2012.09.20_FAB_Minutes_RegularH ( 4t too
off'�,•6
• - it
'•m'�
N
TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH
3, :s0
'' �• ' _%
MINUTES OF THE
FINANCIAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
Thursday, September 20, 2012 9.30 AM
Members Present: Chair Gerald Gitner, Board Member Ronald Brooks, Board Member
David Buchsbaum, Board Member Bruce Giacoma, and Board Member William Gross.
Also Attending: Vice Mayor Ron Brown, Commissioner Dennis Sheridan,
Commissioner Louis Stern, Town Manager Kathleen Weiser, Finance Director Cale
Curtis, Deputy Town Clerk Valerie Oakes and members of the public.
CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Gitner called the Regular Meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. in the Town Hall
Conference Room followed by a roll call taken by the Deputy Town Clerk.
ADDITIONS, DELETIONS OR ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA:
Chair Gitner called for any additions, deletions to the agenda, hearing none, the agenda
was accepted as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND REOUESTS:
Chair Gitner called for any public comments and requests.
Carl Feldman — 3210 S. Ocean Blvd.
I thought at the last meeting we were going to be next door because we are really getting
crowded in here. Are we going next door? Chair Gitner — I did not change the venue.
That was by the powers that be. Mr. Feldman — It was voted at the last meeting to go
there though. Chair Gitner — As I said to you, I did not change the venue. Somebody
else, not me, decided that we were going to meet here because they could not make that
available. Mr. Feldman — Will we be there in the future? Chair Gitner — I cannot answer
that because we are not there now. I don't control that.
Mr. Feldman — The Town Manager is here. Can she answer that? Town Manager
Kathleen Weiser — I can answer that question. The Commissioners had taken a formal
vote on whether or not you are going to hold your meetings in here or broadcast them, so
they have to vote. Their decision takes precedence. This item is on the agenda for
Tuesdays workshop to discuss the Financial Advisory Board's meeting location. Chair
Gitner — Okay, but for clarification, maybe somebody could say the reason we couldn't
meet this time because we were all prepared to meet. Wasn't there some sort of conflict
Financial Advisory Board
Thursday, September 20, 2012 Page 2 of 14
or something? Deputy Clerk Oakes — No, it was more so because of the fact that the
meeting would not be broadcast, so it really would not have mattered if the meeting was
here or there. I think the whole intention of meeting in the Chambers was having the
meeting broadcasted.
PRESENTATIONS:
No presentations.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
• August 20, 2012 — Regular
MOTION: Member Giacoma moved to approve the minutes of August 20, 2012,
Regular Meeting as presented. Member Gross seconded the motion, which passed
unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS•
A) General Discussion of Financial Topics Follow -Up:
• Investment Options/Policy (Memo Topic #1)
Director Curtis — There is no real progress on the investment options/policy. I have
reached out to a couple of local, smaller banks. They are willing to give us a little bit of
an increase in greater return in markets, approximately 50 basis points. I have looked at
the ratings off of www.bankrate.com. They have four stars, they are qualified public
depositories, so our money would be fully collateralized. It doesn't mean that it would
be fully collateralized in cash though. Them being smaller banks, there may be a little
more risk getting into them and closing up.
Chair Gitner — Do our deposits qualify for FDIC? Dir. Curtis — Yes, they are FDIC and
under the qualified public depository. Member Giacoma — It is insured? Dir. Curtis —
Yes. Chair Gitner — As long as you don't exceed certain limits and can open multiple
accounts, you will eventually get your money.
Member Buchsbaum — I met with Fidelity and was looking into different options, which
depends on the risk profile the Commissioners would like to take. You can't really get
much more then what your talking about without changing the boundaries of the risks
that you are taking in terms of your investments. Fidelity, the best I could get is about
80 basis points, in essentially, a risk free situation. The question is do we want to do
anything beyond that in terms of investments. A lot of people are either going out the
yield curve or going to Ginnie Mae or tips funds or things of that nature, which we could
do with part of the portfolio if people were interested in pursuing that. I haven't talked
to Bruce, so I was just doing some fundamental research on the issue and found that you
are not going to get much more then 80-100 basis points without taking some risk.
Financial Advisory Board
Thursday, September 20, 2012 Page 3 of 14
Chair Gitner — Compared to where we are today it is still worth doing? If nothing else,
you could go to the local banks. Member Buchsbaum — Absolutely we should do it.
Chair Gitner — We should encourage Cale to move forward ASAP on spreading the
wealth. I think we should look at taking, depending where we end up with the so called
"excess balance" that is when we can decide, or make a recommendation as to what to
do with that money, but at least all the funds except the day-to-day operating fund
should be in places where you can get the 50 basis points. I made a few calls myself and
not too many places will take government entity deposits. Not so easy. Member
Buchsbaum — Yes, not so easy. Chair Gitner — The 50 is two -and -half (2.5) times more
than what we are getting today. Do you need a resolution for that? Do you have to go
back to the Commission? Director Curtis — I don't think so. I will probably have to go
back to the Commission to get their authorization to open a bank account, but I don't
think I will need a recommendation from you all. From our discussion here, I get the
idea.
Chair Gitner — As far as local banks are concerned, I for one think we should never go
lower. Everything we do should be covered by FDIC or some other insurance. So if you
have to open up two accounts in the same bank or just open up in three or four banks,
that's what I would do. I wouldn't go for that kind of return, why would you take that
risk. Does everybody agree with that?
The Board was in agreement with Chair Gitner's statement.
Chair Gitner — You will report back to us at the next meeting? Dir. Curtis — Absolutely.
Yes.
• Sale of Surplus Property (Memo Topic #2)
Director Curtis — The Town issued a request for proposals (RFP) for commercial
realtors. To my surprise, we have received only one response from a commercial broker
out of Orlando. The evaluation team has not put that together. I don't think we are
going to waste time evaluating a proposal from one guy out of Orlando. I am working
with our attorney to close out the RFP and re -issue a new one that is somewhat less
involved to get a realtor to express some interest. The RFP was advertised in our local
paper, the Palm Beach Post, and was also sent directly out to eight different brokerage
firms either by fax or email. I contacted one of those firms that I sent it out to, a firm
that did not respond, trying to say, "Hey, I know you received this. Why didn't we get a
response?" He researched it a little more. His professional opinion was that the time it
took to develop a response versus the time it would take to find a potential buyer or
developer wasn't on his radar screen. He did not see a benefit to it. That is one realtor's
position. I am not going to give up on it. We will re -advertise and re -assess the
situation and somehow get some representation on it.
Chair Gitner — That is an interesting comment. I made some notes of it when I saw it. Is
the RFP that we put out the best case of what we want or what the law requires? In
other words, can we scale back the demands, the bonds, and all the rest of that stuff?
Financial Advisory Board
Thursday, September 20, 2012 Page 4 of 14
What we really want is to get some offers on the table and then do a contract. If you
look at the RFP, you are putting people through so many hoops before they can talk to
you. Member Gross — It is quite intense. Chair Gitner — It is voluminous. The question I
am asking is - are you indicating that we would be allowed by law to scale back the
demands? Dir. Curtis — Yes, that is what I am working on with legal staff. How we can
make this less difficult for a realtor to respond and still provide protection to the Town?
As far as their cost for doing the services that was open ended. They could submit any
cost they wanted for it. We did not put any restriction on that just so we could generate
proposals. As far as insurance, bonds, representation, what we would like to see out of
their work, that is us putting that in there letting them know this is the scope of services
we expect. You can put in your proposal how much you want to charge for it.
Member Gross — Have we looked at the internet site at all? Is there a way we can use
the internet to get some more activity? Dir. Curtis — As far as advertising, no, the
proposal is put on the Palm Beach Post website. I think a Google search if you put in the
right key terms, and it is on our website. That is how I found realtors in Boca and
Delray. I searched brokerage firms. Chair Gitner — It is not an inconsequential piece of
property with a big commission. It would seem to me that if you decrease the level of
demands, it might get someone that is interested. Dir. Curtis — The broker explained that
this is property that needs to be developed and it is not on a main road, especially the
well field. There is not a high demand for new development right now. That was his
explanation.
Chair Gitner — Does that mean we have to take an attitude that if we start now, look at it,
and if we are lucky, unload it in four or five years? Basically, we need to do the staging
work now in order to get it done in the future.
Member Buchsbaum — Does anyone know if there would be any interest from the City of
Boca Raton with respect to the property? Dir. Curtis — They have first right of refusal.
Chair Gitner — That expires soon doesn't it? Dir. Curtis — I will report back to the
Board.
Member Gross — In conjunction with the sale of the property, the 1.5 acre vacant lot at
3200 S. Ocean Blvd. came up to possibly to do a swap with a bank. Any news on that?
Dir. Curtis — That was for our broker -to -be to pursue those options. Chair Gitner — That
is why we need to get somebody working on our behalf even if it is undeveloped land,
even if there are environmental issues, otherwise, someone else needs to tune up all of
these various alternatives including swapping the land.
Member Brooks — In a buyer's market like we are in right now, maybe we are not
looking at all of the possible respondents. Bruce, you can probably take that and do
something with it since you know the respondents up and down. Member Giacoma — It
is a very, very funny economy to be very frank. People kind of bury their heels in what
is going on. Paying attention to the mortgage markets as much as I do now with the
Federal Reserve kicking up its heels as far as spending so much money in a month on
mortgage backed securities, you think it would open up some avenues. The consumer is
Financial Advisory Board
Thursday, September 20, 2012 Page 5 of 14
walleyed at this point. They're concerned about their jobs, they are concerned about
their investments at this point. People are stuck. The Feds have basically reinstituted
the Bernanke Put. Meaning that you can guarantee every month $40 billion worth of our
money is going to be created. Member Brooks — That is open ended isn't it? Member
Giacoma — It is open ended. It can go to 65 if it wants to. The traders on Wall Street are
loading up on mortgage backed securities and going to be fading into the future. That is
the best investment in the world right now as far as mortgage backed securities. The
fact -of -the -matter is the 3% Ginnie Mae securities right now is trading at about the price
of $103. It is something under 3%. So the yields right now, there are no give -a -ways at
this point except for sub prime type loans, which are toxic. We are in a very unique
phenomenon. The consumer is the one who is basically saying, "I am not sure what it
happening. I don't know if my job is secure right now, so I am going to wait." That is
where it starts.
Chair Gitner — It would take so long to develop this property. You can drive down the
highway and see all this new construction right next to a shopping center that is empty.
Member Giacoma — Genuinely, we are looking at the wrong place. Expecting to get a
return on that is slim to none at this stage. Unless, something comes out of the clear blue
sky. Chair Gitner — My point is that we need to have it staged, so if and when the
market comes back, it is ready to go on a spring rather than start from scratch. The more
work we do now the easier it will be. Member Giacoma — With Mr. Greenspan and
Company and alike, nobody is looking at a return until 2015. It is that type of duration.
They are not arbitrarily Bernanke's. He is saying it very clearly and speaking to the
smart guys in the room. It's been pushed from 2014 to 2015.
Chair Gitner — You don't want to be graduating from school now looking for a job.
Member Giacoma — It is a tough time. It is a tough time. People are not leaving jobs.
Genuinely, Wall Street is common for the fact when you least expect it something comes
from the clear blue sky. More pestilence and famine happen during these times. For
very good reasons quite frankly. History proves that in recession/depressionary times,
wars are created. As a result, we have to be diligent on the whole thing.
Chair Gitner — So we will keep this on our agenda as an ongoing basis, try to push it
forward.
• Monthly Financial Report (Memo Topic #3)
Director Curtis — No update on the report. You should have received the report for July
2012. Everything is on pace as it was last month.
• Capital Improvement Plan (Memo Topic #4)
Chair Gitner — Can you give us a summary of where the Commission ended up on the
budget's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), etc. to set a framework? It comes around
then to the fund balances.
Financial Advisory Board
Thursday, September 20, 2012 Paae 6 of 14
Director Curtis — This is something new that was given to the Commission this year
along with our budget process. While they are going to approve it as it is with the
budget tonight, over the next couple of months, we will hold workshops to revise the
plan by adding things in, taking things out and moving them around. So it is basically
going to be a working document for the next couple of months until we get something
set in stone. Then we will attempt to tie in our fund balance or set aside some type of
reserve to fund those projects over the years in which they will come due.
Chair Gitner — The money that we have right now is not because anybody planned on it.
It is there. In order to put together a long range plan, should we not be targeting a sum
of reserves and then working toward that as opposed to the fact this money happens to
be here and now it is sacrosanct. Don't dip into the reserves as some people say versus
we have "x" million, and determine that we need point (.x) something of "x" and
therefore, if there is something on the horizon for the capital plan, perhaps the best and
highest use of that money would be to spend that money as opposed to leaving that pile
of money over here that is now sacrosanct even though nobody really knows why we
have that number. How do you address that? Dir. Curtis — I think there are a couple of
ways to address that. I think we have already begun to address that by establishing the
17% reserve set aside that is designed to provide two months of operating expenditures.
We have the disaster recovery that is set aside. I think what you are saying now the next
step is to develop some type of reserve that is designed to grow to meet... Chair Gitner
— Actually, what I am saying is that if we have those two mandatory required reserves
should we be thinking in the context of what, if any, other reserve should there be. Is
that what we should be doing? The taxpayers are saying that we need a rainy day fund
and we are going to put it over here getting 50 basis points a year in yield versus they
keep it and when we need the money we will tax you two or three years from now.
Dir. Curtis — I think in the best -case scenario we need both. We need a reserve set aside
specifically for capital improvements and then we need to develop a minimum threshold
for the "rainy day" fund. The "rainy day" fund got us through the last five years without
raising taxes. It was not a policy decision to build that up. It was a result of the good
times. We backed into it. I do not think that we should bring down the "rainy day" fund
down to zero to support a project or plan. It should be two fold: identifying reserves for
capital improvement projects, operating expenditures, and then some type of amount to
the "rainy day" fund and it may not need a minimum balance. It may just be there to
show that we have some additional money set aside, so if the economy takes another
huge downturn we have got this to get us through again.
Chair Gitner — Given the capital needs, we are our own best fonder at this point in time.
It does not make any sense for us to go out and borrow money while we have money
getting at best, 50 basis points, and go out and borrow money at three or four percent.
We have this conundrum. What do you do with it because every day that goes by its
value declines? Dir. Curtis — The Commission is taking a big step by closing our
operating gap and we are not using that "rainy day" fund to fund our everyday expenses.
That is the first step. The next step is to identify those capital improvements and create a
reserve out of that "rainy day" fund. Chair Gitner — So you are saying that there should
Financial Advisory Board
Thursday, September 20, 2012 Page 7 of 14
be a third allocation? Like you do in a condo association like where I am where we set
aside cash. The reserve is not just a depreciation account. It has assets for if and when
something occurs we dip in and use that money. How do you arrive at a number? Dir.
Curtis — I don't think it will be fully funded based on our capital plan, but I think we
start funding it with what the Commission finally adopts as a plan and what is in there.
We will look at a portion of the annual revenues that come in, such as franchise taxes.
We may look at designating 10% of those taxes to help build this fund. Just general
ideas. We have the "rainy day" fund that we can put in there to fund the first two years
depending on what is in there.
Member Buchsbaum — Do we have any debt that we can prepay that isn't expensive?
Dir. Curtis — We have three loans with the State of Florida. They are just over 2.75%.
Member Buchsbaum — Ok, so we do not have anything over 3%. Chair Gitner — There
are back -ending issues. It gets very complicated. I went though some of it with Cale.
Member Buchsbaum — There is nothing of interest there? Chair Gitner — There is if you
wanted to get an analyst and sit down for a couple of months with a lawyer and read the
words. For example, what if you simply pay it six months in advance. Even at 2.75%
you will get a 2.75% return on your money versus 50 basis points. If you give the bank
the money ahead of time, it goes to the back not the front. We learned a lesson: the next
time we take a loan we want to be able to prepay on our own terms. Member
Buchsbaum — It sounds like what we need is a capital reserve account that we are going
to fund. Member Giacoma — Against depreciating assets. Chair Gitner — I think that is a
good suggestion rather than calling it this "unassigned piggy bank". It makes no sense.
There should be a number that is arrived at by some quantitative basis. Member
Buchsbaum — It will be based on projected capital outlays. Member Giacoma — It is on a
staged basis to replace those assets. Chair Gitner — Rather than getting hit all at once to
replace those assets, a significant portion can be funded. That will go on as part of the
Capital Improvement Plan and bring it to the Commission and say we think that in
addition to these two assigned pools we want to begin another pool, a capital
replacement fund, as opposed to an improvement fund.
• FY 2013 Budget (Memo Topic #5)
Director Curtis — The Commission will hold their final budget hearing tonight. They
will formally and finally adopt a millage rate and budget. The millage rate that they are
being presented with is the maximum millage rate that they adopted in July. The rate of
3.95. Since the budget was first distributed back in July, the general fund has decreased
by a little over $750,000 mainly due to postponing the renovation project. We have had
some decent turnouts at the budget hearings, good conversations with the commissioners
as well as residents getting up to speak. I think for the most part the people that attend
our meetings understand the budget and are on board with it.
Member Gross — What is the percentage increase with the 3.95? Dir. Curtis — The
percentage we go by is the rollback rate, which is 17% greater than the rollback rate.
The rollback rate is a tax rate that will generate the prior year taxes less new
Financial Advisory Board
Thursday, September 20, 2012 Page 8 of 14
construction, renovations and additions. The rollback rate is actually less than what our
current tax rate is. The current tax rate is 3.4; the rollback rate is 3.35.
Member Buchsbaum — I think it is 12% over the current tax rate.
Chair Gitner — You mentioned postponing the renovations. Renovations were apart of
the Capital Plan. Presumably when those renovations were proposed there was a reason
for them. They get postponed in most cases. When things like that happen, the cost of
redoing it at a future point gets higher and more complicated because you have to go
back and redo the plans, etc. Will this be a part of the CIP? Everything that gets
proposed gets pulled back. It also goes back to the discussion we had last time about
getting ourselves more familiar with these renovations and the needs of each of these
departments. We weren't able to get somebody to speak to us today apparently, but the
more we can understand about these proposed renovations, these proposed future capital
needs, the better we can assist you and the Commission in being ready. There are such
wide disparities and I do not know which is right and which is wrong. I don't know the
facts. Dir. Curtis — I think that our CIP will provide us with that direction.
Chair Gitner — If Bruce is right, and I think he is, we are looking forward to an economy
expanding in 2014-2015. Take the fire truck; I think we can probably negotiate a deal
within the next 12 months. That is about as good of a deal that you are going to get, it
will take 12 months to build. It is a two-year horizon. If we wait, we will be getting into
the market when everybody else is and the price potentially goes up. These are just real
world things. We should somehow be taking advantage of our fiscal position especially
on things that we know we need like the walkway, the fire truck. You are paying cash,
you are not using a credit card, you don't have to go out and borrow. It seems to me the
more information you give to the Commission about what we can do now is better, if
you wait two years the economy can change and we don't know what the price and the
availability will be at that point in time. Member Buchsbaum — I agree with that except
some expenditures are deferrable because they are not necessary at the current time.
Chair Gitner — Certain things you know. Member Buchsbaum — Sure, and the things you
decide on, now is a great time. Chair Gitner — You can drive the best bargains right
now, just like buying a house.
B) Fund Balance: Develop Strategies to Identify the Proper Amount and to
Preserve it.
This item was discussed under item 6A — Memo Topic 4, in conjunction with the Capital
Improvement Plan.
NEW BUSINESS:
Discussion on Charter Amendment
Chair Gitner — Can you brief us on the Charter changes? Dir. Curtis — The main Charter
change that affects finance are the Commission has chosen to go with 10% of the general
fund budget as a threshold whether we need to go to a referendum or not. What that
Financial Advisory Board
Thursday, September 20, 2012 Page 9 of 14
means is if we have a project that comes up and the total project costs more than 10%,
we will have to put that out to the voters in a referendum. Anything under 10% can be
approved either at a staff management level or the Commission level by majority vote.
Chair Gitner — Is there a threshold that must go to the Commission? Dir. Curtis — Yes,
anything over $25,000.
Member Gross — They have the authority to decide what percentage? What if they
decide to do 20%? I know what you are talking about 10% without putting it out to a
referendum for their decision -making. They can just arbitrarily come up with 10% of
the budget? What if they wanted to do 30% of the budget? Dir. Curtis — Well it would
have to be a change to the Charter, which is reviewed every 10 years. Member Gross —
What is in the Charter right now? What is their authority right now? Dir. Curtis — They
just changed it — it is 10%.
Chair Gitner — Let me ask the question differently, under Florida Law, can the
Commission do what it wants or is it bringing it to the voters elective on their part? Dir.
Curtis — It is a self-imposed restriction. The other change was the Commission has
chosen to go with the State's mandation on a millage cap of 10 mills. Previously the
Commission further restricted themselves to a maximum cap of five. That is our tax
rate. The State allows for a maximum of 10. The Commission has removed our self-
imposed restriction and has gone with the State's, not that we will be at 10 mills. Those
are the two main changes that effect finance.
Chair Gitner — So now, the fire truck, the walkway, and the renovations would be within
the purview of the Commission on a majority vote? Dir. Curtis — As long as what you
are saying, based on 2014, that it doesn't sky rocket. Chair Gitner — Based on what you
know today. Dir. Curtis — Yes.
Discussion on Pension Liabilities
Member Buchsbaum — I have an unrelated question, different topic. Pension liabilities is
not an area that we have discussed. I don't know what we do periodically to review that
and what opportunities that might be there. I don't have familiarity with what
employees contribute to their pension, health care costs and those sorts of things. Is
there anything you could do to illuminate - let us know what is going on with the matter?
Dir. Curtis — Thanks for brining that up. That is a great topic for us although it is not an
immediate concern for us. The Town is a participant in the Florida State Retirement
System (FRS). We do not administer our own pension or have to fund our own liability
on it. The Town makes monthly contributions on behalf of the employee to the State.
The State administers it and they will adjust the contribution rates to the Town or to the
employee based on what their unfunded liability is. Currently all employees contribute
three percent, and depending on the class of employee — regular, special risk, senior
management or elected official, the town contributes anywhere from 6% up to 16% for
the police officers.
Financial Advisory Board
Thursday, September 20, 2012 Page 10 of 14
Member Gross — Does the unfunded liability portion appear on the State's balance sheet
or get dropped down to our balance sheet? Dir. Curtis — The State's (balance sheet).
Chair Gitner — So we do not footnote it? Dir. Curtis — We do not. We footnote our
contributions on our annual report but as far as any liability we have for it or assets...
Chair Gitner — Can the State pension fund make a call to the Town for a special
assessment? Dir. Curtis — They adjust their contribution rates each July.
Chair Gitner — It is on a rolling basis. There is no claw back. Dir. Curtis — The
employee's 3% contribution went into effect last July. A bunch of unions, teacher's
unions, police unions, have sued the State saying that it is unconstitutional based on their
rights to bargain pension benefits, and that they were hired under a specific law under
the State that says that they will not contribute to their own pension. It has now gone to
the Supreme Court of Florida for a final ruling. It may or may not change that 3%. If
the judge decides to side with the unions that the 3% was unconstitutional, then that
would some how be given back to the employees but there will be a two-year short fall
of 3% of all contributions. Where that comes from to make it whole, I don't know. My
only assumption is that it is going to be passed down to each participating organization
or employer.
Chair Gitner — This becomes a plug-in number as opposed to — it's like an operating
expense. Dir. Curtis — I know what the contribution rate is going to be each July. It is
based on our projected salaries.
Member Buchsbaum — What has been the trend with respect to those costs? How much
is it going up year over year? Dir. Curtis — Two years ago before the 3% was in place,
they were going up. Last year we had a huge decrease in the amount because the
employee started kicking in 3%, so the Town was able to save a couple of hundred
thousand the last couple of years just on pension contributions. If the union wins this
lawsuit, then it is eventually going to fall back on the organization, and we will see an
increase in our contribution.
Chair Gitner — The way the lawsuit is set up does it only cover contract employees or all
employees? Du. Curtis — It is representing all employees.
Member Brooks — Are there any exceptions to the 16% upper limit? Dir. Curtis — No,
the 16% is provided to special risk, which includes police and fire employees. The next
highest contribution is 9% or 10%, which is senior management, and regular class is
between 6% and 7%. It depends on your class of employment.
Member Gross — Are you saying that if the unions win the case, then the Town is on the
hook for the last year in terms of that 3%? Dir. Curtis — I am not saying that. I don't
know how other then... Chair Gitner — I think the way it might work, if that happens,
the assessment for the fall in July would go up, and still remain as an operating expense
rather than an assessment. The way he is describing this is almost like a FICA or tax as
opposed to trying to build a reserve.
Financial Advisory Board
Thursday, September 20, 2012 PaLye 11 of 14
Review of Resolution No. 11-006 R
The Board reviewed Resolution No. 11-006 R, which re-established the Financial
Advisory Board.
Chair Gitner — The reason I am passing this around is we have had some discussions at
our prior meetings regarding going back to the Commission requesting to look at certain
items/topics. When I read this it says to me, "I had a hard time thinking of something
that we cannot look at or should not look at", which is exactly the reverse of what we
have been operating on. I think going forward it is as broad as can be. We do not do
anything, we do not spend anything, but we certainly have been mandated to look at
anything and everything. We do not have to go to the Commission to ask to look at the
budget, or this or that. On the contrary, we should look at it. Member Giacoma — It is a
proactive statement. You are absolutely correct. Chair Gitner — To that, we really need
to set up a schedule to meet with the department heads so we can get a better
understanding of all of these various needs as time goes by. For our next meeting, we
should get one, if not two. We don't want to get lobbied. We just want to know what is
going on. We want to understand. I think the problem is we come in here once every
six weeks, once every eight weeks, and we talk for 45 minutes to an hour then we go off
and do our thing. We are not privy to all the facts. We cannot talk to each other on the
street. We have to have a way of getting information.
Discussion on Location and Broadcast of FAB Meetin s
Chair Gitner — The Commission is going to vote on the FAB moving to the other room,
and we have one more bite at the apple. I think the format we have is working. I have
looked at some of the other committee meetings of the Town, and I think we have good
participation. I could go either way. I just don't want to feel that we should be bullied
or otherwise because in addition to being on the video, there are other reasons. We can
meet in the room without the video, if we need a bigger audience. I just wanted to have
another dialogue, and also we can have coffee.
Member Giacoma — I think it is healthy that we consider moving over to the chambers.
It is full disclosure and lets the town know that there is an advisory board that has the
opportunity to look out for the best interests of the owners and real estate of Highland
Beach. I think we serve an interesting watchdog, kind of approach. If I was just a
consumer and did not serve on the board of my building, I would be less than
comfortable if we didn't have this advisory board and everything kind of slid through.
This advisory board is powerful and if the Commission feels comfortable with the work
we are doing, it is a great checks and balance. As a result, I think it is healthy that it is a
public viewing.
Member Gross — I can go either way. It really doesn't matter.
Member Buchsbaum — I think that I have been in the middle on this. I do think we are
doing important work and what needs to be weighed is that to the extent that we want to
challenge things whether or not being in the public purview of being under the camera is
Financial Advisory Board
Thursday, September 20, 2012 Page 12 of 14
going to anyway inhibit our frankness with respect to a lot of these issues. I think the
Chair has a concern about that, which I share. That has to be weighed against the
advantage of having essentially the public being able to see it on TV as opposed to know
about it in another matter. I am thankful for the Chair; I think he has done some really
meaningful work. I am sympathetic to his concerns at this juncture. I would like to hear
other viewpoints but I can go either way. I am sensitive to the Commission and its
position on this as well. I think we are doing good work, and I think it is important to
keep the Chair happy.
Member Gross — I agree with that. I think given the choice I respectfully defer to your
feeling. I think you got an important spot as the Chair. Whatever you feel comfortable
with, I will go along.
Chair Gitner — Well let me be clear. I can go either way. My concern is drawing out
feedback and being sure that everybody is going to speak their piece as opposed to
looking around. When somebody has to talk, they have to get up and introduce
themselves, and get close to the microphone. It is far more of a show and tell. You can
see it; it is a different dynamic.
Member Brooks — I think as long as we assiduously stay out of politics either location is
fine.
Chair Gitner — Let me make a suggestion, let's try it a couple of times. Then we will
have a dialogue just like this, and we will see how much participation we get. Manager
Weiser — There are several options you can do. You can move in there and not
necessarily broadcast. Again the Commission has taken a formal action on it, so they
have to take a formal action to rescind the action taken.
Chair Gitner — What action are they taking? Is it to be in that room or to be broadcasted?
Member Buchsbaum — We have the right to be here isn't that correct? Didn't the
Commission say that we could essentially have these meetings the way that we are
without television? Manager Weiser — Yes, there was a consensus. The initial feeling
was you guys are a think tank and not to stifle you. They had a consensus to not
broadcast your meeting.
Chair Gitner — Why do they have to vote? Wouldn't that be left up to our discretion as
opposed to what room we are in? Manager Weiser — You are an advisory board of the
Commission, and they have the final say. Chair Gitner — I understand, but why wouldn't
we request from the Commission that we simply have the ability to be in different
venues and to be broadcast or not would be up to us? Manager Weiser — You can make
that recommendation to the Commission, but they have to approve it. Chair Gitner —
Will one of you make that motion that we can be in either room, but it would be up to us
whether we broadcast? She keeps a recording anyway. Dep. Clerk Oakes — I think
something you may want to consider is it is very confusing for the public to know where
to go and whether or not it is going to be broadcasted. Eventually, you will need to
make a decision as to where you are going to meet. Chair Gitner — I would suggest for
Financial Advisory Board
Thursday, September 20, 2012 Pate 13 of 14
at least the next few meetings that we meet in the Chambers to see how it goes. I don't
care if we get it broadcast next time, but why wouldn't we have the ability some point in
the future to decide whether it gets broadcast or not rather than having to go back to the
Commission. Manager Weiser — Because they made that decision. Chair Gitner — I
understand like they left it initially to our discretion to be here. Why can't we ask them
or should we ask them to give it to our discretion whether to be broadcast? The venue is
irrelevant as to whether we are being broadcast. It is two different points. Member
Gross — That is a good point. Giving us the authority to decide what we want to do and
vote on that. Manager Weiser — We can say that was your final recommendations;
again, they have the final say. Chair Gitner — We will do whatever the Commission
wants. Do we need a motion on that or can you convey that? Manager Weiser — We can
convey that the consensus was they give the FAB the discretion. Member Gross —
That's fine. Chair Gitner — That's fine. Done. Any further business or discussion?
Dir. Curtis — Just something real quick. Ron, at our last meeting, asked for some type of
list on our recommendations and the subsequent action taken, so I have prepared this.
This is a list of what we have done. What I will do is update this after our meetings and
after each action the Commission takes on anything we have brought before them. I will
take any of your comments or suggestions.
Chair Gitner — Is the Commission going to fully fund the disaster fund? Dir. Curtis —
We have not brought that to them yet.
Chair Gitner — The last one on the second page. The way we read our Charter, we
already have that authority. If you read the Charter and you read the motion to the
Commission, it is superfluous. So we can save the Commission some time on this
agenda.
Member Brooks — Is this ongoing? Dir. Curtis — Yes, I will make updates.
Chair Gitner — The major line up for our next agenda is to line up one or two department
heads. Dir. Curtis — Well I am planning on using that when we get our Capital
Improvement Plan in place. Then we will determine who comes in and speaks.
Otherwise, we will have a department head that may come in and speak to gain the floor
over something that is higher up in the strategic plan. Chair Gitner — I think the five of
us are astute enough to see through things. We want to know what is going on. If they
choose to spend their time trying to build a Taj Mahal, as opposed to informing us, that
is also going to be a message. Dir. Curtis — What are you expecting a department head
to come in and speak about? Chair Gitner — I thought Mr. Lee did a great job. He came
in told us what he does and what his problems are. If they are going to preach, they need
to preach to the Commission, not us.
The Board scheduled their next meeting for Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. in
the Commission Chambers.
Financial Advisory Board
Thursday, September 20, 2012 Page 14 of 14
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, Chair Gitner called for a motion to adjourn the meeting
at 10:24 AM.
MOTION: Member Giacoma moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:24 AM. Member
Brooks seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
APPROVED: /
Gerald Gitner, Chair
R nald Brooks, Board Member
David Buchsbaum, Board Member
Bruce
William Gross, Board Member
TOWN SEAL
7ST '�
Valerie Oakes, CMC, Deputy Town Clerk
Date: November 1, 2012