000 for a study that will result in additional inaccurate data on which these arguments will be based. This study may also be used as a delay tactic in the new phase of discussions with the County to resolve these issues, since this study is expected to take 90 days or more to complete.
In addition, some of our sources have indicated that County Officials have already notified State Agencies of the City's delinquencies on it's payments to the County. If our sources are correct, it is likely that the guidelines in this state statute 218.503 Determination of financial emergency will be followed. Is this one of the reasons why City Attorney, Mr. Cloud stressed such a need for a study right now and not waiting a few months, as suggested by Councilman Kimsey? Instead of the city officials using the "shoot from the hip" strategies for decisions, are actual facts and plans to justify these decisions now being requested by the Governor's Office?
Another point that was brought up during this meeting is that no other similar study has ever been done on Polk City's utility system in the last 15-20 years. Council Person Adorno challenged this statement by saying that a utility system study had been done at a cost of several million dollars during the previous administration in the planning stages of the large sewer and water treatment plant that was scraped. Ms. Block later then acknowledged that a previous study had been done, but stated it was not a priority to find it in the files.
In case you were unable to attend the Special City Council Meeting this past Monday, November 15th, 2010, there were proposals discussed to get a set of utility studies done on the existing city utility systems. At a cost of $43,000, the council approved to hire experts at GAI Consultants of Orlando to do the set of 5 studies. The 5 studies to be done are:
- Wastewater Operational Optimization Study
- Water Operational Optimization Study
- Water and Wastewater Revenue Sufficiency Study
- Water and Wastewater Financial Optimization Study
- Water and Wastewater Rate Study
At face value, this sounds wonderful. But Councilman Kimsey had a very valid point when he questioned the timing of getting this study done now, when there is a possibility that the County may be taking back the Mt. Olive Utility System within the next year by voiding the contract signed with the city back in 2008. If this happens then the "plan" that GAI will be suggesting will be worthless.
From our perspective there are additional issues that have not been brought up before voting on going forward with this study. Public questions were not permitted at this past Monday's meeting. The first is regarding the numerous meter reading errors occurring system wide, as stated by Utility Expert Mr. Sanderson from FGUA. If the misreading is challenged by the customer, are they simply being resolved by issuing a monetary credit to the account? Are the meter readings for usage in the system being adjusted to reflect numbers closer to the actual usage, instead of the extremely inflated usage numbers that are originally being billed? If not, how is this study going to even be close to accurate? This is not taking into consideration how many other misreadings are happening which are not being challenged or corrected.
This reminds me of a common phase used in computer lingo, "Garbage in; Garbage out." If inaccurate numbers are being used in the calculations of this $43,000 study, the answers resulting from these calculations which will be used to base all of GAI's recommendations on will also be inaccurate. In the example we sited in this previous blog post Proof of Utility Meter Software Problems and Gross Incompetence a customer was charged for approximately 15 times more than his actual usage. Mr. Hartman, from GAI, spoke quite a bit about when customers' actual usage exceeds what is typically expected when they put in a meter, which is what the impact fees are based upon. He stated that if customers excessively use the resources, it will raise the cost for everyone on the system. How can he accurately get these calculations when the meters are consistently providing inaccurate inflated data? Does that mean that the software glitches causing these misreadings will ultimately end up with the false appearance of justifying further rate increases, when actual usage is far less, in reality justifying a dramatic rate decrease? Is the study going to show that in just this ONE example 44,000 gallons of water and sewer usage went unpaid? How will this effect the balance sheets when all of these monetary corrections have been made without the usage corrections and the total amount of gallons used shows God knows how many millions of gallons unpaid for? The math will be so messed up there will be no way to even be close to reality. How can this study move forward knowing that these errors exist?
Understandably, the City Attorney, Mr. Tom Cloud would be greatly assisted by having data that a study like this can provide. The county is challenging the city's ability to financially support such a utility system as well as questioning the fairness of current utility rates. This study will shed light on both these issues assisting Mr. Cloud to have "facts" to base his arguments on. If this entire study is done using inaccurate data to begin with, the tax payers are spending $43,000 for a study that will result in additional inaccurate data on which these arguments will be based. This study may also be used as a delay tactic in the new phase of discussions with the County to resolve these issues, since this study is expected to take 90 days or more to complete.
In addition, some of our sources have indicated that County Officials have already notified State Agencies of the City's delinquencies on it's payments to the County. If our sources are correct, it is likely that the guidelines in this state statute 218.503 Determination of financial emergency will be followed. Is this one of the reasons why City Attorney, Mr. Cloud stressed such a need for a study right now and not waiting a few months, as suggested by Councilman Kimsey? Instead of the city officials using the "shoot from the hip" strategies for decisions, are actual facts and plans to justify these decisions now being requested by the Governor's Office?
Another point that was brought up during this meeting is that no other similar study has ever been done on Polk City's utility system in the last 15-20 years. Council Person Adorno challenged this statement by saying that a utility system study had been done at a cost of several million dollars during the previous administration in the planning stages of the large sewer and water treatment plant that was scraped. Ms. Block later then acknowledged that a previous study had been done, but stated it was not a priority to find it in the files.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
County BOCC Meeting in Bartow on November 16th
The meeting today at the county was pretty uneventful in regards to the Polk City issue, number 19 on the agenda. County Attorney Michael Craig read the proposal for the resolution about the Florida Governmental Conflict Resolution Act. Details of this resolution can be found in this previous post: Next Step in Mt. Olive Utility System Takeback to be Discussed at County Meeting
There was no discussion amongst the board members on the topic before the vote. There was no opportunity for public discussion. The motion passed with a unanimous vote of 5-0.
There was no discussion amongst the board members on the topic before the vote. There was no opportunity for public discussion. The motion passed with a unanimous vote of 5-0.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Mediation Next Stop For Dispute Between County, Polk City
Ledger article about County meeting on Tuesday, November 16th, in Bartow.
Mediation Next Stop For Dispute Between County, Polk City
Mediation Next Stop For Dispute Between County, Polk City
Proof of Utility Meter Software Problems and Gross Incompetence
Here is a copy of someone's October 2010 water/sewer bill. The name, address, and account number have been digitally removed to protect the individual's identity.
This individual has no water leaks and when reading the meter manually on 11/14/2010, the utility customer figures that they should have been charged 3,000 gallons on the water/sewer meter and 2,000 on the irrigation meter. This is the 2nd time this individual has run into a similar issue.
Common sense would figure that if the city knows they have issues of this magnitude, they would be spot checking bills for gross errors like this BEFORE mailings go out, or have some sort of flag in the system with a report or something, that would indicate such a large irregularity from the previous month's readings. This is gross incompetence on multiple levels! A couple of months ago 2 identical sets of utility bills were sent to each utility account. A big waste of mailing supplies, postage, and tax payer money. Didn't the billing department think something was strange when twice the volume of bills were being mailed than normal? Why are things like this happening without a clue until the utility customers bring it to the Utility Department's attention?
Obviously, the size of this particular billing error is easy to spot right away. Smaller problems like this may not be as easy to detect by the utility customer. It would be very likely, they would just pay the inflated bill thinking that they must have used that much water, but would have no way to know for sure since the meter readings are several days prior to the bill coming in the mail. Who has time to manually check their water meter after they get every utility bill? Maybe that is the only way to know for sure.
This individual has no water leaks and when reading the meter manually on 11/14/2010, the utility customer figures that they should have been charged 3,000 gallons on the water/sewer meter and 2,000 on the irrigation meter. This is the 2nd time this individual has run into a similar issue.
Common sense would figure that if the city knows they have issues of this magnitude, they would be spot checking bills for gross errors like this BEFORE mailings go out, or have some sort of flag in the system with a report or something, that would indicate such a large irregularity from the previous month's readings. This is gross incompetence on multiple levels! A couple of months ago 2 identical sets of utility bills were sent to each utility account. A big waste of mailing supplies, postage, and tax payer money. Didn't the billing department think something was strange when twice the volume of bills were being mailed than normal? Why are things like this happening without a clue until the utility customers bring it to the Utility Department's attention?
Obviously, the size of this particular billing error is easy to spot right away. Smaller problems like this may not be as easy to detect by the utility customer. It would be very likely, they would just pay the inflated bill thinking that they must have used that much water, but would have no way to know for sure since the meter readings are several days prior to the bill coming in the mail. Who has time to manually check their water meter after they get every utility bill? Maybe that is the only way to know for sure.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Reality Check Letter to BB&T on Possible City Loan for $2.68 Million
From: Lisa Shifflett
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 6:27 PM
To: 'mlindsay@bbandt.com'; 'mcsmith@bbandt.com'
Subject: Additional information on Polk City
Importance: High
Earlier, I sent you some information about Polk City in a email concerning BB&T possibly issuing a loan to the City of Polk City in the near future. I came across additional information this afternoon that directly affects Polk City as well, while reviewing the Polk County Board of Commissioner’s Meeting Agenda scheduled for next Tuesday, November 16th. Agenda item number #18 specifically, can have substantial impact on the City of Polk City’s ability to repay this possible loan to the point that the resulting outcome of these decisions and future litigations may directly impact the future existence of the city.
If the county is successful in taking back the Mt. Olive Utility System from Polk City, this will result in Polk City loosing approximately half of its current utility customers, many of which are both water and sewer customers who pay substantially higher percentages of the total gross revenue the city receives through utility fees. Currently, Utility Service Fees are the primary source of income for the city. According to the 2010-2011 budget, projected fees for services of water and sewer utilities make up $1,905,000 of the total $3,807,243 projected revenues, equaling 50% of the total projected revenue for the city.
Another issue that is also being discussed at this county meeting is the legality of the water and sewer access fees being charged by the city. These are also referred to as WAC & SAC fees. These are fees the city is charging property owners to have water or sewer lines running past the property without any kind of hook up or meters. The city is disguising these fees under the name of “Privilege Fees” instead of Access Charges in their budget documents. In the 2010-2011 City budget $169,450 of SAC fees and $91,753 of WAC fees are projected. This totals $261,203 of projected revenue, just under 7% of the total revenue for the year, which may very well be found to be unlawfully assessed the property owners. In last year’s ‘09-‘10 budget the SAC fees alone were projected to generate $169,450 for the city. Instead the amended budget which is due to be approved in a special city meeting on November 15th, shows the actual funds received on this line item was only $26,090, due to property owners refusing to pay this very likely illegal charge. The amended budget document does not show the difference in the WAC fees actually received vs. projected, but it would be fair to assume a similar situation in that account as well. Here is a link to this document due to be discussed at the meeting on the 15th: http://fl-polkcity.civicplus.com/archives/52/Ordinance%201270.pdf
Another issue that will be discussed is the back impact fees that the city still owes the county from 2006 & 2007. The county is requesting payment in full of the $531,000 due. The County will discuss how they plan to proceed to force Polk City to pay these monies the city collected from developers then misappropriated by transferring the money into the city’s General Fund. The money was then spent without a trace. The county had presented a deadline of October 22nd, 2010, for the city to repay these fees in full. Instead the Acting City Manager/Vice Mayor attempted to present a check to the county for the sum of $2,800. Yes, that is a check of less than $3,000 on a debt of more than $500,000. The county refused to accept this check and is now deciding on what the next step will be in the process to get these delinquent funds.
Here is a link to my blog post that has links to all these agenda items for the county meeting and supporting documentation. http://concernedcitizensofpolkcity.blogspot.com/2010/11/next-step-in-mt-olive-utility-system.html
This is just further evidence that the City of Polk City is in NO financial position to be acquiring additional debt. Please deny the City’s request for this loan for $2.68 Million dollars!
Sincerely,
Lisa B. Shifflett
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 6:27 PM
To: 'mlindsay@bbandt.com'; 'mcsmith@bbandt.com'
Subject: Additional information on Polk City
Importance: High
Earlier, I sent you some information about Polk City in a email concerning BB&T possibly issuing a loan to the City of Polk City in the near future. I came across additional information this afternoon that directly affects Polk City as well, while reviewing the Polk County Board of Commissioner’s Meeting Agenda scheduled for next Tuesday, November 16th. Agenda item number #18 specifically, can have substantial impact on the City of Polk City’s ability to repay this possible loan to the point that the resulting outcome of these decisions and future litigations may directly impact the future existence of the city.
If the county is successful in taking back the Mt. Olive Utility System from Polk City, this will result in Polk City loosing approximately half of its current utility customers, many of which are both water and sewer customers who pay substantially higher percentages of the total gross revenue the city receives through utility fees. Currently, Utility Service Fees are the primary source of income for the city. According to the 2010-2011 budget, projected fees for services of water and sewer utilities make up $1,905,000 of the total $3,807,243 projected revenues, equaling 50% of the total projected revenue for the city.
Another issue that is also being discussed at this county meeting is the legality of the water and sewer access fees being charged by the city. These are also referred to as WAC & SAC fees. These are fees the city is charging property owners to have water or sewer lines running past the property without any kind of hook up or meters. The city is disguising these fees under the name of “Privilege Fees” instead of Access Charges in their budget documents. In the 2010-2011 City budget $169,450 of SAC fees and $91,753 of WAC fees are projected. This totals $261,203 of projected revenue, just under 7% of the total revenue for the year, which may very well be found to be unlawfully assessed the property owners. In last year’s ‘09-‘10 budget the SAC fees alone were projected to generate $169,450 for the city. Instead the amended budget which is due to be approved in a special city meeting on November 15th, shows the actual funds received on this line item was only $26,090, due to property owners refusing to pay this very likely illegal charge. The amended budget document does not show the difference in the WAC fees actually received vs. projected, but it would be fair to assume a similar situation in that account as well. Here is a link to this document due to be discussed at the meeting on the 15th: http://fl-polkcity.civicplus.com/archives/52/Ordinance%201270.pdf
Another issue that will be discussed is the back impact fees that the city still owes the county from 2006 & 2007. The county is requesting payment in full of the $531,000 due. The County will discuss how they plan to proceed to force Polk City to pay these monies the city collected from developers then misappropriated by transferring the money into the city’s General Fund. The money was then spent without a trace. The county had presented a deadline of October 22nd, 2010, for the city to repay these fees in full. Instead the Acting City Manager/Vice Mayor attempted to present a check to the county for the sum of $2,800. Yes, that is a check of less than $3,000 on a debt of more than $500,000. The county refused to accept this check and is now deciding on what the next step will be in the process to get these delinquent funds.
Here is a link to my blog post that has links to all these agenda items for the county meeting and supporting documentation. http://concernedcitizensofpolkcity.blogspot.com/2010/11/next-step-in-mt-olive-utility-system.html
This is just further evidence that the City of Polk City is in NO financial position to be acquiring additional debt. Please deny the City’s request for this loan for $2.68 Million dollars!
Sincerely,
Lisa B. Shifflett
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Next Step in Mt. Olive Utility System Takeback to be Discussed at County Meeting
At the November 16th County meeting, scheduled to start at 9:00 AM, County Commissioners will discuss the next step the county plans to take in the Mt. Olive Utility System dispute with Polk City as well as touching on the back impact fees still owed to the county, and WAC & SAC (Water & Sewer Access Charges) fees being charged by Polk City Utilities.
Here is a link to the meeting agenda: November 16, 2010 Polk County BOCC Meeting Agenda
The 18th agenda item under the County Attorney, Michael Craig's section, is "Approve Resolution regarding the Florida Governmental Conflict Resolution Act to commence dispute resolution process with Polk City."
Here is a link to the detailed description of what will be discussed: Agenda item #18 description
Attachment to the agenda spelling out the resolution: Polk County Resolution on Mt. Olive Utility System
Here is a link to the meeting agenda: November 16, 2010 Polk County BOCC Meeting Agenda
The 18th agenda item under the County Attorney, Michael Craig's section, is "Approve Resolution regarding the Florida Governmental Conflict Resolution Act to commence dispute resolution process with Polk City."
Here is a link to the detailed description of what will be discussed: Agenda item #18 description
Attachment to the agenda spelling out the resolution: Polk County Resolution on Mt. Olive Utility System
Water Meter Problems System Wide
Have you experienced unexplained jumps in your monthly water/sewer bills that you could not figure out, just to have it go back to what your average total bill was the following month? Have you had unexplained "usage" on your bill when you were not even using the water/sewer services, such as being out of town? Have you attempted to get an answer from the Utility Department in the past and were told that you must have a leak or were asked to pay a fee to have a study done on your meter to find the problem, just to be ultimately told that no problem was found? Have you had your meter even replaced and had it happen again? If you have answered, "Yes," to any of these questions you are not alone!
Finally, the customers of Polk City Utilities might be getting the truth. Mr. Sanderson, the temporary contract consultant from FGUA, who we jokingly call the $1,700 man, since the city is paying him $1,700 a week for his services, may have revealed in Monday's November 8th meeting what the city has not disclosed for quite some time. There is a software glitch with some of the new radio readable water meters that have been installed to replace the older manual versions.
For several years now, mysterious increases in water/sewer bills have been happening across the city. One individual told me when they had this experience their water bill jumped more than $200 in one month. She spoke directly with Cory Carrier, the City Manager at the time, after getting unsatisfactory answers from others in the Utility Department on her issue. After explaining the problem, Cory responded with a response somewhere along the lines of, "It happened again!" But Ms. Carrier stopped herself mid-thought and would not explain what she meant by that comment. The problem at the time was resolved by Ms. Carrier issuing a partial credit to the account, but an explanation was never provided about how the inflated charge occurred in the first place. How many times have water bills been inflated over actual use and the customer did not question it? Or after questioning it, paid to have a plumber come out and check for leaks, or ended up paying the higher bill because they were told that they must have used the water, but not remembered? God only knows!! Not only are Polk City Utility customers subject to water fees approximately 200% higher and sewer fees 200-400% higher than surrounding utility service providers, now we find out that we very likely have been overcharged for water/sewer usage we never even used, but have no way to prove it!! Not to mention, there is no grace period for customers who are not able to pay their bills. They get shut off with no warning, not even a courtesy call or letter. Other municipalities like Auburndale have a 3 month rolling grace period which results in almost no shut offs. What Polk City Utilities is doing is downright criminal.
From what Mr. Sanderson explained is that some of the errors were due to human error by physically misreading the meters. Most of the discrepancies are occurring with the newer meters that Polk City has purchased from the City of Lakeland. Maybe this is why Lakeland is getting rid of them? These meters have the ability to be read remotely so the meter readers do not have to physically open up the water meter box to physically read the numbers. It is all done electronically using special equipment that can be used from inside a car driving by the meter. The problem is occurring with the software used on this system, the meters, and the billing system. Mr. Sanderson said that prior to the new meters being installed, they must be programed. The staff had not been properly trained on how to do this, so time after time meters that were not programed or were improperly programed were being installed, resulting in inconsistent meter readings that would happen intermittently making it very difficult to troubleshoot. Because this service of meter reading has now been outsourced to an outside company in attempts to save the city money, this has only complicated the problem with miscommunications and untrained or under trained staff. Even after repeated replacements of meters the problems were not resolved, since the same glitches or programming errors were repeated time and time again. He did say that the older manual meters are more reliable, but those are subject to human error in the reading process and of course take much longer to read.
Mr. Sanderson said that it looks like they are getting a handle on the problems, but it will take time to work the bugs all out of the system. Please keep this in mind when you get your monthly water/sewer bills and do not assume they are always accurate.
Finally, the customers of Polk City Utilities might be getting the truth. Mr. Sanderson, the temporary contract consultant from FGUA, who we jokingly call the $1,700 man, since the city is paying him $1,700 a week for his services, may have revealed in Monday's November 8th meeting what the city has not disclosed for quite some time. There is a software glitch with some of the new radio readable water meters that have been installed to replace the older manual versions.
For several years now, mysterious increases in water/sewer bills have been happening across the city. One individual told me when they had this experience their water bill jumped more than $200 in one month. She spoke directly with Cory Carrier, the City Manager at the time, after getting unsatisfactory answers from others in the Utility Department on her issue. After explaining the problem, Cory responded with a response somewhere along the lines of, "It happened again!" But Ms. Carrier stopped herself mid-thought and would not explain what she meant by that comment. The problem at the time was resolved by Ms. Carrier issuing a partial credit to the account, but an explanation was never provided about how the inflated charge occurred in the first place. How many times have water bills been inflated over actual use and the customer did not question it? Or after questioning it, paid to have a plumber come out and check for leaks, or ended up paying the higher bill because they were told that they must have used the water, but not remembered? God only knows!! Not only are Polk City Utility customers subject to water fees approximately 200% higher and sewer fees 200-400% higher than surrounding utility service providers, now we find out that we very likely have been overcharged for water/sewer usage we never even used, but have no way to prove it!! Not to mention, there is no grace period for customers who are not able to pay their bills. They get shut off with no warning, not even a courtesy call or letter. Other municipalities like Auburndale have a 3 month rolling grace period which results in almost no shut offs. What Polk City Utilities is doing is downright criminal.
From what Mr. Sanderson explained is that some of the errors were due to human error by physically misreading the meters. Most of the discrepancies are occurring with the newer meters that Polk City has purchased from the City of Lakeland. Maybe this is why Lakeland is getting rid of them? These meters have the ability to be read remotely so the meter readers do not have to physically open up the water meter box to physically read the numbers. It is all done electronically using special equipment that can be used from inside a car driving by the meter. The problem is occurring with the software used on this system, the meters, and the billing system. Mr. Sanderson said that prior to the new meters being installed, they must be programed. The staff had not been properly trained on how to do this, so time after time meters that were not programed or were improperly programed were being installed, resulting in inconsistent meter readings that would happen intermittently making it very difficult to troubleshoot. Because this service of meter reading has now been outsourced to an outside company in attempts to save the city money, this has only complicated the problem with miscommunications and untrained or under trained staff. Even after repeated replacements of meters the problems were not resolved, since the same glitches or programming errors were repeated time and time again. He did say that the older manual meters are more reliable, but those are subject to human error in the reading process and of course take much longer to read.
Mr. Sanderson said that it looks like they are getting a handle on the problems, but it will take time to work the bugs all out of the system. Please keep this in mind when you get your monthly water/sewer bills and do not assume they are always accurate.
November 15th Meeting Agenda and Attachments
Here is the latest agenda for the meeting coming up on the 15th. I have also attached a link to the full ordinance that will be discussed, since the last 3 meetings that resolutions or ordinances were discussed full copies of these items were not provided to the audience at the meeting. Please review these ahead of time so you will be well informed prior to the meeting.
City Council Special Meeting November 15, 2010 - Agenda
Ordinance 1270
City Council Special Meeting November 15, 2010 - Agenda
Ordinance 1270
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Impact Fees Due to County
Here's a recent article from the Ledger on this issue.
Polk City Used Money Due to County
It looks like instead of Mr. Bouffard reporting on the recent monthly city meeting held on November 8th and current unethical actions taken by the current administration, he has chosen to focus on the previous administration. Hard to say which is worse.
This money due to the county is one of the expenses that is specifically excluded from being paid by the funds that the city is seeking on this new $2.68 M loan. This information was stated in a previous article from the Ledger Polk City Manager Will Propose $2.68 Mil. Loan. The article from today states, "Fling's audit found, and Carrier authorized five transfers totaling $410,806 in 2008 from that account into Polk City's general fund, which finances most city operations, and its water and sewer utility funds. Fling said he could not track the money any further once it went into those accounts." Who's to say this same thing will not happen again? How convenient!!
Polk City Used Money Due to County
It looks like instead of Mr. Bouffard reporting on the recent monthly city meeting held on November 8th and current unethical actions taken by the current administration, he has chosen to focus on the previous administration. Hard to say which is worse.
This money due to the county is one of the expenses that is specifically excluded from being paid by the funds that the city is seeking on this new $2.68 M loan. This information was stated in a previous article from the Ledger Polk City Manager Will Propose $2.68 Mil. Loan. The article from today states, "Fling's audit found, and Carrier authorized five transfers totaling $410,806 in 2008 from that account into Polk City's general fund, which finances most city operations, and its water and sewer utility funds. Fling said he could not track the money any further once it went into those accounts." Who's to say this same thing will not happen again? How convenient!!
How Did the City Manager Get Permission to Seek Another $2.68 M Loan?
To refresh some memories from last month's regularly scheduled City Council Meeting on October 25th, a vote took place on Resolution No:2010-07. See this previous blog post to see what happened during this discussion on this resolution: Additional City Debt Camouflaged as Housekeeping By the sounds of the discussion during the October 25th meeting, 2 of the 4 Council persons there at the meeting had no idea what the other two had in mind when they voted to pass this resolution, nor did they have a clear understanding of what they really voted for. The 5th council person was not even there at the meeting. The way the whole issue was handled was very sneaky and underhanded. The verbiage was very vague and even during discussions, which included the Interim City Attorney, Tom Cloud, these vague areas were intentionally never clarified and spelled out before the vote. They were merely brushed over and explained away as standard operating procedure just to get the resolution to pass. With this yes vote from the council on this resolution, the Acting City Manager/Vice Mayor Trudy Block received permission to seek a loan for whatever amount she wanted for whatever purposes she wanted.
By having 5 Council positions by design, the city charter intended to have each of those individuals make EDUCATED decisions regarding the welfare of the city and the public in a fair and democratic way AS A TEAM. The way this vote happened on this resolution, with the support of the Mr. Cloud helping to "sell" it, this did not happen. It was quite obvious to the public, especially in retrospect, that Mayor LaCascia and Acting City Manager/Vice Mayor Block were the only two council members who fully understood that this vote would allow Ms. Block to seek a loan for whatever additional funds she saw fit to move forward on whatever agendas they had in the works now or in the future, and revitalize the city's bank accounts so they could pay their day-to-day operating expenses with no worries of bouncing checks. How is this a fiscally responsible way to run the city? More debt is not the answer when the city is so strapped that it can't even pay current debt obligations!
This sewer business plan is what has gotten the city in such a deep hole to begin with. Pouring more Millions into this hole will not make the hole get any smaller. The tax base is still only around 800 parcels and roughly 1600 residents and only a handful of small businesses who are already overly taxed and overly charged for water and sewer services with no additional benefits to show for their hard earned money. A debt amount of $10.4 M, plus an additional $1.68 M in debt (roughly $1 M of this new loan is just refinancing current debt) does not increase the cash flow from this tiny tax base. It only makes the problem worse! These high taxes and fees are what is scaring businesses and residents away from the city and reducing the city's cash flow. Adding to the mountain of debt will not change this fact.
At least the previous administration used what they thought at the time was sound judgment when getting the loans based on projected future growth in a thriving economy from incoming developments, which ultimately did not materialize. This current administration does not have that projected growth to justify it. In fact, we are in the worst recession since the depression of the 1930s. If they think that the commercial warehouse project across from Fountain Park, on SR33, is going to pay for this loan through increased revenues, remember these entities have not promised any projected start dates and they have worked out a deal with the previous administration so they will not owe any impact fees. Even with the moratorium on impact fees from the city and county, it has not resulted in the growth they were hoping for. The only businesses who have recently come into the city are missions and churches which are eligible for tax exempt status and rely on donations from the public to survive. These are not long term revenue sources for the city. Hopefully, the possible bond holders and banks realize this reality!! The people and handful of small businesses can not afford to pay any more than they already are, it will only drive them out of town.
By having 5 Council positions by design, the city charter intended to have each of those individuals make EDUCATED decisions regarding the welfare of the city and the public in a fair and democratic way AS A TEAM. The way this vote happened on this resolution, with the support of the Mr. Cloud helping to "sell" it, this did not happen. It was quite obvious to the public, especially in retrospect, that Mayor LaCascia and Acting City Manager/Vice Mayor Block were the only two council members who fully understood that this vote would allow Ms. Block to seek a loan for whatever additional funds she saw fit to move forward on whatever agendas they had in the works now or in the future, and revitalize the city's bank accounts so they could pay their day-to-day operating expenses with no worries of bouncing checks. How is this a fiscally responsible way to run the city? More debt is not the answer when the city is so strapped that it can't even pay current debt obligations!
This sewer business plan is what has gotten the city in such a deep hole to begin with. Pouring more Millions into this hole will not make the hole get any smaller. The tax base is still only around 800 parcels and roughly 1600 residents and only a handful of small businesses who are already overly taxed and overly charged for water and sewer services with no additional benefits to show for their hard earned money. A debt amount of $10.4 M, plus an additional $1.68 M in debt (roughly $1 M of this new loan is just refinancing current debt) does not increase the cash flow from this tiny tax base. It only makes the problem worse! These high taxes and fees are what is scaring businesses and residents away from the city and reducing the city's cash flow. Adding to the mountain of debt will not change this fact.
At least the previous administration used what they thought at the time was sound judgment when getting the loans based on projected future growth in a thriving economy from incoming developments, which ultimately did not materialize. This current administration does not have that projected growth to justify it. In fact, we are in the worst recession since the depression of the 1930s. If they think that the commercial warehouse project across from Fountain Park, on SR33, is going to pay for this loan through increased revenues, remember these entities have not promised any projected start dates and they have worked out a deal with the previous administration so they will not owe any impact fees. Even with the moratorium on impact fees from the city and county, it has not resulted in the growth they were hoping for. The only businesses who have recently come into the city are missions and churches which are eligible for tax exempt status and rely on donations from the public to survive. These are not long term revenue sources for the city. Hopefully, the possible bond holders and banks realize this reality!! The people and handful of small businesses can not afford to pay any more than they already are, it will only drive them out of town.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Blatant Abuse of Power
The time has come for us to really take a hard look at the process of the decision making that has been going on in our city government during the past four months. In the City Charter under Chapter 2: Administration, Article II: Officers & Employees, Division 3: Town Manager, Section 2-61: Qualifications: "A Town Manager shall be chosen solely on the basis of the executive and administrative qualifications with special reference to actual experience in, or knowledge of, accepted practice in respect to the duties of the office as set forth in this chapter." Yet we have an Acting City Manager, with absolutely NO PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERIENCE IN MANAGING A CITY, running our day to day operations and making all the decisions for the past 4 months, with no end in sight!
Section 2-62 continues: "A councilman shall not receive such appointment during the term for which such councilman shall have been elected unless such councilman shall have resigned from the office as councilman." Yet we have a council person acting as Acting City Manager, and still retaining all the powers of a council person for the past 4 months. The Mayor & Vice Mayor are actively resisting plans to initiate proceeding to start the search for a new City Manager.
In the City Charter Part I, Article V: Administration, Section C-21, A-(3) part of the City Manager's duties are to "attend all council meetings and he/she shall have the right to take part in discussions, but may not vote." In our council meetings, our Acting City Manager can propose a resolution, participate in the discussion, and then gets to cast what could be a TIE-BREAKING VOTE. Every time, she votes on her own resolution in her Vice Mayor capacity. This has been ongoing for the past 4 months. This gives her more power than any council person or previous City Manager. This is NOT the way this government was designed to work! Everything lately seems to be AN EMERGENCY SITUATION, since we're in "The Eye of the Storm" and agendas are being pushed through without in-depth comparisons and studies. The Mayor & Vice Mayor have their defensive answers prepared in advance to deal with objections from the rest of the council and use their combined powers to approve their agendas. They seem to be very much in sync in preparation of the meetings. This suggests that they are communicating outside the guidelines of the Sunshine Law. We must insist that only official e-mail addresses are used to communicate with each other and the council members.
Section C-21 (8) goes on to state under Town Manager duties: "To keep council fully and continuously advised as to the financial condition and future needs of the town and make such recommendations to council concerning affairs of the town as he/she deems desirable." That means full disclosure, not half-truths or using deceptive language to mislead and trick council into approving a resolution, like the one to obtain an additional $2.68 Million dollar loan on October 25th.
Section C-20 (B) states: "In the event that, by reason of death, sickness, resignation, absence or discharge of the City Manager, the office of City Manager shall be temporarily vacant, the City Council shall appoint an Acting Manager to act pending the filling of the vacancy, and such Acting Manager shall have TEMPORARILY the powers hereby vested in a City Manager for a period of thirty (30) days. The initial thirty-day vacancy may be renewable for additional thirty (30) day periods AS NECESSARY to fill the vacancy of Town Manager. Any member of the City Council may serve, temporarily, as Acting City Manager while serving as a Council Member."
Section 2-62 continues: "A councilman shall not receive such appointment during the term for which such councilman shall have been elected unless such councilman shall have resigned from the office as councilman." Yet we have a council person acting as Acting City Manager, and still retaining all the powers of a council person for the past 4 months. The Mayor & Vice Mayor are actively resisting plans to initiate proceeding to start the search for a new City Manager.
In the City Charter Part I, Article V: Administration, Section C-21, A-(3) part of the City Manager's duties are to "attend all council meetings and he/she shall have the right to take part in discussions, but may not vote." In our council meetings, our Acting City Manager can propose a resolution, participate in the discussion, and then gets to cast what could be a TIE-BREAKING VOTE. Every time, she votes on her own resolution in her Vice Mayor capacity. This has been ongoing for the past 4 months. This gives her more power than any council person or previous City Manager. This is NOT the way this government was designed to work! Everything lately seems to be AN EMERGENCY SITUATION, since we're in "The Eye of the Storm" and agendas are being pushed through without in-depth comparisons and studies. The Mayor & Vice Mayor have their defensive answers prepared in advance to deal with objections from the rest of the council and use their combined powers to approve their agendas. They seem to be very much in sync in preparation of the meetings. This suggests that they are communicating outside the guidelines of the Sunshine Law. We must insist that only official e-mail addresses are used to communicate with each other and the council members.
Section C-21 (8) goes on to state under Town Manager duties: "To keep council fully and continuously advised as to the financial condition and future needs of the town and make such recommendations to council concerning affairs of the town as he/she deems desirable." That means full disclosure, not half-truths or using deceptive language to mislead and trick council into approving a resolution, like the one to obtain an additional $2.68 Million dollar loan on October 25th.
Section C-20 (B) states: "In the event that, by reason of death, sickness, resignation, absence or discharge of the City Manager, the office of City Manager shall be temporarily vacant, the City Council shall appoint an Acting Manager to act pending the filling of the vacancy, and such Acting Manager shall have TEMPORARILY the powers hereby vested in a City Manager for a period of thirty (30) days. The initial thirty-day vacancy may be renewable for additional thirty (30) day periods AS NECESSARY to fill the vacancy of Town Manager. Any member of the City Council may serve, temporarily, as Acting City Manager while serving as a Council Member."
Does this mean that this can go on indefinitely for as long a period as the Mayor and Acting City Manager/Vice Mayor choose, or does the Council have a say in this? According to the City Charter, the Council appoints a City Manager. If the search is not started for a permanent City Manager, it will remain NECESSARY FOR AN UNLIMITED TIME, and the term TEMPORARY is no longer applicable. The Mayor and Vice Mayor seem quite content with this temporary situation.
We MUST put a stop to this abuse of power, and the public should demand that a search for a New City Manager begin IMMEDIATELY. This process will require at least 30 to 60 days, which means another 30 - 60 days that our Acting City Manager and Mayor have unchecked, full control over what happens to our future. This is a very dangerous situation, since there are no checks and balances. They only need one council person on their side to pass everything they want. Our City Charter should be changed to put a time limit in place as to how long an Acting City Manager can remain in this dual role. She should not be able to cast a tie-breaking vote on her own agendas. We are paying our hard-earned money for a top notch attorney. Why isn't he protecting our rights? Is he getting paid just to advise the Mayor and City Manager to promote their agenda?
Have You Noticed?
For those of you who have been attending the city meetings lately, have you noticed some subtle physical changes going on? At first it just seemed like we had to get there earlier and earlier to get a seat, assuming that there were more people attending the meetings. Yes, there may be more people attending the meetings, but last night we noticed that an entire row of seats for the audience on the left hand side of the room have mysteriously disappeared! There used to be 5 row, now there are only 4! The room is already too small for the recent crowds attending the meetings causing the additional people to overflow into the hallway and now they are also removing seats? What's up with that?
We have also noticed that since the new Interim Attorney Mr. Tom Cloud has been attending the meetings there has been a game of musical chairs going on. Intentionally, it appears. From the audience perspective, the previous City Attorney used to sit at the far left seat on the end, to the right of him Councilor Adorno, then Acting City Manager/Vice Mayor Block, then Mayor LaCascia, next City Clerk Patricia Jackson, next Councilor Kimsey, and to the far right Councilor Blethen. The first night Mr. Cloud attended a city meeting he sat one seat in from the left hand side with Councilor Adorno sitting on the end and Acting City Manager/Vice Mayor Block to his other side. The following meeting he attended, he shifted one more seat to the center, so now he is strategically positioned between Acting City Manager/Vice Mayor Block and Mayor LaCascia. If you watch closely during the meeting the reason for the musical chairs is quite obvious.
As most people know by now, Councilman Kimsey has been the most vocal when it comes to questioning some of the proposals brought up by Ms. Block and Mayor LaCascia. When Mr. Kimsey has posed questions to them that it appears they might have difficulty answering, Mr. Cloud has been passing notes to Ms. Block and Mayor LaCascia to aide them in their responses. I don't know if Mr. Kimsey is aware of this due to the curve in the desk at the front on the room that may be blocking his view at desk level. These interactions with the Attorney are obviously intended to be very subtle or invisible to the public, since he is very careful about not even looking at the recipient when the notes are being passed. The recipients are not quite as practiced at their poker faces. No wonder these two are so in favor of keeping the current Interim Attorney, he makes them look smarter than they really are. Is this fair to the other Council Members who are doing their best to get answers and clarifications so they can make decisions in the best interest of their constituents? If they had a high dollar attorney helping them debate the issues at hand, they would probably be able to be more persuasive as well. Don't you think?
We have also noticed that since the new Interim Attorney Mr. Tom Cloud has been attending the meetings there has been a game of musical chairs going on. Intentionally, it appears. From the audience perspective, the previous City Attorney used to sit at the far left seat on the end, to the right of him Councilor Adorno, then Acting City Manager/Vice Mayor Block, then Mayor LaCascia, next City Clerk Patricia Jackson, next Councilor Kimsey, and to the far right Councilor Blethen. The first night Mr. Cloud attended a city meeting he sat one seat in from the left hand side with Councilor Adorno sitting on the end and Acting City Manager/Vice Mayor Block to his other side. The following meeting he attended, he shifted one more seat to the center, so now he is strategically positioned between Acting City Manager/Vice Mayor Block and Mayor LaCascia. If you watch closely during the meeting the reason for the musical chairs is quite obvious.
As most people know by now, Councilman Kimsey has been the most vocal when it comes to questioning some of the proposals brought up by Ms. Block and Mayor LaCascia. When Mr. Kimsey has posed questions to them that it appears they might have difficulty answering, Mr. Cloud has been passing notes to Ms. Block and Mayor LaCascia to aide them in their responses. I don't know if Mr. Kimsey is aware of this due to the curve in the desk at the front on the room that may be blocking his view at desk level. These interactions with the Attorney are obviously intended to be very subtle or invisible to the public, since he is very careful about not even looking at the recipient when the notes are being passed. The recipients are not quite as practiced at their poker faces. No wonder these two are so in favor of keeping the current Interim Attorney, he makes them look smarter than they really are. Is this fair to the other Council Members who are doing their best to get answers and clarifications so they can make decisions in the best interest of their constituents? If they had a high dollar attorney helping them debate the issues at hand, they would probably be able to be more persuasive as well. Don't you think?
Monday, November 8, 2010
Call to Action to Stop the BB&T Loan
We have been able to find out who's the individual handling the loan application for Polk City with BB&T. His name is Mike Smith and he is located in downtown Orlando.
His snail mail address is:
BB&T Government Financial Dept
225 South Orange Ave
Attn: Michael C. Smith
His phone number is: 407-241-3570
His fax number is: 877-320-4453
Email: mcsmith@bbandt.com
Please contact Mr. Smith TODAY and let him know that Polk City cannot afford this loan. The people of Polk City have far too much debt already for the city to be looking at adding any more to it. Especially, $2.68 Million to the already crazy $10.4 Million for such a small tax base of approximately 1,600 residents!! What are they thinking??
Let the people of Polk City's voices be heard!! We cannot let this loan deal go through!
His snail mail address is:
BB&T Government Financial Dept
225 South Orange Ave
Attn: Michael C. Smith
His phone number is: 407-241-3570
His fax number is: 877-320-4453
Email: mcsmith@bbandt.com
Please contact Mr. Smith TODAY and let him know that Polk City cannot afford this loan. The people of Polk City have far too much debt already for the city to be looking at adding any more to it. Especially, $2.68 Million to the already crazy $10.4 Million for such a small tax base of approximately 1,600 residents!! What are they thinking??
Let the people of Polk City's voices be heard!! We cannot let this loan deal go through!
Tonight's City Council Meeting at 7:00 PM
Don't forget the new dates and times for the regularly scheduled monthly City Council Meetings have changed to the 2nd MONDAY of each month at 7:00 PM.
Here is a link to the agenda for tonight's meeting: November 8, 2010 City Council Meeting Agenda
Hope to see you there.
Here is a link to the agenda for tonight's meeting: November 8, 2010 City Council Meeting Agenda
Hope to see you there.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Notice of Intent to File a Civil Action Against BB&T
Below is a communication a Polk City resident has sent to BB&T:
From: Bob bersey <rsbersey@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 10:04 AM
Subject: Polk City Fl Loan Request / Notice of Intent to file legal action
To: mlindsay <mlindsay@bbandt.com>
Date: Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 10:04 AM
Subject: Polk City Fl Loan Request / Notice of Intent to file legal action
To: mlindsay <mlindsay@bbandt.com>
Dear BB&T
I have attached for your review a letter of intent to file legal action, Please forward to the Government loan precessing dept and your attorney. Please send by united states mail or e-mail an address to be used for the purpose of being process served with the civil compliant .
Thank you in advance for your help in resolving this matter
Sincerely
Mr. Robert W. Bersey
Copy of Attachment:
NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION
BB&T Bank, Governmental lending, Orlando Florida Division
Re: Polk City Florida Request for Loan
This letter is being sent to you as a courtesy. Your bank is hereby notified a civil complaint will be filed in the 10th Judicial Court of Polk County Florida.
A civil action is being filed against you for the following reason:
- Polk City has a current credit application with your Bank
- That the requested dollar amount is believed to be for 2.68 million dollars
- 2.68 million dollars will only serve as to compound the financial hardship Polk City as a government body and the citizens of Polk City are currently undergoing
- Therefore, 2.68 million dollars will have a direct effect on the citizens of Polk City FL, compounding the financial hardship already being suffered enacted by the current city council for the purpose of generating revenue to pay the debts owed prior to Polk City submittal of their application for credit from your Bank.
Therefore, Based on the actions taken by the current City Mayor, Acting City Manager Trudy Block, and council. Your approval of Polk City application will cause the cost of living to increase due to Polk City needing to cover the payment to your bank.
Your Bank will be released from the above-mentioned matter by forwarding a copy of the denial of credit letter sent to City of Polk City Florida.
Please call 863-608-0428 if you have any questions in regards to the above matter.
Mr. Robert W. Bersey
P.0 Box 1321
Polk City, FL 33868
I hereby certify that on this 7th day of November 2010, a true and exact copy has been e-mailed to BB&T Bank, Governmental lending, Orlando Florida Division
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)