A.G. Gancarski
Jacksonville’s first JEA Agreement meeting since the membership of the actual JEA Board was reduced happened on Wednesday morning, after a delay that did not escape the notice of the media on hand to cover the conclave.
Among the topics “to be discussed,” according to an agenda with a distinctly non-standard, almost psychedelic font: water quality; cost savings opportunities; “profits” and pension issues; and, most tantalizingly, “JEA Board Composition, Responsibilities, and Oversight.”
“There’s a lot going on with JEA, and everybody’s aware of that,” said Councilman Bill Gulliford, in a comment tailored to media in attendance.
Gulliford didn’t “want in any way to give indication that we’re here on a witch hunt”; rather, the goal is to strengthen the utility’s position, especially in light of December meetings with ratings agencies (a trip on which Mayor Lenny Curry will join them).
In May, Fitch gave JEA bonds a AA rating, saying that the position of the company was “stable,” a stability engendered by the stability of its largest customers, Shands and the city, as well as liquidity, debt service support, and “sound contract provisions.”
Clearly, the pragmatic councilman hoped that the most lurid thing from the meeting would be the font on the agenda.
An unmistakable subtext of Gulliford’s comments: aggressive reporting on issues related to the utility could have unintended consequences with respect to the credit position of the utility going forward.
With that in mind, the question looming over the meeting: would any news be created?
A discussion of water quality and BMAP credits led off the meeting, which seemed almost tailored to dull media interest.
These were germane to the actual agreement itself, with the vast majority of the dialogue coming from Councilman Gulliford and Councilwoman Lori Boyer as JEA CEO Paul McElroy sat pensively, cufflinks on the table in front of him as he fiddled with his pen.
Septic tanks and sewer service discussions likewise were not catnip to the Cowford press corps.
As the meeting approached the one hour mark, septic tanks continued to dominate the discussion, the equivalent of a 60 minute preliminary match on a pro wrestling card.
Then it got interesting, with discussions of how best to approach the credit rating agencies in December, with Lori Boyer suggesting that there be a “conceptual framework” of the agreement between JEA and the city, agreed on by this committee.
“That would allow the committee to write the story,” said McElroy, who voiced appreciation for the narrative help.
“The big gorilla in the room,” said Gulliford, was how to ascertain the JEA Contribution.
“Ultimately it comes down to that being the biggest issue.”
Issues like board composition, profits, and the other headline grabbers will be discussed in further detail at next Tuesday’s meeting, though it’s unclear which committee member will be in charge of handling which issue at the present.
Clearly, there is a shared interest between the utility, the City Council, and the mayoral administration to salvage what has been reported as a fractious relationship.
With ten minutes to go, the discussion got quasi-hot, with Matt Schellenberg driving the discussion to bonuses.
“Hopefully the new board will be a little more cognizant” regarding bonuses and the budgeting, Schellenberg said.
“It may be appropriate prior to the rating agency trip,” said Gulliford, to bring new board members into one of these meetings to “educate” and “help them along.”
“By then we’d have the framework hopefully,” Gulliford added.
“There’s more concern about the criteria used to evaluate pay for performance,” said Boyer, than the program itself.
“Is it appropriate for the city to have any input into that decision? How would we influence… what would be the appropriate juncture?”
Or, she asked, would it have to be done through board members.
Charter dictates that JEA sets its own compensation, which would preclude Council input short of Charter Revision.
Boyer suggested that perhaps “individual meetings with board members” would preclude what has become an “annual controversy” regarding compensation, which begets “political pressure.”
