Words of Wisdom?

Lee Evett was one of the four Manager finalists.  He calculated that there was not enough support on the Commission for him to have a chance, so he has withdrawn his name from consideration.  He wrote to me as follows:

Fred,

Before I go, perhaps some of my observations and thoughts may be of interest.

The Park is not, in my humble opinion, financially sustainable without one or more new and reliable recurring revenue streams. [Ana Garcia said the same thing, and County Commissioner Sally Heyman has been telling us the same thing.]  I realize most of the Commission members don't agree with this or are pretending to not agree. Since I talked about this issue in our "one on one" interviews, perhaps this is the reason I received two votes and not more.  [Two of the current finalists received preliminary support from four Commissioners, and Lee and the other finalist received preliminary support from only two of the Commissioners.  The other finalist who received only two preliminary votes has not dropped out.]

The financial deaths of cities are slow and involve amounts of money that make the possibility of bankruptcy seem, to the average citizen, out of the question.  How can a municipal corporation with a $2 million dollar annual appropriation be in trouble when the average Park household earns maybe $75,000 [It is in fact an average of $67,000] per year?  The citizens' frame of reference can not comprehend the Park running out of cash.

I worked for Burton and Associates for a short period helping launch their new General Fund Projection Model. It is designed to graphically demonstrate the very points I am making. Each revenue source and expenditure can be adjusted by Commission members in real time, and the results projected out ten years. If there is a problem, as I suspect, the model will make believers out of the most recalcitrant citizen.

Reliable income streams can come from internal (property owners) or external (others) sources or some combination.

Internal sources could be Assessments for such services as storm water, road and street lighting. Assessments are not technically taxes but you will never convince the property owners. Internal could also be contracting out garbage collection. Each household currently pays about $47 per month through an annual assessment using Park employees.  If you can contract for less, say $25 per month per household, you will free up a considerable amount for one of the assessments that will be a new dedicated and reliable revenue stream.  [Lee does not, apparently, know this idea has been considered repeatedly and rejected by BP residents.  He doesn't realize how much we like our frequent garbage pick-ups.  Also, this is a maneuver you can only do once.  You can't continually reduce garbage pick-up until the garbage is no longer picked up, to continue to save money.]

External could be annexation of the industrial land just east of the north eastern tip of the park. Taxes paid will exceed the cost of servicing the area and the property owner and Park residents will benefit from controlling zoning and use of the property.

A long shot external is a reliable continuing appropriation or grant from the county to preserve the unique all-residential and comprehensively designed character of the Park. I see the county considering median refurbishment and storm water refurbishment, with City assessments then needed only for maintenance and not capital. The county will have to be shown unique reasons it should help the Park or it will open itself to the same request from every city in the county.

One more internal is the creation of an Endowment Fund which would slowly grow and eventually produce a meaningful long term source of revenue. The Fund would depend on the generosity of residents who remembered the Park in their wills.

You can also threaten the county with disincorporation if things don't change financially, and then they will have all the costs and no additional revenue. I don't see the threat of disincorporation coming from the present Commission, however.

And speaking of grants, they are rarely reliable, usually require matching funds and may or may not be on point with the Park's needs. In other words, they may end up being a messy band-aid instead of a solution.

And conserving cash by questioning every dollar is counter-productive. You will save some money, but cost the Park in the long run to have the staff justify each dollar or question the staff's motives and honesty by questioning routine expenditures. And in the long run you are simply slowing the decline.

All the Best,

Lee