message board home
Next
4/24/2025 4:40:25 PM
 
Reply
or ReplyNewSubject
Section 18: Worcester County Subject: Bright to County Msg# 1224186
|
||||||
|
I doubt that it would work as you suggest. The Sanitary Commission is in charge of the books. Simply delaying, deferring or hiding operating deficiencies would be a temptation to move one from #2 to #1 for ease of administration. The two year test you suggest would be a walk in the park for the bureaucrats who have successfully hid the problems for a number of years.
When you get to banks, that's my strong suit. Banks move troubled assets into a "bad bank" to put them in one place so that they can be worked on by experienced people. (Been there; Done that; Have the torn tee shirt) They only write them off when there is no hope since it hits the reserves. I'd be more inclined to see all those with deficit operations in a "bad bank" worked on by experienced people who can hone in and fix the problems. Do they even exist in this W&S Commission? I certainly would not have advanced the kind of $ already expended without seeing a PERT Chart timeline of goals and results. Think it exists for each deficit operation? |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
For reference, the above message is a reply to a message where: I understand your views on the (im)possibility of consensus among the commissioners on this issue. That is why I have advocated moving towards legal action. I view Bright's letter as really a veiled notice of intent to pursue legal action. "and here's the foundation of the OPA suit" If you are correct that some view it as a bluff, I would direct Bright to submit a draft of the proposed suit to the OPA board for approval and then to the commissioners' counsel. I have sometimes found it to be an effective and economical method of driving to a desired conclusion. Your argument for eventual consolidation "because Fiori wants it and has the votes" is precisely the argument for pressing on beyond hoping for a consensus among those members to favor our position. I think Bertino and Bunting will tell you that they have tried nice and it doesn't work in this case. I am no longer a close follower of the commissioners' actions in general but I do remember that there have been several instances in which roughly the same factions have come together before. Wasn't that the case on the commercial athletic complex proposed for 589? Ed, here is my plan for consolidation of all 11 districts into 2. There are 4 that show a profit. River run, OPA, west OC, lighthouse sound. They will be district 1. District 1 will be the district that all others aspire to. In order to qualify you must prove that you are a going concern. How do you do that? By showing a profit. This district will have their lower user costs reflect the positive financial results. The 7 losers will comprise district 2. Their fees will be calculated to reflect the deficit. In other words, they will be higher. Some of these loser systems such as riddle farms are taking positive steps to put their operation on a sound financial footing such as updating facilities etc. At such time that a break even/surplus is generated they would be upgraded to district 1 with the concomitant lower fee schedule. Are you following me, Ed? I came up with this after considering that to combine 2 loser districts into 1 would be like 2 drunks trying to help each other across the road. Furthermore, to combine a profitable district with a loser district would be like giving a the profitable guy more chain than he can swim with. Banks do something similar. Move all the failed assets into 1 entity then write them off. Final point - there would be movement between the 2 districts. If say river run has 2 deficit years in succession then they are put in district 2. |
| Calendar |
OPA Board Meeting - Golf Clubhouse
5/24/2025 - 9:00 A.M. |
|
OPA Board Meeting - Golf Clubhpuse
6/28/2025 - 9:00 A.M. |
|
OPA Board Meeting - Golf Clubhouse
7/26/2025 - 9:00 A.M. |
|
Annual Meeting - Assateague Room
8/9/2025 - 9:00 A.M. |