A hundred thousand here and a hundred thousand
there
I'm told by friends and associates that the way the
City of Banning operates is no better or worse than the way other cities are
run. Be that as it may, it is the city I reside in and I have a vested
interest in its success or lack thereof.
I live, work, pay taxes, vote and volunteer in Banning. I have seen this
city council heatedly agree and disagree on issues; then vote 5-0. The
unanimous vote is sometimes deceptive, as within the Brown Act constraints;
there must be a fair amount of lobbying going on behind the scenes before
and after the discussion and voting is done.
Personally, I would like to see more workshops where projects are presented
to council, planning commission, economic development committee,
the school district and of course the public.
While this might seem like a waste of time, I have seen it work in other
cities. The workshop is to define what is good and bad about the project.
Adjustments can and should be made before the applicant begins the process
and ultimately go before the planning commission. Once at the city council
level, many of these issues should have been ironed out. In the publishing
business, editing is not done at the blue line stage.
This form of planning has a tendency to shorten, rather than lengthen the
cost and time it takes to get a project through to conclusion in Banning.
Hopefully, somebody in authority might give this some thought Š and that
includes staff as well as the council.
The last city council meeting had some interesting items and discussions
during a lengthy session. One agenda item had the council setting aside its
previous approval of Sun Cal's Black Bench project. The project was
challenged by four separate groups that do not reside or do business within
the city of Banning.
While I liked the Black
Bench project in concept, I had always been quite surprised that the council
approved the project without having an identified access route. My equation
to this is signing a blank check without filling in the name, amount or
reason for expenditure.
The other overriding reason for the judge to rule
for the challengers vs. the city had to do with the complexities surrounding
a precious resource: water. As I understand it, his ruling consisted, in
part, of invalidating the Urban Water Management Plan as prepared by the
city.
This critical document needs to be fixed. The
staff who did it had better undo it. Better yet, why not find qualified
people to redo the document! While they are at it, please deal with
Banning's housing element. The city is still
self-certified, which is one step up from nothing. It's like me being home
schooled by my dog. Betty DeSantis, former chairperson of the planning
commission tried to work with staff for years to get them moving on this.
Staff didn't want to, so it didn't get done. Who is running the city; the
policy makers or the implementers?
Back in September or October of 2007, I was asked
to serve on a committee to evaluate consultants to hire to determine what
taxes might fly with the public. I remember asking the powers that be
whether I was allowed to opine on whether I thought it was a good idea to go
forward with this form of “public evaluation/education. “No,” I was firmly
chided. I wasn't there to think or opine I was merely there to interview and
help pick a consultant to bring forth to the city council for their
consideration.
We gave up our Veteran's Day, Nov. 12, 2007, to
proceed through the interview process. Whatever happened with the budget in
crisis, if something were to go on the ballot, it was for November 2008.
You can imagine my surprise when I heard the
consultant say that anything they might do (if rehired Š they were
“temporarily” dismissed) would have to be a special election in 2009 or the
regular ballot of 2010! How did we miss 2008?
It would be easy to blame it on the council but in
this case, Councilperson Hanna put the ball in
the court of staff where the delay was caused.
So now we've spent yet another $100,000 give or
take 50 here and 50 there. One hundred thousand dollars seems to be the
major number for consultant studies. The only person left to hire after the
consultant has finished is a janitor to dust off the studies as they
languish on countless shelves throughout city hall.
These consultants did a phone poll in about
January, 2008. The results were brought back to council in March, 2008. I
believe council gave the okay to go forward. Then things seem to stop.
Reason?
So on June 24, the Banning City Council basically
said, “Go back to the drawing board and reevaluate. Here we are, behind
square one and still in a budget quandary. I scour the newspapers in print
and online daily. While I have seen what other cities are doing/have done
during their budget processes, I have read nothing about what or where cuts
have been made for our burg of Banning. How come?
The council went back and forth again and again
discussing which tax, if any would be foisted upon local taxpayer. Warehouse
tax? Sales tax? Property tax?
Parcel tax? TOT (Transient Occupancy Tax)?
You kind of get the feeling where Mayor Brenda
Salas is going to vote. She drives around in a Hummer with the license plate
“No Taxes.” She said she really didn't want to go through the whole process
of the bed tax (TOT) when it might only yield $500,000. While I was only
an English major, you take four projects at
$500,000 each and that's $2 million that would go into the city's general
fund. I come from humble beginnings, so $2 million will never be chump
change to me.
I happen to approve of the Transient Occupancy
Tax, with the emphasis on transient. The average TOT in surrounding cities
is 10-14 percent. Banning used to be in competition until some City Council
with an infinite lack of courage lowered it to 6 percent. I wish they sold
political courage in tablet form; I would spring for the meds until they
took effect.
Should the city read just its TOT tax to be
similar to other cities, it would add an addition $4-6 per $100 room. Should
the rare bird enter a hotel, motel or inn and query as to the bed tax rate,
they might decide on a different venue. I doubt it. There are in excess of
150,000 people riding up and down the I-10 and I doubt if the average client
would leave because the bed tax added another $4-6 to the bill.
Hoteliers in Banning might say they will lose
customers if the TOT is brought up to where it should be.
Maybe yes; probably no. Should a traveler decide
to seek lodging in another city, they better think about it. At $5 per
gallon of gasoline, plus wear and tear on body and vehicle, it would appear
to be a financial wash.
I've been to the new Hampton Inn in Banning and
seen the accommodations. They are excellent and I would not hesitate to pull
off the road and spend a night at this inn.
Until our codes enforcement folks (and their
bosses) deem ridding this city of an over abundance of blight, as much as
the hotel may be first rate, there is little to have them hang around in
Banning. While positive steps are being taken, from my vantage point, it
couldn't happen to quickly.
If I asked John/Jane taxpayer whether they would
like a higher sales tax imposed on themselves or let travelers pay a few
dollars more, I expect the answer would be to vote for the TOT.
I've done my survey, run it through my focus
groups and evaluated the statistics. Good. I'm a consultant. Here's my bill
for $100,000.
Print this story
