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

Email this story