IRB THINGS THAT MAKE YOU SAY HMMM

No More “Pumpkins at Midnight”
Mayor (then Commissioner) Johnson and Commissioner Wollin lobbied hard for shorter meetings during the previous commission. They persisted with their "brevity campaign" even to the point of cutting citizens off nearly mid-sentence and leaving important issues hanging. But now that they have “buddies” on the commission who are more likely than the last group to push through items they support, it’s a whole different story. They’ll sit there now, wallowing in congeniality, until the wee hours of the morning without so much as a whimper, if that’s what it takes. No problem getting a motion to extend the meeting these days. Maybe their objection wasn’t to longer meetings; just longer meetings in which they were outvoted.

Calculator Missing in Action
A classic line uttered by one commissioner at the July 8th 5:00 p.m. Workshop as Burton & Associates presented their recommendations for possible 80% and 60% hikes to our sewer and solid waste rates: “I don’t have a calculator.”

Chic-a-Si Park Waits for No USF Study
Chic-a-Si Park is directly across from the Post Office behind the Historical Museum. It's probably the single most important parcel when it comes to the successful development of the Business Triangle--an area of focus in USF Study. So how is it that the redevelopment plan for this park is moving full speed ahead—without even waiting for the results of USF’s work? The June 10th meeting was filled with discussion about bathrooms, fountains, and bocce ball courts—without one commissioner making so much as a passing reference to the USF Study—for which $30,000 of your tax money was appropriated. There is allegedly grant money available for most of the Chic-a-Si-Park expense, but does the grant pay for everything? If so, why was the Rotary being approached to kick in funds? One contractor who looked at the already-accepted park plan claims the walkways running throughout will flood like crazy. Is he right? IRB might be flat broke, but the plans for Chic-a-Si Park move forward nonetheless!

PROPOSED SEWER RATE INCREASE

Is the required notice improper--again?

Some IRB residents received their Pinellas County Utility statement last Friday (7/18/08). Inside was a legally required notice of the proposed sewer & solid waste rate increase. Why wasn’t the amount of the increase included in the notice? Was the amount required to be disclosed in the notice? You be the judge.

Specifically with regard to the sewer increase, here’s what the statute says:

180.136 Water or sewer utilities; notice.--Before a local government water or sewer utility increases any rate, charge, or fee for water or sewer utility service, the utility shall provide notice of the proposed increase to each customer of the utility through the utility's billing process. The notice shall state the date, time, and place of the meeting of the governing board of the local government at which such increase will be considered. The notice required in this section is in addition to any notice and public meeting requirements for ordinance adoption as provided by general law.

Observation: The statute says that the notice “shall provide notice of THE proposed increase”—NOT “shall provide notice of A proposed increase.”

Doesn’t that mean that the actual amount of the increase should have been included in the billing notice? One would think so—especially since the pending increase could mean up to an additional $360 out of the pockets of IRB residents!

During the last unsuccessful attempt at raising rates, you may remember receiving a blue post card only days before the May 27th hearing. That post card was sent out by the Pinellas County Utilities in an effort to compensate for an inserting error on their end, which resulted in the rate increase notice being inadvertently omitted from our billing statements.

The City also placed a $443 ad to run in the St. Petersburg Times promoting a public hearing for this increase. The hearing was ultimately canceled due to insufficient notice to the public. Did the City throw $443 of our money down the drain needlessly by not canceling the ad and averting the expenditure? Or, was the City possibly reimbursed by Pinellas County Utilities for the cost of this ad? More later once the City responds to a public records request for documentation showing that the City did, in fact, pay for this ad and was NOT reimbursed.

Nancy Obarski
Beach Trail/IRB

IRB WHACK-A-MOLE

Beach Management Plan Rears Its Ugly Head

If you’ve ever played the arcade game Whack-a-Mole, you will remember that the object is to take a mallet and smack the crap out of a little mole whose head pops up in locations that continually change and when you least expect it. Much like the IRB Beach Management Plan.

How is it that this defunct document found its way into the new proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan now being considered?

Recently, the statement was made that the Beach Management Plan was adopted in principle. In reality, Resolution No. 2004-31, adopted on March 23, 2004, did deal with that subject. However, there are TWO IMPORTANT WORDS after “adopted in principle” that change the entire meaning. Those two words are “as follows.” “Adopted in principle AS FOLLOWS”—is totally different from the whole document being “adopted in principle” PERIOD.

And, as it turns out, most of the items enumerated in the “AS FOLLOWS” section of the resolution have since been disposed of—so what is actually left of the Beach Management Plan to implement “in principle” anyway?

#1 in the “as follows” section of the resolution refers to the creation of a mandatory Dune Preservation Zone (DPZ) being referred to the Planning and Zoning Board and then to the Local Planning Agency for consideration and approval. Commission meeting notes from December 6, 2005 (available on the City’s Web site), about a year and half AFTER the “in principle as follows” resolution, state the following: “Mayor Ockunzzi determined there was no consensus to proceed further with the establishment of a dune preservation zone (Ordinance No. 2004-20).”

So, #1 in the “adopted in principle as follows” items is GONE—leaving us #2 and #3 to deal with.

#2 extended the Ad Hoc Beach Management Plan Committee through December 31, 2004. Since that date has come and gone and there doesn’t seem to be any record of continuing activity by the group, let’s assume that #2 is also defunct.

What about the final “as follows” part of the Beach Management Plan which was adopted “in principle”?

#3 Refers to four (4) short term priorities which include three (3) amendments to the Comp Plan. One again refers to establishing a Dune Preservation Zone, which has since been mooted; another involves the Ad Hoc Beach Management Plan Committee that has evidently since disbanded.

The other two short-term priorities under #3 involve making erosion control structures (groins) a last resort and documenting the City’s “Low Intensity Beach Management Policy” in the Comprehensive Plan. That does seem to be the last word on groins; however, a request for a copy of the City’s “Low Intensity Beach Management Policy” resulted being referred back to the Beach Management Plan. As I scoured my precious copy (for which I paid around $30 and is now available at City Hall for 50 cents!), I could find nothing that spells out what this “low intensity plan” includes. Can anyone else shed any light on what this "low intensity" policy is before it gets included in our Comprehensive Plan amendments and the Beach Management Plan lives to see another day?

Maybe we should consider adding the whack-a-mole to the list of indigenous beach wildlife?

Nancy Obarski
Beach Trail/IRB

OPEN LETTER TO IRB P & Z BOARD

To Planning & Zoning Board Members: Patti Muneio, Don House (Vice Chairman), Eddie Bie, David Pearson (Chairman), and Louis Rector

After sitting in the audience at City Hall for last evening’s (7/17/08) review of the Comprehensive Plan E.A.R. Amendments by your committee, I was struck by the organization, intelligence, preparedness, cooperation, and open-mindedness of your group.

As I wore off my nail polish flipping through the daunting document you reviewed last night, I remember thinking “Who in their right mind would sign up for evaluating this cross between the NYC phone directory and the Office Depot catalog”? (Not to mention raising your hand knowing the consequences of your decisions will have long-lasting implications!) But, you five residents put your heads down, rolled up your sleeves and dug in with a vengeance. Each of you brings such diverse interests and experience to the table. I’m not sure if that was by accident or design, but it works!

What was most noticeable last night was how welcoming and appreciative all of you were for citizen input—even In the face of flat-out disagreement. Because certain proposed items threaten to, once again, affect the condition of our beach, more citizens than usual attended last night. Don’t be surprised if some of us even come back! What I admittedly thought from the outset was going to be a rather tedious exercise turned into an enjoyable evening really discussing future IRB.

Planning and Zoning is one of the only city boards important enough to be mandated in the City Charter; I can’t think of five other people I’d rather have sitting up there. Thanks for the time you spend. After seeing you in action, you definitely don’t get enough credit for what you do.

Nancy Obarski
Beach Trail/IRB

LEND ME YOUR E.A.R.

IMPORTANCE OF ATTENDING THURSDAY'S MEETING

Normally, Planning & Zoning Board meetings are not attended by the general public. However, this Thursday’s P & Z meeting [July 17th at 7 p.m. in the City Hall Auditorium] involves issues crucial to the future of Indian Rocks Beach and THE PUBLIC IS STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO ATTEND.

Thursday’s meeting is a review of proposed amendments to IRB’s Comprehensive Plan—the document that is the blueprint for our city’s future. The Comp Plan, mandated by state law, is the “be all and end all” that guides, controls and limits the quality, quantity and type of development activity in IRB. Once the plan it set, the IRB Zoning Code, Building Code, Capital Improvement Plans and all ordinances must be in conformance with THE PLAN. Every seven years, the City must prepare and adopt an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (E.A.R) documenting progress toward PLAN implementation and identifying areas where the PLAN should be amended.

While the Comprehensive Plan is a good thing, insomuch as it prevents waking up one morning to large-scale hi-rises we didn't bargain for, it can also be a proverbial "personal agenda playground." Changes/amendments must be closely reviewed by US, the citizens of IRB, to ensure that the E.A.R. doesn't become a means of ramming through items that otherwise would normally not make the cut—so heads up neighbors!

An issue that continually brings citizens to City Hall in droves is increased regulation of our beach. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan being considered, once again, threaten to "revive" portions of a Beach Management Plan—a program that was soundly rejected by our citizens back in 2005.

While the Planning & Zoning Board’s review of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments is only preliminary to the commission’s consideration of the same, it is imperative that citizens get involved NOW, in the early stages. How many times has the commission criticized citizens for waiting until the last minute and not speaking up sooner about particular issues? Weighing in early enables the P & Z Board’s Comp Plan recommendations to go forward to the commission backed by citizen support. The folks who serve on the P & Z Board, and give so much of their personal time to IRB, deserve our support. YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THURSDAY’S MEETING IS STRONGLY ENCOURAGED. See you there!

Nancy Obarski
Beach Trail/IRB

IMPORTANT MEETING THURSDAY, 7/17

Re: Proposed Amendments to Comprehensive Plan

Just a heads up for everyone. This Thursday at 7:00 PM the Planning and Zoning Committee will have its first and possibly only meeting to review the EAR. As a member of that committee I urge everyone to attend if you have any questions as to what is going on. More later.

Don House
Beach Trail/IRB

IRBust - Part 10

MONEY DOWN THE DRAIN
What to do about the IRB Financial Crisis

No member of the current commission “created” the current financial crisis in IRB. However, if they, as a board, refuse to investigate, they become no better than this debacle’s unknown creator(s).

This commission is the FIRST and ONLY to be made aware that funds were moved between revenue streams, apparently without permission, over a period of six years to the tune of over ONE MILLION DOLLARS. The only way this panel of five becomes complicit is if they simply put our taxpayers on the hook for the money and opt not to get to the bottom of it.

As one citizen aptly expressed it—“Someone flushed our ad valorem tax dollars down the drain.” Don’t we, as taxpayers, especially if we’re going to be expected to foot the bill, deserve to know who’s responsible for this colossal cover-up?

Notice I said “cover-up” and not “screw-up.” In order for this accounting sleight-of-hand to continue over a period of so many years and on the watch of nearly a dozen or so commissioners, someone (or a group of “someones”) simply had to know what was going on. Whoever is responsible here has defrauded us as taxpayers, not to mention cheating the state out of their required notice by falsely inflating the enterprise fund balances with ad valorem tax monies.

The City's insistence now on an alleged LEGAL requirement for the Sewer/Solid Waste Funds to repay loans made by the General Fund makes a full investigation into this matter even more crucial. (The legal requirement deals with “above-board” loans or “bonds” as the law refers to them!) To suggest that our citizens bear the brunt of repaying so-called loans that we didn’t know existed until a few weeks ago, that were apparently not approved in accordance with State Law, the State Constitution or IRB’s City Charter—is nothing short of ridiculous. It’s like insisting that a witness to a car accident foot the bill for the repair of the accident victim’s damages. Surely, they aren’t serious?

Now that this quagmire has landed squarely in the laps of our five elected officials, it will clearly be their decision as to how to proceed. This board has subpoena power, and it’s time to use it. Why not call a special meeting and haul everyone who ever breathed on this mess into City Hall for a public hearing? (Didn't the commission do something similar with the firing of Steve Andrews some years back?) Invite all the principal players: commissioners past and present; current auditors; forensic auditors; CPAs; consultants (I hope they all fit in the auditorium!); past City Managers; past CFOs, etc. Allow citizens to make comments and ask specific questions. One former commissioner has already indicated that if the current commission doesn't step up, he will be involving the Attorney General--which should definitely be the back-up plan. This is OUR money that got flushed down the toilet and we have a right to know how someone managed to defraud us and then cost each of our households $360 more per year to right their wrong.

Nancy Obarski
Beach Trail/IRB

IRBust - Part 9

WHEN IN IRB DO AS THE ROMANS

July 18th marks the anniversary of the Great Fire of Rome. This is the infamous inferno in the year 64 when Nero allegedly “fiddled” while Rome burned. Well, at Tuesday, July 8th’s, Regular Commission Meeting, commissioners were seen “tuning up their fiddles.”

While Commissioner Wollin characterized IRB’s financial position as some of “our darkest days,” the group discussed the City’s possible purchase of a parcel of land on Hamlin Blvd.

The tract, currently owned by Pinellas County, is directly behind 688 Liquors in Largo. IRB’s interest in it is for the possible relocation of the City’s Solid Waste Facility from its current location in the Business Triangle, near the Holiday Inn.

Under normal circumstances, this move would make total sense; although, by charter, it requires a referendum vote of our residents. Freeing up a great piece of Business Triangle property, now used for garbage equipment, so it could be used for something more “glamorous” is a great idea—but WE’RE BROKE—yet the commission just keeps on fiddling.

The dire financial straits were evidently apparent to most of the commission earlier this year yet money continues to be spent on things like “Protect the Sea Oat” Signs, a Budgeting 101 Workshop (as irony would have it!) and an estimated $45,000 in legal fees in the Grieshaber and Whitehurst cases--just since the beginning of the year!

Some historians say the Great Fire of Rome burned for six days and seven nights; others minimize it as barely mentionable. One theory is that Nero himself set the town ablaze. One minor flaw in the story though--Nero couldn’t have “fiddled” because the violin wasn’t invented until a thousand years later. (It was actually a lyre!)

Which parts of the IRB Financial Crisis story have flaws?

IRB SHORT STROKES

SCHLESS STAYS
Discussion at the July 8, 2008 Regular City Commission Meeting DID NOT result in motion to fire IRB Finance Director Marty Schless. Commissioner Kennedy pointed to the “lack of a plan” as to how to proceed if Schless were removed. Acting City Manager Danny Taylor indicated that losing Marty at budget time could be detrimental. So Marty stays.

RATE RAPE
If Burton & Associates, Inc.’s rate recommendations fly, residents could be seeing as much as a 60% increase for garbage services and a whopping 80% increase in sewer rates. In round numbers, that’s approximately $360 MORE PER YEAR---over and above what you’re paying now! This increase has the potential to impact the cost of everything from a grouper sandwich at Crabby Bill’s to a beer at the Red Lion and live bait from the Bait Shop. It will take the efforts of many outspoken citizens in order to persuade the commission to “cut the fat” out of these rate increases and set rates that cover ONLY the cost of providing the services—NO MORE…NO LESS. (Details coming on IRBeHEARD, so keep checking the blog every day!)

COP CUT?
Looks like the proposed budget includes a reduction in the police protection? Is that correct? (Rest easy though…the library and librarian remain unscathed!)

MISSING MILLAGE RATE?
What is the millage rate that has been proposed for next year? Has it been set yet? If so, where is the management letter--which is normally part of the budget--clearly stating the millage rate and recapping other important aspects of the proposed budget?

POLICE PROTECTION FROM A TOWN WE’RE SUING?
The commission has now gotten "more serious" about getting a proposal from the neighboring Town of Indian Shores Police Department to provide our police services, instead of renewing the current contract with the County.

Has anyone read this April 2007 Beach Bee article stating that the Indian Shores Police Department is the LOWEST PAID in the Pinellas County?
http://www.tbnweekly.com/content_articles/041807_bhb-03.txt

The Police Applicant Screening Service (PASS) chart of salaries on the Pinellas Police Standards Web site also substantiates this info: http://www.policestandards.org/salary.htm

Interesting reading, too, is a Bay News 9 online October 2006 story of alleged abuse of a Muslim cabbie by the Indian Shores Police Department:
http://www.baynews9.com/content/36/2006/10/12/190184.html?title=Muslim+cab+driver+alleges+abuse#

Back in 2001, Redington Shores expressed some concerns about the police protection they were getting as a result of their contract with Indian Shores:
http://www.sptimes.com/News/041501/SouthPinellas/Redington_Shores_keep.shtml

One must assume, however, that these “growing pains” have dissipated, since the contract between the two towns remains intact. IRB would, no doubt, experience a similar “adjustment period” if a switch from the Sheriff’s Department to Indian Shores P.D. becomes reality. Let's face it--the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office has been pretty accommodating to what, at times, seemed like unbelievably demanding requests from the commission and the citizens.

Do you, as residents, think it's wise to contract our police protection from a town we’re suing? (Indian Shores is a named defendant in the Whitehurst quiet title action filed by IRB.)

SORRY YOU MISSED IT
Many IRBeHEARD readers were upset because they KNEW NOTHING about the 5 p.m. Workshop on Tuesday, July 8th, and missed Burton & Associates, Inc.'s outstanding presentation of the long-awaited Sewer/Solid Waste Rate Study. Many of you rely on the “City Calendar” and “Meeting Agenda” links on the City’s Web site for the dates and times of important meetings (as does IRBeHEARD), however neither July 2008’s calendar NOR the agendas for either of the Tuesday meetings appeared on the site.

HOUSE WORDS

(This is a follow-up to the Tuesday, July 8th, 2008 Workshop presenting the findings of a Sewer/Solid Waste Rate Study by Burton & Associates, Inc. and the Commission Meeting, immediately following, considering the termination of Finance Director Marty Schless.)

To all city commissioners from IRB Beach Trail resident Don House:

Last night the discussion of the contract with Marty was an embarrassment to the city. The lack of resolve to solve the problem either way does not bode well for the hard times before this city. Hoping for the best is not real action unless you plan for the worst. Perhaps commission meetings would be better served by watching a couple of Disney movies and bringing in a bunch of puppies.The commission and the city need real data to make the tough decisions coming up. A big point was made about the lack of monthly reports. (By the way we do know that a majority of you voted to stop the reports in your last terms). Just to let you know these reports probably aren’t as hard to get as you might think. There are these new things out there. They are called “computers”. With the right program they can almost instantaneously give you any report you are looking for. But with these “computers” there is a big warning. GARBAGE IN GARBAGE OUT! This has always been my concern when looking at the data from the finance department. What exactly are we looking at and what is it called now? I hope this newfound trust in the finance department works well for the city. As for the sewer and solid waste rate study. I hope the city is planning to ask for a refund. The charts sure looked pretty but $30,000 for 5 minutes work with a $1 calculator? Seems a little high. The real problem though was what appeared last night a reluctance to embrace the core of the problem. RB stated that charging a rate based on usage would put an unfair burden on the fulltime residents. Since when did having to pay for what you use constitute an unfair burden? Call me crazy but charging someone for something they don't use, well that seems an unfair burden. The political nature of this rate structure has gotten the city in trouble before and it will again. This commission needs to do the right thing and plan for the future.

WHAT THE SEWER RATE SHOULD BE

(Note: If you'd like to read and/or comment on this or any other posting on IRBeHEARD, simply click on the "Comments" link at the bottom of the article and follow the prompts. You may comment anonymously if you'd like. Or, you can always e-mail your comments to us at irbeheard@cmdinc.net and we'll post them for you!)

The following was written by IRB resident and former candidate for IRB City Commissioner Don House, outlining what he calculates the sewer rate to be. This was sent to the City Clerk and forwarded to all members of the commission.

I hate people who criticize but offer no solutions. So even though Monday morning quarterbacking is the #1 sport in America, here is my plan for the sewer rates.

The sewer rate is basically composed of 5 parts. Maintenance, usage, overhead, special projects, and reserve funding.

Part 1. City budget indicates this figure is approx $300,000 per year. This figure should be equally distributed over all the water connections.

Part 2. The county charges the city a rate of $2.82/1,000 gallons for sewer. This is approx 70% of the water charge of $4.16/1,000 gallons. Customer's bills should reflect a charge of 70% times their actual water usage. (I know this has no allowance for lawn watering or car washing but with reclaimed water available this should encourage conservation).

Part 3. A reasonable charge for annual bookkeeping, say $18,000, should be equally distributed over all the water connections.

Part 4. The five year plan shows projects averaging about $100,000 each year for the next 5 years. This should be equally distributed over all the water connections.

Part 5. The city should determine a figure to be held in reserve, say $250,000, and a timetable to reach it, say 5 years, for $50,000 a year and this should be equally distributed over all the water connections.

So assuming 3,000 water connections in the city a monthly sewer bill would be:

Part 1
$300,000/3,000/12=$ 8.34 a month

Part 3
$18,000/3,000/12=$ .50 a month

Part 4
$100,000/3,000/12=$ 2.78 a month

Part 5
$50,000/3,000/12=$ 1.39 a month

Therefore a sewer bill would be $13.01 plus 70% of the water usage charge on your water bill.

This non-political approach to billing would be fair and reflect real costs. Future billing changes would be more in line with real needs. I know the plan needs some fine tuning as I did it with no help from anyone in the city and the numbers may not be exactly right. But this is only 15 minutes work and it did not cost the city $30,000.

Thank you for reading this.

Don House
Beach Trail/IRB

IRBust - Part 8

THE LYNCHING OF MARTIN SCHLESS

Sounds like a Dickens’ novel, doesn’t it? You’ll find it on the IRB Library shelf right next to The Grilling of Grieshaber, The Canonization of Cottrell, The Offing of Coffey, Salzman’s Sendoff and a few others.

All kidding aside, at this Tuesday night’s commission meeting on July 8th at 7 p.m., the fate of IRB Finance Director Marty Schless is on the line. This charter officer has been publicly insulted, criticized, turned on like a snake, and humiliated on more than one occasion; Tuesday promises to be no exception. Only this time, one can only hope that Marty puts his gentlemanlike demeanor on hold and finally calls a spade a spade—something long overdue.

While I’ve run businesses and can muddle through a set of financials or a simple balance sheet, I’m no financial genius by any stretch. So, I defer to those with more expertise in that area when it comes to assessing Marty Schless’ qualifications, abilities and performance. But, when I simply look at the facts, they just don’t point to Marty losing his job.

1. SCHLESS inherited a set of books from his predecessor for which a forensic accounting had to be hired to straighten them out because they couldn’t be closed.

2. SCHLESS worked through Cottrell’s unbelievably confusing “shell game” at budget time last year without so much as a whimper. It was Marty who was left to pick up the pieces after being asked to drop Cottrell off at home early one afternoon, taking possession of Cottrell's keys and the instruction to contact his lawyer if the City needed anything.

3. SCHLESS was not and is NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BUDGET; that job belongs to the City Manager. Yet, Marty was blamed over and over again for problems associated with Cottrell’s budget.

Marty’s biggest mistake, in my opinion, was answering truthfully “YES” to the point-blank question "Were loans or transfers being made from the General Fund to the Sewer/Solid Waste Fund”? Marty Schless didn’t lie. He didn’t try to cover it up, which may turn out to be a career mistake. Had he “fallen in line” and followed the trend of his predecessors, Tuesday night’s agenda might look differently.

It’s obvious that someone or a “string of someones” knew these unapproved loans were occurring. The “powers that be” had to know that these loans/transfers existed in order to continue accounting for them so secretly for such a long time. That “cat-in-the-litterbox cover-up” began BEFORE Schless was added to the IRB payroll, yet he gets scapegoat status.

No one in six years ever spoke up to reveal the problem because they were afraid that what is about to happen to Marty would happen to them. Does Marty Schless, if terminated, have a potential whistleblower action against the City of IRB? Can we afford another lawsuit? Between the Grieshaber fiasco and the Whitehurst mess, this City, to date, has spent almost $50M! (We’ve nearly spent enough money on lawsuits to keep our cop!)

I find it ironic, too, that the commissioner who publicly admitted to being totally confused during last year’s budget process is leading the charge against Marty. In truth, however, others with a great deal of financial acumen, are also calling for Marty’s ouster.

Firing Marty Schless will effectively shoot THE GUY with the most answers to the who, what, when, where and why of these secret fund transfers, loans or whatever you want to call them. There were serious violations of our City Charter, violations that defrauded all of us as taxpayers—violations that we are going to be asked to pay for in a big way. Firing Marty will be the precursor to the City jumping back into the litterbox and more sand flying through the air. We’ll be told that “how it happened doesn’t matter.” How can we be sure it will never happen again if we don’t know the particulars of how it happened in the first place?

The great sales/management consultant Don Beveridge once said that if an organization has NO TURNOVER in staff something is wrong. Well at least we don’t have that problem at City Hall. That’s certainly a relief.

Nancy Obarski
Beach Trail/IRB

IRBust - Part 7

GARNERING APPROVAL

Those who attend commission meetings with some regularity were surprised when CPA Robert Garner’s analysis of IRB’s enterprise funds surfaced. No one seems to remember the commission ever mentioning publicly that such a review was even in process. In fact, most residents just thought their comments at the podium, pointing out discrepancies, were being ignored. Even if Garner’s hiring didn’t require commission approval (or did it?), you’d think that somewhere along the line, it might have at least been mentioned. This begs the answer to the same question that seems to come up time and time again: WHY ALL THE SECRECY?

Why was the expense for Garner’s fees ($2,000) handled differently than the $1,500 expense for the “Protect the Sea Oat Signs” that Mayor Johnson spearheaded in April? The sea oat sign expense was properly handled with a budget amendment that received unanimous commission approval (as the town was allegedly going broke!) in full view of the public at a commission meeting. Was Garner hired without commission approval/input and, if so, who gave him the go-ahead?

The real mystery is WHEN Garner was put into motion. A timeline constructed after reviewing about 100 pages of e-mail correspondence on the subject, didn’t pinpoint the exact date. The internal purchase order wasn’t any help either; it was dated the same day that Mr. Garner made his public presentation to the commission and the public on June 24th—about a week AFTER the results were posted on the City Web site. (Interestingly, this P.O. was handwritten as opposed to another one issued to Garner for other services, which was typewritten.) Doesn’t issuing a purchase order AFTER the work is already complete defeat the entire purpose of a P.O. system anyway?

It’s apparent from the e-mail correspondence, however, that Garner was well into his sewer/solid waste “noodling” on June 9th. What we don’t have the answer to is: Was the “Garner Report” underway on May 27th when the commission’s attempt to pass the rate increase didn’t fly? If the rate increase hadn’t been stopped, would the name Robert Garner and the existence of the unauthorized loans still be unknown to the general public?

And, while we’re on the subject, just how many consultants does this town have anyway?

IRB 4th--POST MORTEM

Has Indian Rocks Beach ever drawn as many visitors as Fourth of July? Good time had by all with a stellar fireworks display as a bonus! The "Beach Trail Kids" certainly enjoyed the new water slide which rivaled Adventure Island. It's all over now but the water bill!

Kudo's to the IRB Public Works Dept. who was on-scene bright and early on the 5th clearing the remnants of one helluva party the night before.

IRBeHEARD Celebrates the 4th!

REMEMBERING RUSSERT THIS FOURTH

Last year, I missed one of my favorite holidays in IRB. I spent 4th of July 2007 in Nantucket vacationing on some friends’ yacht. The plan was to sail to Martha’s Vineyard that weekend, but bad weather changed our plans. Instead, my husband Gordon and I and another friend braved the light drizzle and walked up Nantucket’s main drag.

As we wound our way through the cobblestone corridor of gray-sided shops that all looked alike, we happened into a small piano bar. I was immediately drawn to an old, broken-down spinet holding up the back wall. Having been a music major in a former life, I almost never pass up an opportunity to embarrass myself. So, naturally, I joined the choir of folks gathered ‘round the piano.

The singers were a rather happy group of people who all obviously knew one another—mother, father, young adult son and his friends. The son’s name was Luke; but I still didn’t catch on.

Gordon grabbed me by the arm and tried to yank me into reality as he so often does: “Do you realize who you’re singing next to? That’s Tim Russert!” Having devoured every word in Russert’s books and watched “Meet the Press” on Sunday mornings many more times than I ever attended church, my first reaction was NO WAY. As this hulk of a man carrying a newspaper turned more in my direction, I could see that Gordon was right; it was none other than Russert himself.

As we sang Billy Joel’s “My Life,” I remember chuckling at his comment: “Like anyone would have any idea what my life is like!” They would if they’d read your books, I thought sotto voce. (If you’ve not read Big Russ and Me, do yourself a favor—go get it and do so ASAP. You can thank me later.)

There has been much criticism of NBC’s extensive coverage of Tim Russert’s sudden and untimely death. (Even our good buddy Leo took issue with it!) I must excuse those critics (even Leo) for they didn’t have the benefit of seeing what I saw firsthand that misty Nantucket night: A humble and understated guy who loved life and his family, who worked hard, produced a son even more fantastic than himself, made friends and kept them close. To my way of thinking, there can never be too much coverage of an individual like that.

This year, as I “oo” and “ah” at the sight of the rockets red glare over the Gulf from my perch on Beach Trail, I’ll think back to the cramped piano bar in Nantucket where one voice, in particular, will never be heard again and realize—what a difference a year makes.

Nancy Obarski
Beach Trail/Indian Rocks Beach

IRBust - Part 6

ANYONE CARE TO COMMENT ON THIS CRAZY IDEA?

What if the IRB Financial Crisis is fabricated? There are those who actually believe that no shortfall exists. After all, other than CPA Rob Garner, who imparted the bad news to the community on June 24th, no other accountant, consultant, auditor, City Manager, Finance Director, etc. ever painted a picture so grim.

Some believe that IRB's alleged enterprise fund meldown has been totally trumped up—conveniently at budget time—to provide a reason for this commission to increase the millage rate AND heftily jack up sewer/solid waste rates at the same time. With an influx of extra cash, this commission can then continue its spending frenzy on non-essential items without ramifications and campaign promises will be repaid at the citizens’ expense.

OTHER INCREASES COMING: Don’t forget that those in IRB with a lower living level not meeting FEMA’s elevation requirements will also be paying an additional 10% for their flood insurance! Every property in IRB once benefited from the 10% discount—but that’s not the case for future! Plus, the Pinellas Suncoast Fire and Rescue District increase takes effect in 2010, when the yearly fee for fire suppression and emergency services goes from $190 per household to $260. As Cleavon Little said in Blazing Saddles---"WELL RAISE MY RENT"!

IRBust - Part 5

SEWER/SOLID WASTE RATE JACKING

MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION: Was this commission aware of unauthorized loans to the Sewer and Solid Waste Funds when they tried to ram a rate increase through some weeks back?

Had the increase sailed through unopposed, the influx of additional revenue would have “masked” the problem awhile longer and possibly kept the public from learning the truth. With the public now in-the-know, the commission faces certain pressure to shelve any nonessential spending items—including projects certain commissioners support—projects that drew votes for them at election time.

Former IRB Mayor/Commissioner Ed Piniero effectively stopped the rate increase in its tracks by pointing out that proper notice, as required by law, wasn’t given to the public. Many of us in attendance at the public hearing that evening thought it odd for the commission to be in “such a rush” as to ignore the advice of the City Attorney, who felt Piniero's argument had merit.

Understand please that NO PREVIOUS COMMISSION was ever made aware that the enterprise fund balances were upside down such that loans from the general fund were required to prop them up. This is the FIRST and ONLY commission to which this information has ever been revealed. In essence, while past commissioners and citizens alike thought everything was rosy, the City was working its way to the verge of bellyupski. Previous budgets, audits reports, etc. show in-the-black balances for both the Sewer and Solid Waste Funds, evidently due to the influx of cash from hidden loans “siphoned,” without permission, from our ad valorem tax monies.

The joke is that if the proposed rate increase had passed some weeks back, we’d probably be facing another one almost immediately. The Sewer Fund is actually in worse shape than the Solid Waste Fund; however, the increase the commission had on the table asked for a higher percentage of increase in the solid waste rates.

Roll the clock forward to CPA Robert Garner’s report of the bad news. Mayor Johnson expressed disgust with himself for not having gone ahead just “done something.” His self-disgust pales by comparison to the aggravation that many citizens feel about a commission that sees throwing money at a problem to be the best solution.

The sentiments of many outspoken residents have been somewhat mischaracterized. Citizens don’t object to paying an increase; they object loudly, however, to footing the bill for an increase that no one seems to be able to explain. Citizens were told that the fund balances were upside down; yet all budgets, audits, reports—in fact everything ever released to the public—contradicts that statement.

As one astute resident (Sonny), who obviously spent some time reviewing the budget, commented on an earlier blog entry:

“This morning I labored through the budget…..I may be oversimplifying, but am I correct with understanding that in the year 2005, the city’s General Fund Balance Ratio (actual) was 33.5%, and in 2006, the following year, was 30%? I read this as the city reserves, and what we had in the bank “for a rainy day” or emergencies. That would have been a lot of money tucked away. I also reviewed the Sewer and Solid Waste Fund….Reviewing these funds showed respectable Fund Balance Ratios for the same years. The actual reserve for the Sewer Fund in 2005 was respectably 26.8% and dropped to 6.4% in 2006. I’m not sure what the drop in fund balance accounted for, it did not say. I would hope to take care of an emergency in town or unanticipated maintenance, but that is just a guess. The Solid Waste Fund Balance Ratio actual in 2005 was a healthy 25% and dropped to 18.5% in 2006, still a respectable reserve. What happened between then and now?"

With reasons that make sense, our residents will pay the freight. So far, however, the explanations simply don’t git 'er done.

It’s already been established that previous commissions going back six years were not aware of the existence of the recently disclosed loans. WHAT did THIS COMMISSION know and WHEN?

IRBust - Part 4

IRB ASSUMES FULL OPERATION OF LIBRARY

On June 10th, the IRB City Commission voted unanimously to assume the full responsibility for the operation of the IRB Library. On June 24th, exactly two weeks later, a CPA named Rob Garner, told us the City was approaching a financial meltdown.

QUESTION: Had this commission already discovered that our ad valorem tax revenues were being improperly diverted to the Sewer/Solid Waste Funds when they voted--abruptly and unanimously—to bring the Library under the City’s umbrella? Was this “takeover” pushed through quickly BEFORE the proverbial financial news hit the fan. No warning. No workshops. No public discussion of any financial impact. Mayor Johnson even went so far as to make certain that a provision for possible “expansion” of the library was included in the deal!

Originally, forming a Library Advisory Board was on a previous commission meeting agenda; however, Commissioner Wollin asked that it be moved a few weeks later, allegedly because that particular evening's roster was full. Then, when the issue re-emerged at the June 10th meeting, it was a totally different item, and the vote to fold the Library into the City sailed through UNANIMOUSLY.

This move took place at the same meeting where, once again, serious talk of reducing the police force in IRB emerged. The library and the librarian are sacrosanct, but the cops—well—they are expendable? As one citizen, David Pearson, who opposed any reduction in IRB’s law enforcement, pointed out, the City seal directly behind the five commissioner's heads on the dais says: "World's Safest Beach." Will "World's Most Well-Read Beach" have the same appeal?

The irony here is that building of a “war chest of monies” in the Sewer/Solid Waste Funds way back during the “DiNicola days” may have ultimately been the beginning of an unfortunate financial shell game that has put us where were are today—squarely behind the 8-ball. Enterprise funds, like IRB’s Sewer and Solid Waste Funds, by nature, are not designed to carry big fund balances. The idea is to provide services to citizens in a “break-even” scenario. “DiNicola Commissions,” however, saw the enterprise funds as a golden opportunity to charge high rates and stockpile extra cash to pay for things that the general IRB public would otherwise have screamed bloody murder over, if their ad valorem dollars were used.

Commissions that followed Mayor Bob feared that this pot of money would be used to build a new library facility. So, they wisely decided to absorb the brunt of the 88% sewer increase by the County as a means of spending the fund balances down to something more reasonable. How things got to the point where no one knew what the balances in each fund actually were is anyone’s guess. One can only surmise that the unauthorized loans may have possibly been someone’s way of covering up a mistake made while trying to remember under which shell budget monies for some pet project were located.

This move for the City to “assume” the Library would have been questionable even in the “fat” times. But, for this to happen now, with financial stability an issue, is unthinkable. What part of “broke” doesn’t this group comprehend?

P.S. This move also protects from scrutiny the $75,000+ CD that the Friends of the Library, Inc. claim is “theirs.” The now-defunct lease agreement between the City and the "Friends" stipulated that library revenues were to be deposited into the City treasury all these years. The “Friends” have $75,000; IRB has squat. Oddly enough, $75,000 is just about what the City will save if they cut one of our police officers.