All previous issues of the Defender are archived at our website:
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 151
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
ATTACHED TO THIS ISSUE
The Martin County Follies
Ag Land to Industrial
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Ed Fielding to run for Commission seat in District 2. Candidacy warmly welcomed
Ed Fielding, a conservation leader who has been deeply involved in efforts to prevent sprawl and over-development, has announced his candidacy for the District 2 Commission seat. He has served on the Local Planning Agency and the boards of Martin County Conservation Al liance and Audubon. He helped found the Rivers Coalition, which has fought against waterway pollution by the Corps of Engineers.
People who have favored non-disruptive slow growth cheered his entrance in the race. They noted that Fielding has stayed involved in public issues over the years, appearing regularly before various County boards.
His business background includes commercial real estate broker, bank vice-president and agri-business manager.
Fielding will face two opponents in the Republican primary. One is incumbent Susan Valliere, who sponsored the Rural Cluster Amendment that promotes development in western agricultural land. She and her husband were found guilty and fined for election law violations in the 2006 election.
The other opposing candidate is Jeff Gorman, a criminal defense lawyer who specializes in drunk driving cases. He was defeated in a 2008 primary bid for the State House. There is little record of any involvement in public issues.
It should be an interesting election.
A NEW (AND FINAL) PHASE IN THE BROWARDIZATION OF MARTIN COUNTY
Landowners, developers and officials push for conversion of agricultural land to industrial
In Nov. 2006, consultant Urbanomics and Leak-Goforth completed a report entitled The Development Assessment and Strategy for Vacant Industrial lands in Martin County , Florida . Its primary recommendation was that business parks, office parks and industrial parks be spread all over the county. This proposal was considered so radical and undesirable that the pro-growth Commission paid the consultants the $50,000 tab, said thanks but no-thanks, and unanimously shelved the report as a flawed piece of work. Read the details at:
More recently, the Urbanomics report has been resurrected under the innocuous title “7th Edition” and applied to Local Planning Agency (LPA) Comp Plan Amendment items (CPA 10-19 & 10-20), which were voted on at the March 4 LPA meeting.
One item was a 150-acre change from Agricultural to Commercial Waterfront; the other a 342-acre change from Agricultural to Industrial located south of 96 St. and west of Kanner Highway , close to residential areas. Public speaker after speaker pointed out the negative impact of the waterfront parcel on residences, the traffic problems, the remote chance of waterfront business success because it is on the wrong side of the locks, the harm to Indiantown facilities that have vacancies, and so on.
The jobs pitch
The applicant was supported by the develop-at-any-cost Economic Council, which kept repeating their sales pitch mantra: jobs, jobs, jobs, though there is no indication this conversion will provide any jobs for many years, if ever. What it will do is devalue nearby homes and Indiantown commercial waterfront … and enrich a few people.
Even if a flood of jobs were added through massive (rather than absorbable) change, how many would be filled by people not now living here? To accommodate them would require still more irreversible conversion of ag land. Rapid growth would mean – if the experience of South Florida generally and Martin County specifically apply over time – more government, more taxes, more traffic, more school crowding, more crime. If we do not preserve our current growth plan it will be Hello Broward, Good-bye Martin.
The LPA, which invariably is a rubber stamp for developer interests, predictably approved the changes 4-to-1. Only member Jim Moir had the good sense and concern for those adversely impacted to dissent. County Growth Management staff supported the change, failing in its obligation to safeguard the broader interests of residents and existing businesses.
Ag Land: GOING, GOING, GONE
At the upcoming March 17 & 18 LPA meetings, that body will consider even greater conversions of ag land to more intensive use. Perhaps the County has been inspired by the following statement in the Urbanomics report: “A large majority of industry targets and subsectors are potential users of leased and owned office and flex office space, and would find location in the Stuart-Palm City area and I-95 Turnpike Corridor most suitable and desirable.”
There are several ag-to-industrial applications, but the worst one aims to create a radical “new future land use category AgTEC on approximately 1,717 acres of Sunrise Groves located north of SW Martin highway and west of Interstate 95.” That’s where Urbanomics would place it. If approved by the submissive LPA and then the Commission, this project (CPA 10-4 & 10-5) will open up the entire rural west County to industrialization. IT WILL DESTROY MARTIN COUNTY AS WE HAVE KNOWN IT!
In addition, taxpayers get ripped off
Understand why the applicant wants “Ag” in the AgTEC label. This factor was explained fully in DEFENDER No. 120. If all 1,717 acres were classified as industrial, the Property Appraiser could impose a tax based on its true market value – which skyrockets with the converted land use category. However, by keeping an Ag label and a token agricultural use, the developer would pay significant taxes only on a small part of the land for years to come. (Ag property tax is so low it’s nearly insignificant, about 1% of non-ag use.) In effect, that shifts the tax burden from Sunrise Groves development to all residents.
If you want to save Martin County , tell officials to stop the conversion of agricultural land to industrial. Contact them:
Email LPA members:
barbarae@gcyinc.com, jsleightoniii@bellsouth.net, benchcat@aol.com, w.b.brown@netzero.com, sandy@zweben.net,
Email commissioners:
svallier@martin.fl.us, sheard@martin.fl.us, eciampi@martin.fl.us, dsmith@martin.fl.us, phayes@martin.fl.us,
There is widespread reasonable suspicion that the rush to convert ag land through Comp Plan change is motivated by the forthcoming vote on Amendment 4.
The best way to preserve our quality of life is to give voters a veto over bad official land decisions. AMENDMENT 4 WILL DO IT.
Survey Results
TIME SPENT WATCHING COMMISSION MEETINGS
We sent an email questionnaire to a random sampling of 1,000 subscribers out of a total of roughly 5,000 DEFENDER subscribers. Its purpose was to learn how much time readers spent following Commission meetings on Martin County ’s MCTV. 98 responses were received and compiled below. Note that these findings do not represent the viewing activities of the general population since DEFENDER subscribers are much more involved, interested and informed on public issues than most residents – as well as being smarter and better looking (;-)
An impressive 37.8% of respondents had attended at least one Commission meeting in person during the previous year.
An equally impressive 65.3% of respondents watched Commission meetings on MCTV during the previous year, as follows:
32.8% of those who viewed Commission meetings watched 10 or more meetings per year..
26.6% of those who viewed Commission meetings watched 5 to 9 meetings per year.
40.6% of those who viewed Commission meetings watched 1 to 4 meetings per year.
Of those who viewed, this is how much of the meetings they watched:
17.2% of meeting watchers stayed tuned in for the entire meeting.
34.4% of meeting watchers stayed tuned in for about half of the meeting.
48.4% of meeting watchers stayed tuned in for about a quarter or less of the meeting.
MCTV facts and figures
Here is some interesting non-survey information about the excellent MCTV (Comcast Channel 20) coverage of meetings and other activities in Martin County :
· The total budget for MCTV (that’s all personnel, equipment, operations, etc.) is $169,791 for FY10.
· There are two full time staff members (a reduction of 50% over previous years), plus volunteers.
· The single largest line item in that budget, besides personnel, is $43,571 for closed captioning of meetings (BoCC, LPA, Code Enforcement, MPO).
· The Consumer Choice Act of 2007 (Florida Legislature) requires Government Access cable channels like MCTV to cablecast a minimum of 10 hours a day of which 5 hours cannot be repeat programming (meeting coverage is not allowed to contribute to these totals). MCTV runs 24/7.
· In FY09, MCTV raised more than $26,000 in revenues selling program sponsorships and production services. This revenue helps to hire contractors to do the diverse programming needed to meet the requirements of the Consumer Choice Act. The Board of Commissioners approved a change in the MCTV policy last May to enable the County to seek sponsorships and to provide production services to the not-for-profit organizations that receive County funds.
MCTV is an important service that helps citizens monitor what is happening in our community.
Quotable quote
“If you like standing naked on a stage while people throw rotten tomatoes at you, then you’ll love being in politics.” - Former Commissioner Maggy Hurchalla
+++++
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: mcdefender@gmail.com
Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
Al Forman, Editor 3/9/10
The Martin County Defender is published and Copyright 2010 by WordsmithAmerica, Box 1828 , Palm City , FL 34991 . Al l rights reserved. No part of this issue may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording for public or private use, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher. NOTICE: Al l correspondence not bearing legal copyright notice which is sent to the Defender or its editor is subject to being edited and published.
All previous issues of the Defender are archived at our website:
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 152
++++++++++
Dear Reader:
This 152nd issue marks the start of our fourth year of publishing the DEFENDER. Our deepest appreciation goes to the many readers who have sent us emails in support of our efforts to defend Martin County ’s values and quality of life. Your words of encouragement fuel our resolve to speak out to preserve what is so wonderful about our community. Thank you. Thank you.
Al Forman
++++++++++
Business Development Board wants to grab $1 million of property tax revenue. What’s good, what’s bad about this money siphon scheme
The Business Development Board (BDB) is a County organization charged with holding and attracting industry. We support this activity because it is to our benefit to expand and diversify the economic base beyond residential construction. When the Commission increased the BDB’s budget to more than $600,000, we stated: “It seems reasonable for the Commission to double the amount contributed by the County to BDB.”
However, BDB has come up with a scheme to siphon off property tax revenue, a plan with good elements, as well as terrible provisions that the Commission should reject.
The extra money that the BDB would acquire, at least $1 million/yr, would be used to bribe, er, incentivize companies to move here. One hopes that Martin will not get caught up in a competitive bidding war race to the bottom. The scheme is to finance the County’s Economic Stimulus fund with 50% of new revenue from future projects. The first bonanza would come from property tax on FPL’s huge new solar project in Indiantown.
The scheme is (heh, heh) painless. Or at least is might seem so to the gullible because it mostly applies to new revenue. Besides, it has the good feature of “clawback” if a subsidized company does not produce promised jobs. And Return On Investment (ROI) software professionally analyzes the benefits a targeted company would provide. That’s the good part. If the “toolkit” plan is not examined closely it is alluring.
Even a couple of Stuart News editorial and column writers fell for this seductive pitch. One of them, abandoning the journalistic skepticism and critical analysis that usually marks her work, said:
“Because the incentive money would come from new property tax revenue, it won’t be siphoned from existing needs. And because the FPL solar plant will not place a big burden on roads or schools, those tax dollars won’t be missed.”
BALONEY!
Here are the hard facts about key provisions that the Commission will need to cut to protect resident interests.
The fund makes subsidizing companies a higher priority than libraries, fire stations, law enforcement and parks!
The money in the property tax revenue pot is fungible. That is, there is no differentiating a fire station dollar from an economic development dollar. We know that to close the $20 million revenue shortfall in the coming year it will be necessary to cut back on vital County services. So the tax on the FPL solar plant would make possible restoration of some of those services that are more important than subsidizing corporations. A mandatory siphoning of the money will prevent such restoration.
The County is obligated to shell out that $1 million even if FPL does not build the solar plant!
Not content with 50% of the added property tax, BDB over-reaches by requesting that $1 million/yr be guaranteed. This could well mean more cuts to libraries, fire stations, law enforcement, parks, roads and other services if FPL does not build, or yields less than the megabuck property tax.
The BDB fund can never revert to the general fund!
That means that no matter how dire the need for vital services in the future, the siphoned property tax revenue would never be available for anything but BDB’s use. What if a hurricane causes $50 million in damage? The BDB fund should not be untouchably sacrosanct.
Such tax revenue segregation fosters financial fragmentation, reducing flexible allocation of funds.
Why limit this lockbox segmentation just to BDB? Why not a fixed percentage for every County department and Constitutional office? Obviously, that would be horrible budget management – and so is this fixed 50% siphon arrangement.
THE BDB PLAN IS RISKY AND OVERLY AMBITIOUS
So far, BDB has done commendably in bringing jobs to Martin County at a reasonable incentive cost per job. It’s one of the reasons we’ve been supportive of their current operations. BDB reports that it has spent about $1,000 of Martin funds per job. This compares very favorably with the ridiculous spending of nearby counties: $14,238/job in Indian River; $113,798/job in St. Lucie; and $587,907/job in Palm Beach .
The dramatic difference is that the other counties decided to put really big go-for-broke money into their incentives, and it has not paid off. In Palm Beach , their foray into corporate socialism for the Scripps facility in Jupiter has burdened that county with $25 million/yr debt service. This contributed to their 15% tax increase and cutback in staff to 2002 levels. Do we want that for Martin?
Let’s be prudent. Approve most of the BDB plan, but say “NO” to two elements: NO to a mandatory 50% rake-off or minimum of $1 million; and NO to a lockbox whereby funds can never revert to the County.
Good news coming from Commission – maybe
Among the agenda items to be considered at the forthcoming Commission meeting on 3-16-10 are two which, if approved, correct bad earlier decisions. Item 6B amends the Impact Fee schedule which had been cut way back to save money for developers. That cut has not done anything positive for the County.
The updated Impact Fee schedule, still lower than the previous schedule, would take effect 10-1-10. Representative residential impact fees for a new 1,101 to 2,300 sf house include: Roads $4,209; Public Buildings $487; Law Enforcement $423; Emergency Services $315; Parks $2,969; Libraries $515; Administration $134, for a total of $9,052.
Among the non-residential building construction totals are: Offices under 100,000 sf $2,647/1,000 sf; Manufacturing $1,242/1,000 sf; Retail under 50,000 sf $4,915/1,000 sf; Restaurant $12,964/1,000 sf. These Impact Fees pay for the actual infrastructure costs that the County incurs because of the new construction.
Agenda Item 6D pushes the camel’s western development nose out of the tent. You may recall that EAR CPA 09-6 opened up rural intersections to 5-acre “service node” development. The Department of Community Affairs had rejected this CPA. There really was little need for it, and the County had not done any significant study of the matter. If the Commission had made more intelligent decisions at the start, there would be no need to backtrack now.
We hope the Commission will approve these two items, though developer mouthpiece Commissioner Doug Smith is sure to oppose. Better late than never.
LPA likely to approve ag-to-industrial conversion at 3-18-10 meeting
The Local Planning Agency (LPA) will consider setting up a new land use category at its 7:00 pm meeting on 3-18-10. Agenda items 4A3 & 4A4, covering Comp Plan Amendments CPA 10-4 & 10-5, would convert 1,717 acres of Sunrise Groves ag land to industrial. Based on past (mal)performance, it is likely that LPA will approve this Browardizing monstrosity. It’s what a board in thrall to landowners and developers would do – hurriedly, before Amendment 4 kicks in.
County spent $9 million on consultants
COMMISSION LOOKING TO CUT EXPENSES? LOOK HERE
Here's a sampling, courtesy of attorney Virginia Sherlock, of some Martin County consultant payments in 2009. The entire list totals more than $9 million. That includes more than $1 million for IT consultants, $550,000.00 for lobbying and financial consultants, more than $7 million for engineering, airport, and other capital project consultants.
Also, more than $300,000 for a "design criteria" consultant for the Aquatics Center, plus $18,000 for "additional services", and $20,000 for "misc engineering services". There's $25,000 for the engineer to design (not build, just design) the dolphin fountain for Indian Riverside Park , plus an additional $1,700.00 for electrical design for the fountain. And $160,000 for grant writing and permitting for the Jensen Beach Mooring Field (plus additional $$$ for PR consulting to sell the project to the public).
Just a few more in the $9 million tab before your eyes roll: Airport business development plan $156,000; Utility financial consulting $77,000; Green River Parkway $307,000; Ruhnke St. sidewalk design $89,000. How about the County Engineering Department doing more of this work?
[If you want a copy of the 5-page consultant list, send request to mcdefender@gmail.com, noting “Consultants” in the subject line. – Editor]
Our inconsistent Senator Negron
State Senator Joe Negron wants citizens to have the vote on whether Children Services Councils should continue or be dissolved. On the other hand, he does not want citizens to have a vote on developer promoted land use changes to the Comp Plan. Why?
HINT: Poor children did not contribute to his political campaign. Developers did.
Record Federal deficit in February
Last month the Federal government ran up the largest monthly February deficit in history - $221 billion, 14% higher than a year ago. Remember when we were promised that such over-the-top spending would solve the unemployment problem? That promise is shovel ready BS.
+++++
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: mcdefender@gmail.com
Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
Al Forman, Editor 3/16/10
The Martin County Defender is published and Copyright 2010 by WordsmithAmerica, Box 1828 , Palm City , FL 34991 . Al l rights reserved. No part of this issue may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording for public or private use, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher. NOTICE: Al l correspondence not bearing legal copyright notice which is sent to the Defender or its editor is subject to being edited and published.
All previous issues of the Defender are archived at our website:
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 153
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
ATTACHED TO THIS ISSUE
The Martin County Follies
The Voice of District 1
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Crisis fears and inflated promises drive requests for special treatment
“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” – White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel
Score one for no-nonsense Rahm describing what’s happening in Washington with a healthcare bill that most Americans don’t want. Special interests make unsupported claims that if the rules are changed to please them, catastrophe will be averted, and bliss will follow.
His point is just as applicable in Martin County , where local special interests use similar tactics to line their pockets. The serious crisis they do not want to go to waste focuses on jobs and economic development. Just say OK to their grandiose, expensive and threatening proposals – smoke their pipe full of Hopium - and we can drift off into nirvana. Here are a few recent examples.
SUNRISE GROVES
This proposal, which was supposed to be considered by the Local Planning Agency on March 18, has been postponed to April 1. It would set up a new land use category, AgTec, and convert over 1,700 acres of agricultural land to industrial, along with a farming fig leaf.
Here are a few snake oil claims in AgTec promotion, verbatim quotes, on what this would achieve: “The AgTec plan represents an opportunity to create jobs while still protecting the environment that we are so passionate about …. This plan could help us bring our kids back home after college.”
They fail to note that the plan is spot zoning that will promote sprawl into rural areas; that the residual agriculture primarily saves on property taxes; that it will adversely impact neighboring residential communities; that it sets the pattern for Browardizing western Martin; that it will further devalue vacant industrial space; that there is no need for this because there are thousands of undeveloped industrial zoned acres. We can all guess what the huge landowner corporation is “so passionate about.”
Don’t waste a crisis!
IMPACT FEES
Impact Fees pay for part of the extra money the County must spend for more infrastructure required by new construction. Last year, the Commission majority was receptive to the idea that by radically cutting Impact Fees for developers, it would “provide jobs and revive the construction industry.”
What actually happened is that unemployment increased and construction tanked. In other words, the reduced Impact Fees did not do what its promoters claimed it would do. After all, Impact Fees are a tiny part of building costs. But it did reduce County revenue by more than $200,000 in the second half of 2009. The money went into the pockets of developers.
Eventually, a Commission majority (Ciampi, Heard and Valliere) wised up about the need for funds. On March 16, they reinstituted Impact Fees over the dissent of Commissioners Doug Smith and Patrick Hayes. The Economic Council, Commission candidate Lee Weberman, and a lawyer for developers also opposed the reinstituted fees – while piously proclaiming that growth should pay for itself. Yeah, right. If growth pays for itself, how come the fastest growing counties have the highest taxes? [See “Follies” attachment.]
Don’t waste a crisis!
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BOARD “Toolkit”
Not content with the Commission doubling its budget to over $600,000, the Business Development Board is trying to promote a scheme where $1 million or more of new property tax money will be diverted into a “Toolkit” fund to be spent on attracting companies. This fund “will be allowed to grow rather than reverting to the general fund.” [See DEFENDER No. 152.]
According to a BDB manager, here is what the property tax money siphoned from the County will accomplish: “The Job Creation Toolkit will help create jobs for the nearly 8,600 unemployed Martin County residents and alleviate growing dependence on social service providers …. With new revenue, allowing the community to be better equipped to create high-quality, higher-paying jobs.” Is that sales pitch a cross-your-heart promise? Weigh this pie-in-the-sky optimism with destined cutbacks for libraries, parks, fire rescue and other services that compete for our tax dollars.
Don’t waste a crisis!
Should school superintendents be elected?
Martin County is one of the top school districts in Florida . Our superintendent is elected. Al l of a sudden this month, the School Board decided that residents should vote on whether to continue with elected superintendents, or to give the Board the power to appoint. It has been erroneously reported that the Commission may consider putting this referendum on the ballot. Wrong! Florida Statute 1001.461 says “The board of county commissioners, upon such timely request from the district school board, shall cause to be placed on the ballot at such election the proposition to make the office of the district school superintendent appointive.” With over seven months to go until the election, the request is certainly timely.
The four School Board members, who seem to have been in that job since dinosaurs roamed the earth, decided that appointment would be desirable. (New Board member Barry-Sorensen disagrees.) How come? They were happy and cozy with Superintendent Nancy Kline’s elected predecessor for 14 years. Well, the move is motivated by the Board majority’s vendetta against Kline, especially since Kline uncovered and fixed some improper operations that had gone on for years under the very nose of the Board and the previous superintendent.
On three previous occasions, the anti-election proposition was placed before the voters, who defeated it. Apparently, Martin residents like to have direct control over who runs the schools, rather than depending on questionable motivation of an elite little group of three or four Board members to make an appointment.
We always applaud the populist view that, to the extent practical, citizens have a direct opportunity to exercise control. So we have no objection to putting the proposition on the ballot. We will then vote NO CHANGE because an election ballot trusts the collective wisdom of the people over the select few. Besides, why try to fix all those A-rated schools that aren’t broken?
Maritime Museum gets much needed sunshine
We received an inquiry from Reader J.H. asking about the financing of “the rich guys yachting museum” in Indian Riverside Park . The Maritime Museum is newly housed on the first floor of the Frances Langford Pavilion for a rental of $1/yr for five years. The second floor is available for private events at a rental rate ranging from $580 to $1,080 per day.
To make the space suitable, the Museum paid $27,516 for walls and electric outlets, while Commissioner Doug Smith used $102,437 of tax-derived district funds for air conditioning and other essentials. With the inclusion of funds from General Services, the total of taxpayer dollars came to $105,846. The Museum pays for its first floor utilities, and for office phone and internet charges.
It’s an open question whether the Museum is worth the $105,846 – plus the lost potential revenue from first floor rentals. Only time will tell. What’s not an open question is the way this whole collusive deal was put together between the Museum promoters, County staff, and Commissioner Smith. It has the rank smell of backroom dealing, with the Museum moving in before there was even an approved lease. County’s rules require a lease in advance of moving in because it covers many legal issues, as well as the token rent.
The done deal was supposed to slide through without discussion on a so-called “consent agenda.” Thanks to the watchful eye of Commissioner Heard, the whole project was publicly reviewed, and the cost details given the sunshine all such deals deserve.
Ethical questions about Commissioner Smith’s role
Consider this ethical question: If an elected official heads a private organization because of his personal interest, is it ethical for him to use the financial power that voters have vested in him to give away public money to that organization?
Well that is exactly what Commission Chairman Doug Smith has done. He is also Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Maritime & Classic Boat Museum . Switching to his Commission hat, he then gave the Museum that $102,437 of tax money from the district slush fund!.
That helps explain why he wanted the Museum project as a “consent item” that requires no discussion or testimony.
LPA makes a good decision
Sometimes we’ve been critical of Martin’s Local Planning Agency (LPA) for being too accommodating with changes proposed by developers. Today we want to praise them for their decision not to be bamboozled into approving an enticing offer. St. Lucie Partners proposed to donate several hundred acres for conservation if the County would allow greatly increased cluster density in several thousand acres in the Bridge Road area. Thanks for thinking of all the County residents and saying thanks, but no thanks.
We hope LPA will show the same thoughtful level of concern on April 1 when Sunrise Groves asks to convert over 1,700 agricultural acres to industrial to vastly increase the property’s value – at everybody’s expense. Give them the same answer: Thanks, but no thanks. [NEWS FLASH: The April 1 LPA meeting will start at 6:00 pm, rather than the usual 7:00 pm.]
A verbal duel over Amendment 4
Scott Maxwell reports the following exchange in the Orland Sentinel. Anti-Amendment 4 pitchman Ryan Houck made this jab during a debate: “For every complex problem, there is a solution that is clear, simple and wrong." Hometown Democracy President Lesley Blackner countered with: “The people in power are incapable of reform. They have been driving drunk for too long. And the people need to take the keys back."
Perhaps the best debate knockout came when Houck said that the ballot amendment would confuse all the poor, uninformed voters. Seminole County Supervisor of Elections Mike Ertel responded that we cast ballots with just a name for the most important office on Earth: "If we can elect a president based upon two words, I think we can all do it based on up to 75 words."
+++++
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: mcdefender@gmail.com
Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
Al Forman, Editor 3/23/10
The Martin County Defender is published and Copyright 2010 by WordsmithAmerica, Box 1828 , Palm City , FL 34991 . Al l rights reserved. No part of this issue may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording for public or private use, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher. NOTICE: Al l correspondence not bearing legal copyright notice which is sent to the Defender or its editor is subject to being edited and published.
All previous issues of the Defender are archived at our website:
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 154
Local contractor files serious charges against School Board
DID “PAY TO PLAY” POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS INFLUENCE CONTRACT DECISIONS?
On April 14, 2010, an Administrative law Judge (ALJ) will hear a complaint by local contractor Urban Building Systems of Palm City that the award of a $2 million school renovation contract to Palm Beach County based Pirtle Construction Co. was arbitrary, failing to “comply with its own rules … State Board rules … applicable sunshine Laws … Florida statutes …required criteria and point values in determining [bidder] rankings.”
Most damning is the charge that four of the School Board members favored “contractors who campaigned for them and raised and donated campaign funds.”
There are many facts and allegations contained in the 66-page complaint. Our purpose here is to summarize the key highlights. The entire bid protest may be read at:
http://www.doah.state.fl.us/docdoc/2010/001147/10001147M-031810-08104310.PDF
A cautionary note: To honor the principle of “innocent until proven guilty,” we should not jump to any conclusions until the judge renders a decision. ALJs often take their sweet time in doing so. If the charges contained in the complaint are found to be valid, however, it will raise the question as to whether those School Board members are fit to serve.
The selection process
When the School Board requires construction work – in this case for Pinewood and Crystal Lake Elementary Schools - it sends out a Request for Quote (RFQ) to a number of companies that may be qualified to bid. Using a variety of criteria, the Board then whittles the bidders down to three. The next step is to rank the three according to a partly subjective scoring system. With no unusual contravening factors, the top rated company gets the contract.
In the matter discussed here, the Board ranked Pirtle No. 1,Urban No. 2, and Klewin No. 3. The vote went as follows for ranking Pirtle first: Lorie Shekailo, Sue Hershey, Laurie Gaylord and David Anderson all voted Yes. Maura Barry-Sorenson voted to put Pirtle third of three.
Key selection criteria
Among the numerous selection criteria that have been established by rules and laws, here are the ones that gained primary attention in the complaint.
Preference for local contractors. Urban is unquestionably local. Pirtle is out of county, but there is uncertainty as to whether Palm Beach contractors should be considered local. [Note Commission item below.]
Consideration for minority ownership. It is claimed that this issue was ignored or minimized, to the detriment of Urban.
Equitable distribution of contracts. The intent here is not to play favorites and to discourage inside deals with one or two contractors. Out of about $265 million in Martin schools construction contracts during 2002-2009, two companies dominated: Morganti with 42% of contracts, and Pirtle with 32%. The balance was distributed among seven other companies. Urban received 3%.
WHAT RESIDENTS DON’T KNOW ABOUT THE SCHOOL BIDDING PROCESS – AND ITS COST TO TAXPAYERS
Discussion of selection process above mentioned the RFQ. One might assume that requesting a “Quote” would produce a hard bid, a definite price to build or fix a specific building. Not so! The School Board gets a soft bid. That is, the selected company then goes out to get bids from various subcontractors to come up with a price for the whole job. The presumption is that the general contractor will select the lowest bids from the “subs,” but who knows? Construction is a buddy-buddy business. After all bids are in, then, and only then after the contract award, does the contractor tell the School Board what the cost will be.
Thus, Martin has ended up with some overly expensive construction. The soft bid process leaves too much room for uncertainty and undue influence. Matter of fact, the issue of construction cost effectiveness is what triggered antagonism between now Superintendent Nancy Kline and the other School Board members back when Kline was on the Board. Those construction disputes, in which Kline was the 4-to-1 dissenter in a goodly number of those contract votes because of too high costs, is at the root of the unfriendly relations that exist today.
DID CONTRACTOR MONEY GIVEN FOR POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS PLAY A ROLL IN THE SELECTION?
The complaint by Urban that the four School Board members who voted in favor of its competitor states that “during the 2004 and 2008 political campaigns, Board member Anderson received $30,667 in contributions from construction companies and related entities, of which 70% came from Morganti, Pirtle, and their subcontractors, suppliers, lobbyists.”
Similarly, “Board member Hershey received $18,163,” of which 75% came from the sources noted above. “Board Member Gaylord received $3,538,” 62% from those noted in 2002 and 2006. “Board member Shekailo received $7,475,” 74% from those noted. In contrast, “Board member Barry-Sorenson received $350 … of which 0% came from Morganti, Pirtle.”
Furthermore, the Urban complaint alleges that “Pirtle and its principals actively campaigned on behalf of Member Anderson by writing letters seeking campaign contributions for Member Anderson.” If provable, that’s disturbing.
Remember: You read it first in the DEFENDER!
Our view
We do not know whether there is anything illegal in accepting campaign money from a source that subsequently benefits from a vote by the money’s recipient. What we do know is that it offends our core ethical values. It undermines the public trust in officials. And that also applies to the County Commission members who think it’s jolly good to benefit from Pay to Play as they vote to change land use development rules that favor contributors.
It’s high time that both the County and the School Board pass and enforce rules that members must recuse themselves from voting or advocating decisions that benefit their contributors.
Vendor rules and Sailfish Park building to be considered at Commission’s 3-30-10 meeting
Among the items on the agenda for the Commission’s 3-30-10 meeting are No. 6A, a staff proposal to remove Palm Beach County from the local area rule that gives preference to local vendors. Questions have been raised about how reciprocal that has worked out.
Item 8A1 will consider the Commission’s poorly thought out approval of the contract with Stuart to build a County office building in Sailfish Park – at the expense of Little League ballplayers. We hope the Commission will give more sensible consideration to alternative choices – and cancel that Sailfish park contract.
+++++
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: mcdefender@gmail.com
Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
Al Forman, Editor 3/26/10
The Martin County Defender is published and Copyright 2010 by WordsmithAmerica, Box 1828 , Palm City , FL 34991 . Al l rights reserved. No part of this issue may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording for public or private use, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher. NOTICE: Al l correspondence not bearing legal copyright notice which is sent to the Defender or its editor is subject to being edited and published.
All previous issues of the Defender are archived at our website:
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 155
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
ATTACHED TO THIS ISSUE
The Martin County Follies
Converting Ag to Industrial Is Sinful
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Commission may approve 20 Comp Plan Changes that will Browardize Martin County
PROPOSALS AT APRIL 13 MEETING INCLUDE INCREASED DENSITIES AND AG LAND CONVERSIONS TO INDUSTRIAL
Hard on the heels of the massive pro-development changes resulting from the EAR review last year, the County Commission’s April 13 meeting will consider 20 more Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPA) that, if approved, would irreversibly change the character of Martin County – for the worst.
Few, if any, of these Amendments will result in more jobs or business stimulation in the near term, though they will immediately increase the property values for the landowners. Years from now they may increase industrial activity, likely at the cost of resident quality of life.
The rush to make many of these changes is prompted by the impending vote for Constitutional Amendment 4 in November. If that passes, voter approval would be required, in additiont to the approval of three commissioners.
Here are some of the Amendments:
CPA 10-1:Quadruple density of 3,902 acres at Kanner and Bridge Road by changing Land Use Map from Agricultural to Agricultural Ranchette.
CPA 10-2: 250% density increase on 215 acres at Island Way just north of Palm Beach line by changing Agricultural Ranchette to Rural Density.
CPA 10-4: New AgTEC land use category converts 1,717 acres on Martin Highway west of I-95 from Agricultural to Industrial. All of western county becomes vulnerable to factory development. It’s far worse than the Valliere Rural Cluster Amendment.
CPA 10-9: Quadruple density of 2,081 acres on Bridge Road from Agricultural to Agricultural Ranchette.
CPA 10-10: Quadruple density of 93.6 acres near Cove and Willoughby from Rural Density to Residential Estate Density.
CPA 10-13: Change 445 acres at the Turnpike and Bridge Road from Agricultural to General Industrial.
CPA 10-19: Change 150 acres at 96 St. and Kanner from Agricultural to Commercial Waterfront.
CPA 10-21: Allow a Rural Service Node on 5 acres at Martin Highway and Allapattah Road. [Note: This is like the six Nodes in rural areas rejected by the Department of Community Affairs and subsequently withdrawn by the Commission.]
A challenge to residents
You can sit on your derriere and lament these harmful transformations of our wonderful county, or you can stand up, speak out and let our officials know what you think about converting agricultural land to industrial use when there is no need. Let them know what you think about quadrupling residential density when negligible residential growth does not fill even existing vacancies.
Contact Commissioners, Acting County Administrator and Growth Management Director at:
svallier@martin.fl.us, sheard@martin.fl.us, eciampi@martin.fl.us, dsmith@martin.fl.us, phayes@martin.fl.us, tkryzda@martin.fl.us, nikkiv@martin.fl.us
Or phone Commissioners directly:
District 1 – Doug Smith: 221-2359
District 2 – Susan Valliere: 288-5421
District 3 – Patrick Hayes: 221-2357
District 4 – Sarah heard: 221-2358
District 5 – Ed Ciampi: 221-1357
See attached “Follies.”
Powers of appointed CRA agency trimmed back because citizens spoke up
The County’s seven Community Redevelopment Areas (CRA) have been managed by the Commission, which also sits as the county-wide CRA agency. Commission Chairman Smith has admitted that the Commission has been neglectful of that part of its job. So an ordinance was proposed that delegated far too many powers to a new appointed CRA agency that would not be responsible to the voters.
Citizen activists, as well as the DEFENDER, launched a strong protest. For a change, commissioners and staff were listening. The proposed ordinance went back for a re-write, which was approved at the Commission’s 3-30-10 meeting. The new ordinance leaves a substantial amount of authority in the hands of the new agency to upgrade the CRAs, but reserves the broadest powers under Florida Statute 163.358 to the Commission. As CRA Director Kevin Freeman admitted, it’s a balance, hopefully now achieved, between having enough power to do the job, and not having any more power than is necessary.
We attended a recent meeting of the countywide Community Redevelopment Advisory Committee, which will be replaced by the new CRA agency. It was disheartening that, atypically, it did not muster a quorum, only three members attending. It’s up to the Commissioners to appoint the most dedicated individuals for their four-year terms on the new CRA agency.
Among the powers reserved to the Commission in the revised version are: Zoning; Comp Plan changes; CRA amendments; Budget setting; Eminent domain; Revenue bond issuance; Assessments; Appointments; and most important, the power to designate new CRAs.
In addition, the original slush fund, whereby the agency mingled all funds derived from the separate CRAs, and could spend any amount in any area, has been changed. Now such “borrowing” from any individual CRA must be paid back.
How to lie like a professional about Amendment 4… and related news
If you were a slick lobbyist for developers and wanted to discredit Hometown Democracy’s Amendment 4, it would seem a shrewd tactic to hire a seemingly impartial, professional economics organization to come up with the “correct” analysis. That’s what the anti-Amendment 4 special interests did.
They hired the Washington Economics Group (WEG), which obediently issued a report predicting dire results from the Hometown Democracy ballot proposal. What was not publicized was the fact that WEG is a for-profit consultant to such companies as St. Joe, Flo-Sun Sugar and WCI Development, as well as land speculators. The report author, a WEG principal, has been campaigning against Amendment 4.
A legitimate economic organization, the non-profit Nassau Analysis Group, made up of former corporate and government financial managers and economists, found the WEG report “cannot be validated …the starting assumptions are the creation of the author and designed to achieve the desired conclusion.” Busted!
SEPARATELY, the Palm Beach Post’s lead columnist Joel Engelhardt, who has railed against Amendment 4, has had a partial awakening. After noting that Lion Country Safari wants to build 254 homes on its property, he said: “Commissioners will struggle between balancing the powerful interests of development and the interests of neighbors worried about their way of life …If commissioners approve they would be sending another signal to voters that growth decisions are too important to leave in the hands of politicians.” Yes, Joel. That is why Florida residents need Amendment 4 to pass.
SEPARATELY, Commissioner Sarah Heard moved that the Commission pass a resolution to support Amendment 4. None of the other commissioners, who usually vote for developer lobbied changes, seconded the motion.
Reader comments on our exposé of School Board construction contracting
Here is a sampling of reader comments on our DEFENDER No. 154 report on the legal complaint against the School Board for alleged conflict of interest and improper contractor selection procedure.
From Reader CD:
“I was a general contractor for 32 years and participated in numerous "public" bids which involved both state and local funds. I built several schools, factories, restaurants, car dealerships, and renovated a Town Hall. After reading your description of the way jobs are handed out in the school system, it's a crime against the taxpayer. These jobs should have a full set of prints and specifications (hard to find in Florida) and go out to "qualified" contractors for bid. Otherwise the building committee is getting not much more than a "guesstamate" of the final cost to taxpayers. The existing process is what we use to call a "Mackerel in the Moonlight". Looks good until you get up close and then it smells like hell.”
From Reader W:
“Two Palm Beach county "local" contractors are the only 2 bidding on work for Witham Field noise mitigation on houses in Phase II. One drives up to the pre-bid in a Cadillac Escalade for a small project replacing windows and doors. We've got plenty of good contractors here that can easily perform the work without screwing the taxpayers.”
From Reader LM:
“As a systems engineering manager, I managed major (multi-million dollar) engineering subcontracts in the defense industry as an industrial go between the military and private contractors. All this work was done in accordance with Fixed Price sealed bids with explicit cut-off dates. Therefore, I have to ask why aren't fixed price sealed bids used for county subcontracts? Seems to this observer what the county needs is a major subcontracts supervisor un-beholden to any contracting organization.
Again, back in the day, we used RFQ packages that provided complete specifications for what is to be bid upon. These included proposed design and construction costs on a fixed priced basis. Honest subcontracting is not rocket science. It just requires they be run by people who are not on the take.
Further, there was no such thing as a soft bid. If necessary, a qualified design agency was selected via competitive bids to do a design and generate related specifications. These then would become the basis for the RFQ package that all interested prime-contractors could bid against. Where the bidding prime-contractors required the services of sub-contractors they in turn would cost effectively be chosen on a fixed price basis and included in the contractors bid to the county. If it is practical to do so, I would be happy to volunteer some time to help implement such a major contracting capability for the county.”
State and local public employees earn 34% more than private workers; 44% more with benefits
Bureau of Labor Statistics reports the average total compensation per hour worked, as of June 2009, was $39.66 for employees of state and local governments. $26.01 was for wages and salaries, the balance for benefits. For private sector employees it was $27.42 and $19.39.
Counties, Cities cling to their power, endorse Amendments 5 & 6, oppose Amendment 4
The Florida Association of Counties joined the Florida League of Cities in endorsing FairDistricts Amendments 5 and 6, which would prevent gerrymandering. The Counties organization also opposed Amendment 4. Thus power hungry local politicians demonstrate that they do not want any shift in power, either to Tallahassee, or to the voters.
Poll: Floridians spurn Obama, Obamacare, Nelson
A Mason-Dixon poll of Floridians released a few days ago found that Obama’s favorable ratings have plunged from 50% to 37% since his election. The Obamacare health law is supported by 34%, but opposed by 54%. Senator Bill Nelson’s favorable ratings have dropped from 54% to 36% since his 2006 election.
+++++
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: mcdefender@gmail.com
Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
Al Forman, Editor 4/2/10
The Martin County Defender is published and Copyright 2010 by WordsmithAmerica, Box 1828, Palm City, FL 34991. All rights reserved. No part of this issue may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording for public or private use, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher. NOTICE: All correspondence not bearing legal copyright notice which is sent to the Defender or its editor is subject to being edited and published.
All previous issues of the Defender are archived at our website: