When is a tax increase not a tax increase?

A lot of ground was covered in Thursday’s (9/6) City Council meeting.

We’ll start with the Fiscal Year 2018/2019 Budget Hearing – the first hearing of two, the second of which is scheduled for 9/20/18 at 7pm. There was no public comment and the proposed budget and tax rate passed 5:0.

As usual, Finance Administrator Allan Owens presented a thorough, easy to understand presentation of the proposed budget. His presentation can be seen here. What was out of the ordinary, however was Mr. Owens’ exception to some headlines in the Palm Beach Post discussing the City’s budget as a tax increase.

He stated that the headlines were misleading and that they were confusing to the Budget Oversight Committee.

Equally perplexing is this line from the Budget Oversight Committee’s final report “The City has taken affirmative steps to avoid a tax increase for the FY 2019 Budget”.  When operational millage stays flat (as it has at 5.55 and in the proposed out years), and valuations rise – then taxes – the actual dollars taken in, and the actual costs to the tax-payers GO UP. The slight decrease in debt service millage has little influence on the taxes paid by the tax-payer. As former County Commissioner Jess Santemaria used to say ” It’s the dollars not the millage”. PBGWatch’s article entitled  $2.5 Million Tax Increase in 2019 Budget , as well as our agenda item note “(Note – this means that as property valuations increase, your property taxes will go up accordingly – at differing rates depending on whether or not you own a homesteaded property). ” are in full agreement with the Palm Beach Post’s headlines. We hope that the wording in the Budget Oversight Committee’s report is a typo and that it should read “……steps to avoid a tax rate increase’….

The Election Results were approved 5:0 and 3 of the Council chose to speak on the topic during Items of Resident Interest and Board and Committee Reports. Mayor Marino, Vice Mayor Woods and Council Member Marciano, all somewhat defensively, reiterated that it was right to place the charter questions on the ballot and letting the voters decide, even if it was the ‘unpopular’ thing to do. Marino stated that Matthew Lane also wanted to alter term limits to 2- 4 year terms. Yes – that was true during discussions on what, if anything, to place on the ballot. However Council Member Lane voted NO on placing each/any of the charter referendum questions on the ballot both in March and August. The other 4 council members voted YES on all. During Public Comment, Fred Scheibl noted that he’d never seen such uniformity of results, with almost every precinct in the city rejecting questions 1 and 3 by over 15 points, and suggested the Council never do this again. Sid Dinerstein also discussed his assessment of the Election results, and stated his objection to the “… city treasury being used as the Council’s campaign account”.

Two others made Public Comment: Gerald Richman – speaking for Sears regarding Dick’s Sporting Goods and continued issues with the Forbes Company (see Why There’s Still No Dick’s Store at the Gardens Mall ); Steen Ericksson, representing the Fire Chiefs Association of Palm Beach County inviting people to the 9/11 Remembrance Ceremony at Christ Fellowship Church in Boynton Beach at 7pm.

Allan Owens and the Finance Department were awarded the Government Finance Officers Association Distinguished Budget Award for the 21st Consecutive Year by Shannon Ramsey Chessman, Acting COO of the Palm Beach County Clerk and Comptroller’s Office. Mr. Owens thanked his team and specifically Mary Anderson-Pickle, Deputy Finance Administrator.

City Manager Ferris reported:

• The City’s Budget Department (Km! Ra) was awarded the Annual Achievement in Excellence Procurement Award
• Chief Frank Kitzerow of the Palm Beach County School District Police Department spoke on the outstanding support received from the City regarding the City’s supplying police for elementary school patrol and helping in the high schools as well.
• City Manager Ferris  also read many letters of Commendation and thank you letters from residents to the Police Department, Parks & Rec, Building Department, Tennis Center, Code Enforcement and the Fire/Rescue Open House.

Ordinance 22, 2018 – The Bonnette Hunt Club PUD Site Plan Approval discussion resulted in some heated disagreements between Mayor Marino and Council Member Lane. At issue was the very high density and the number of waivers being approved for this very small (6.78 acres) parcel. Also making public comment was John Guastella, President of the Mirabella HOA representing 492 homes – and that this was the first time he was seeing these plans in the entirety and wished the HOA would have had the opportunity to see it. He also expressed concerns about the landscaping on the berm, the two-story homes impact on Mirabella property values. First reading of the ordinance passed 4:1 with Lane voting No.

The Consent Agenda and all other resolutions and ordinances passed 5:0.

There was no City Attorney Report so no status on the two outstanding Elections lawsuits regarding the Appeal to the 4th District Court on the March Election or the status of the lawsuit regarding the August Special Election. See Gardens Election Lawsuit Continues.

Save the date – Thursday September 20th at 7pm for the Second City Council Meeting and Final Reading and Approval of the FY 2018/2019 Budget.

The Voters Speak: A Resounding NO! to More Terms for Council Members

On August 28, almost 12,000 residents weighed in on the three PBG charter questions. This was almost three times the participation in the March election at which the Council first sought to resolve the questions.

In March, 2 questions were thrown out by a circuit court judge for being misleading, and they were clarified and put back on the August ballot as questions 1 and 2, with one issue (City Manager residency) separated out into question 3. March question 3 (Run Again) was allowed to go forward and did pass, but is still being challenged at the court of appeals.

The city had spent $35,000 for the March election, and then another $65,000 for August, ostensibly to “educate” the voters. Unfortunately, the campaign that resulted used misinformation to influence the voters to vote YES on all three questions, and this expenditure is being challenged in yet another lawsuit. The city’s actions, and the challenge to them, caught the attention of many residents through articles in the Palm Beach Post, and citizen’s sharing the news on social media and in emails.

The vote was definitive. Much as the original term limits question was passed with 80% in November 2014, voters said NO to the Council’s desire to have three terms instead of two (question 1), and they rejected the repeal of the City Manager residency requirement (question 3). Both of these were rejected by close to a 2 to 1 margin, and almost every precinct in the city voted NO by more than 15 points.

Question 2, which dealt with a general cleanup of the Charter passed with 60% of the vote.

Given the split vote (The city wanted YES to all, opponents wanted NO to all), you can probably conclude that voters were willing to trust the city to a certain extent that the charter rewrite was necessary, but soundly rejected the Council’s desire for more time in office.

It should be noted that a typical Gardens’s election shows a strong variation in the vote of different parts of the city. There are differences between gated and non-gated communities, eastern and western sections, older and newer areas, those with strong HOAs and those without. The March election showed these differences, but pointedly, the August election did not. It should be noted that March elections where city races are usually decided, have smaller turnout and tend to draw those that are most aware of city issues. City issues are incidental in August and November elections which primarily are deciding state and national races. The larger electorates at these times are likely to decide based on a “policy filter” (eg. “we like term limits”), rather than a personal one (eg: “I trust the Mayor so will vote her way”). Of course, whether you follow city issues or not, if you live in Palm Beach Gardens, your vote is as good as any other, and higher turnout is good for Democracy.

Hopefully, the city and Council will respect the wishes of the voters this time and we can put this all behind us.

Below are the results from the August election:

---

Question 1 – Three terms instead of two?

---

Question 1 – Three terms instead of two
Strong Yes	Weak Yes	Very Close	Weak No	Strong No
Click the precinct on the map for vote totals.

		Registered	Cast	Turnout%	YES	NO	Yes Margin%
1186	Mirabella	1436	417	29	138	257	35
1188	Westwood Gardens	895	263	29	80	169	32
1189	Old Palm – North	95	17	18	4	13	24
1190	The Isles, Paloma, San Michelle, Alton	3547	980	28	344	592	37
1192	Evergreen	1440	400	28	121	253	32
1194	Frenchmans	2023	616	30	257	329	44
1228	Osprey Isles, Carleton Oaks	451	170	38	64	98	40
1238	Mirasol	1696	451	27	93	336	22
1240	PGA National	2454	750	31	266	449	37
1242	PGA National	2542	709	28	261	405	39
1244	PGA National	1537	503	33	185	291	39
1246	Bent Tree, Garden Lks, Shady Lks, Gdns of Woodbury	2382	610	26	146	442	25
1247	Old Palm – South	228	54	24	13	38	25
1248	PGA-east.	1497	499	33	152	330	32
1250	Gardens Glen	63	26	41	11	13	46
1252	BallenIsles	2288	802	35	294	475	38
1254	Hunt Club	445	154	35	39	106	27
1260	Elm Avenue	1294	472	36	118	338	26
1266	Union Square, Randolph Way	462	56	12	26	28	48
1268	Golfers Drive, Lilac	298	37	12	13	21	38
1270	Lilac Park	10	1	10	0	1	0
1272	Holly Drive, Riverside	1900	579	30	172	387	31
1274	Gardenia Dr, Arbor Way	1581	481	30	149	318	32
1280	Lake Catherine	392	129	33	57	69	45
1284	Gardens Mall area	2170	508	23	201	283	42
1288	Oakway Circle	38	13	34	4	8	33
1290	The Oaks	2084	633	30	196	408	32
1292	Nature’s Way	73	29	40	15	14	52
1296	Prosperity Oaks, Marina Gardens	727	149	20	54	84	39
1324	Oaks East, Sandelwood	1258	307	24	96	193	33
1326	Siena Oaks	557	206	37	68	129	35
1340	Landing Place	14	9	64	6	3	67
1352	Steeplechase, Montecito	2202	627	28	237	367	39
1360	Sunset	889	290	33	90	190	32
1372	Sandtree	162	32	20	10	22	31
6062	Bay Hill Estates	814	269	33	104	151	41
6064	Rustic Lakes	122	35	29	7	27	21
	TOTALS	42066	12283	29%	4091	7637	35%

Question 2 – Charter Cleanup?

---

Question 2 – Charter Cleanup?
Strong Yes	Weak Yes	Very Close	Weak No	Strong No
Click the precinct on the map for vote totals.

		Registered	Cast	Turnout%	YES	NO	Yes Margin%
1186	Mirabella	1436	417	29	223	163	58
1188	Westwood Gardens	895	263	29	141	99	59
1189	Old Palm – North	95	17	18	16	1	94
1190	The Isles, Paloma, San Michelle, Alton	3547	980	28	582	305	66
1192	Evergreen	1440	400	28	222	104	68
1194	Frenchmans	2023	616	30	369	181	67
1228	Osprey Isles, Carleton Oaks	451	170	38	102	44	70
1238	Mirasol	1696	451	27	217	203	52
1240	PGA National	2454	750	31	387	304	56
1242	PGA National	2542	709	28	423	233	64
1244	PGA National	1537	503	33	261	190	58
1246	Bent Tree, Garden Lks, Shady Lks, Gdns of Woodbury	2382	610	26	259	288	47
1247	Old Palm – South	228	54	24	33	11	75
1248	PGA-east.	1497	499	33	250	212	54
1250	Gardens Glen	63	26	41	15	9	63
1252	BallenIsles	2288	802	35	435	313	58
1254	Hunt Club	445	154	35	77	59	57
1260	Elm Avenue	1294	472	36	244	197	55
1266	Union Square, Randolph Way	462	56	12	37	13	74
1268	Golfers Drive, Lilac	298	37	12	22	11	67
1270	Lilac Park	10	1	10	1	0	100
1272	Holly Drive, Riverside	1900	579	30	287	257	53
1274	Gardenia Dr, Arbor Way	1581	481	30	232	214	52
1280	Lake Catherine	392	129	33	82	38	68
1284	Gardens Mall area	2170	508	23	335	121	73
1288	Oakway Circle	38	13	34	8	4	67
1290	The Oaks	2084	633	30	355	207	63
1292	Nature’s Way	73	29	40	20	6	77
1296	Prosperity Oaks, Marina Gardens	727	149	20	85	37	70
1324	Oaks East, Sandelwood	1258	307	24	160	117	58
1326	Siena Oaks	557	206	37	107	73	59
1340	Landing Place	14	9	64	5	0	100
1352	Steeplechase, Montecito	2202	627	28	366	200	65
1360	Sunset	889	290	33	155	113	58
1372	Sandtree	162	32	20	22	8	73
6062	Bay Hill Estates	814	269	33	177	57	76
6064	Rustic Lakes	122	35	29	15	17	47
	TOTALS	42066	12283	29%	6727	4409	60%

Question 3 – Repeal City Manager Residency Requirement?

---

Question 3 – Repeal City Manager Residency Requirement?
Strong Yes	Weak Yes	Very Close	Weak No	Strong No
Click the precinct on the map for vote totals.

		Registered	Cast	Turnout%	YES	NO	Yes Margin%
1186	Mirabella	1436	417	29	111	279	28
1188	Westwood Gardens	895	263	29	69	172	29
1189	Old Palm – North	95	17	18	8	8	50
1190	The Isles, Paloma, San Michelle, Alton	3547	980	28	255	642	28
1192	Evergreen	1440	400	28	109	221	33
1194	Frenchmans	2023	616	30	254	298	46
1228	Osprey Isles, Carleton Oaks	451	170	38	47	105	31
1238	Mirasol	1696	451	27	119	305	28
1240	PGA National	2454	750	31	208	493	30
1242	PGA National	2542	709	28	230	426	35
1244	PGA National	1537	503	33	129	332	28
1246	Bent Tree, Garden Lks, Shady Lks, Gdns of Woodbury	2382	610	26	117	444	21
1247	Old Palm – South	228	54	24	18	28	39
1248	PGA-east.	1497	499	33	118	345	25
1250	Gardens Glen	63	26	41	7	16	30
1252	BallenIsles	2288	802	35	286	477	37
1254	Hunt Club	445	154	35	39	100	28
1260	Elm Avenue	1294	472	36	108	343	24
1266	Union Square, Randolph Way	462	56	12	16	34	32
1268	Golfers Drive, Lilac	298	37	12	10	23	30
1270	Lilac Park	10	1	10	0	1	0
1272	Holly Drive, Riverside	1900	579	30	128	417	23
1274	Gardenia Dr, Arbor Way	1581	481	30	106	349	23
1280	Lake Catherine	392	129	33	39	83	32
1284	Gardens Mall area	2170	508	23	149	310	32
1288	Oakway Circle	38	13	34	5	7	42
1290	The Oaks	2084	633	30	177	401	31
1292	Nature’s Way	73	29	40	12	14	46
1296	Prosperity Oaks, Marina Gardens	727	149	20	41	84	33
1324	Oaks East, Sandelwood	1258	307	24	76	201	27
1326	Siena Oaks	557	206	37	60	124	33
1340	Landing Place	14	9	64	1	4	20
1352	Steeplechase, Montecito	2202	627	28	197	373	35
1360	Sunset	889	290	33	78	189	29
1372	Sandtree	162	32	20	8	22	27
6062	Bay Hill Estates	814	269	33	84	149	36
6064	Rustic Lakes	122	35	29	9	23	28
	TOTALS	42066	12283	29%	3428	7842	30%

Martino: Hear the Messages

For the voters and City Council of Palm Beach Gardens the August 28th election has come and gone. Again in a loud and certain voice the voters sent two succinct messages to the City Council and its Administration. Approximately, 70% of the participating voters in the August 28th election affirmatively communicated…

DO NOT MESS WITH OUR TERM LIMITS

And

DO NOT MESS WITH THE CITY MANAGER RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT

This City Council has been tone deaf when listening to the majority of the voters as it relates to these two issues. However, their hearing seems to be well tuned to the frequency of the developers and special interests whose money and attitudes are not in tune with the desires of the voters. The deceptive, political, and somewhat conspiratorial campaign that was waged against the above messages by the City Council bears witness to their deafness. To make matters worse the City Council used public tax money to support and pay for their crusade against existing term limits and City Manager residency requirements. Augmenting the City’s position in opposition to the messages above, a Political Action Committee, PAC, miraculously surfaced with an employee of the City’s public relations firm as its Treasurer, and lots of developer and special interest money underwriting it.

The reality of and results of the election apparently did nothing to improve the deafness of Mayor Marino. A City Council appointed Mayor, Marino’s comments in response to the results of the August 28th election suggest no improvement can be expected to her and the Council’s hearing. In a Palm Beach Post article she lamented “It looks like every five to six years, we’ll have a brand new council, so we’ll have a limited amount of institutional knowledge.” Marino blamed the term limit election results on a reaction to national politics. Apparently, Marino did not hear well the sounds of the election results concerning the City Manager residency either. She again opposed the voters’ desires as after some simplistic commentary she said, “That’s why it should be a contract item and not a charter item.”

My suggestion to the City Council is to listen and HEAR THE MESSAGES of the voters. Leave term limits alone, leave the City Manager residency as is, and quit messing with the City Charter. Enough is enough

City Council Meeting and 1st Budget Hearing on Sept 6th

• Resolution 50, 2018 – City applied for and received grant for $250K for Stormwater Maintenance, Repairs and Operation Program. 
• Purchase Award – Mowing and Landscaping Services – Streets and Parks – Openly competed – did not choose option to renew – 5 year contract with option to renew for another 5 years – total 5 year contract value $3.7 million.

City Manager Report:  Nothing listed

Public Hearings and Resolutions:

• Ordinance 21, 2018  – First hearing of Adopting the Budget for Fiscal Year 2018/2019.  The Operational millage remains flat at 5.55 and debt service millage is reduced .0503 for a total millage of 5.6003.  Property valuations are up 4.41% over last year.  It is the intention to maintain flat operational millage for several years.  (Note – this means that as property valuations increase, your property taxes will go up accordingly – at differing rates depending on whether or not you own a homesteaded property). 
• Resolution 56, 2018 – A request from Palm Beach County Department of Environmental Resources Management (PBCDERM) for a Major Conditional Use approval to allow various improvements for passive recreation activities and a small public parking lot within a portion of the Loxahatchee Slough Recreation Facility area located off of the Beeline Highway approximately one-mile north of the PGA Boulevard/Beeline Highway intersection.
• Resolution 57, 2018 –  A request from PGA Commons 2, LLC and PGA Commons 3, LLC for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment at PGA Commons PUD to allow a new outdoor bar for Spoto’s Restaurant
• Ordinance 20, 2018 – First Reading of a request from 11940 Highway One Realty, LLC for a Voluntary Annexation of a 5.74-acre parcel located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Juno Road and U.S. Highway One approximately 0.5 miles north of the intersection of PGA Boulevard and U.S. Highway One. Most of us know this as Carl’s Plaza; it is in the long-term annexation plan for the City and is currently vacant.
• Ordinance 22, 2018 – First reading of Bonnette Hunt Club – Planned Unit Development (PUD) Rezoning and PUD Site Plan Approval – The Applicant is requesting approval of a PUD Site Plan to accommodate the development of a 24-unit single-family residential subdivision. The property is located on the south side of Hood Road, between Florida’s Turnpike and Jog Road. 

Items for Council Action/Discussion:   

• None listed

Check the agenda to see if any additional items have been added before the meeting here.

Gardens Election Lawsuit Continues

In response to the city’s expenditure of taxpayer money on a campaign to pass the three ballot amendments, thinly desguised as an “education” campaign, a lawsuit was filed in advance of the election.  It was triggered when the PAC “Voters in Control” started posting misleading signs at the early voting sites and hiring campaigners to wear tee-shirts with misleading information to wave them.

The lawsuit charges illegal use of taxpayer money and violations of the laws regarding government funding for advocacy of one side of a referendum question, and asked that the questions be thrown out, the vote not be tallied, and the PAC and the city be enjoined from continuing their illegal activity. The City of Palm Beach Gardens, the Supervisor of Election, the Canvassing Board and the “Voters in Control” PAC were all named as defendants.

The matter came before a judge in the final days before the election as an emergency pleading, but with early and absentee voting mostly done, the request to stop the canvassing was denied. Today, the parties agreed that SOE and the Canvassing Board would be dropped from the suit “without predjudice”, and Judge Peter Blanc would accept a motion to file a second amended complaint from the plaintiff in the next 20 days, the defendants would then have 30 days to respond, with a hearing within 45 days.

Some of this is moot as two of the three proposals have been soundly rejected by the voters. (See earlier article). What remains could include a challenge to the one that passed (Question 2), and the matter of a penalty for the City and PAC for illegal activity, depending on what the plaintiff, Sid Dinerstein decides to put in the amended complaint.

The whole exercise of a newly elected council trying to significantly weaken the term limits proposal passed by 80% of the voters was at least distasteful if not corrupt. Spending over $100K of taxpayer money to promote this flawed activity was outrageous. Thankfully, the voters are not stupid and let these 4 Council members know what they thought of it. (Council member Matthew Lane opposed placing it on the ballot).

It will be interesting to see how the lawsuit progresses.  Here is the Palm Beach Post summary of today’s hearing.

Palm Beach Gardens Results – Q1-NO; Q2-Yes; Q3-NO

The voters of Palm Beach Gardens, 28% of those registered, made their positions known. The turnout for the Primary/Special Election was certainly greater than we in PBGWatch expected. The results for all 3 questions were definitive. See the chart below. We will update the website with a more detailed analysis of the results by precinct when the information becomes available. Sarah Peters of the Palm Beach Post included comments from Mayor Marino and Sid Dinerstein in her article.

Legal action continues:

• “The questions are the subject of an unresolved lawsuit filed by Dinerstein days before the election alleging that city-produced flyers, robocalls and information on the city’s website wrongly advocated for the passage of the questions rather than educating the public”. There is a hearing on Friday, 8/31 on the lawsuit.
• Also unresolved is a second lawsuit by Mr. Dinerstein, currently in the 4th District Court of Appeals, regarding what was Question 3 in March – the ‘sit-out and run-again’ provision.

Summarizing:

• Palm Beach Gardens current and future council members can only serve for two-consecutive three year terms- unchanged – 65.5% NO
• Palm Beach Gardens City Managers must reside in the City, and must move there if not already a resident, within 1 year – unchanged – 70% NO
• Palm Beach Gardens Charter will be replaced by the one approved by the voters, meeting state statutes, removing outdated provisions and including other changes such as how vacancies are filled, definiton of a term, and other changes unrelated to statutes/updates. – 60% YES

Thanks to all the voters who did their research and voted on these issues.

Martino: Propaganda and Deception – Vote NO NO NO

The twin spigots of propaganda and deception surrounding the City Council of Palm Beach Gardens unrelenting march to change term limits to match the craving of the incumbents and developers while dwarfing the desires of 80% of the 2014 voters have again sparked controversy that has led to the Courthouse for resolution. The August 28, 2018 three question City Charter Referendum election has been legally challenged by a private citizen of Palm Beach Gardens.

The basis for the challenge, as I understand it to be, is misuse of public funds to pay for a public information campaign deceptively disguised as a solicitation campaign for votes to support approval to push for the passage of three City Charter questions. A local government cannot use public funds for vote solicitation.

In analyzing the three propaganda brochures sent to our homes and the City’s “information” materials on its website it is obvious that the City Council is using their appointed Charter Review Committee as a foil and their recommendations as a shield to justify these three City Charter questions. They are hiding the facts that their appointed appointed Citizens Charter Review Committee was less than representative of the entire City and had two City lobbyists from the business and development communities as members, one of whom is not a city resident. The City Council has not stipulated as information that recommendations from appointed committees are not mandates to the City Council or its constituents and that it is not a requirement, legal or otherwise, to present a ballot question on any or all of the Charter Committee recommendations.

The question than is why is a City Council that has yet to complete a single term in office so obsessed with these Charter change questions. More particularly, what inspires their obsession with changing the 2014 Term Limit Law that was passed by 80% of those 2014 voters who came to the polls to mandate term limits as then presented. Could it be because the advantage of the changes, particularly to the Term Limits, inure to their benefit and the desires of the developers whose monies are fueling a PAC that is allegedly sponsoring a campaign of confusion and deception concerning these Charter change questions? This same Political Action Committee is alleged to be in collusion and cooperation with the City and its hired Public Relations firm.

Under the developing circumstances the argument of being above personal considerations and purity on the part of the City Council members is difficult to accept. The points of order that the City Council may use to argue for underpinning their contention that it has presented an information campaign and not a political campaign for votes has been debated, exposed, and found to be wanting.

Please vote on August 28, 2018. My recommendation has not changed. Its vote NO, NO, and NO!

Martino: Vote NO, NO, and NO!

On Tuesday, August 28, 2018, Election Day, Vote NO to Charter Question #1! Vote NO to Charter Question #2! Vote NO to Charter Question #3! That’s how “TOGETHER WE CAN FIX OUR CHARTER”. The City Council has again sent “slick” campaign-style brochures to our homes deceptively asking for our vote to “fix” a charter that is not broken, particularly, in the areas they suggest.

NO to Question #1! It changes existing City Council members’ term limits of two consecutive 3-year terms that approximately 16,000 registered voters, or 80% of those that cast ballots, approved in 2014 to three consecutive 3-year terms. Why? How is that a “fix”? Council members need more time to do what? If you can’t do what in 6 years is it worth doing? These five Council members were very well aware of the existing Term Limit Law when they asked for the voters trust and have not even completed one 3-year term. And they want more time!

NO to Question #2! It is a consortium of changes some of which are minor but others that could obviate City employee rights. It is an unhealthy menu of confusion dressed up to appear as a “fix”.

NO to Question #3! It is farcical to suggest that this question will “fix the City Manager contract process”. There is no contract process to “fix” per se and annual reviews of the City Manager are routine. It simply is another attempt to eliminate residency requirements for the City Manager. Leaving the residency requirement in the Charter is not a detriment but offers clarity to the people and to the employee under consideration

In case you did not know it is against the law for the City Council to solicit votes. They are allowed to authorize and/or provide basic election information to the public and nothing more. The City is spending over $100,000 to “educate” the electorate on why our City Charter needs a “fix”. None of that $100,000 expenditure was approved at a regular advertised Council meeting to my knowledge. The City’s contract vendor who is creating this “fix” illusion has been linked with a Political Action Committee, a PAC, which has reportedly received $13,750 mostly from City developers and landowners. An employee of this same City contract vendor is listed as the Treasurer of this PAC. Volunteers for this PAC were passing out City sponsored election guides and erecting misleading election signs encouraging a Yes vote on the Charter questions. Yet the City, the contract vendor, and the PAC, incredibly claim no affiliation and/or coordination exists between them. Further, we should recall that the Courts threw out two of four similar Charter questions in March 2018. One of the surviving March questions is before the Fourth District Court of Appeals for adjudication. How can we be sure that these new questions have judicial validity?

Before voting on these “fix” questions please consider the above. However, the real and basic questions to consider are why this “fix” now, and who benefits from this “fix”. It appears to me that the current City Council members would be big beneficiaries. They get to keep collecting their approximately $30,000 part-time salaries for 9 years which equals $270,000 which does not include their yearly automatic raises. They also would continue to receive their approximately $30,000 benefit package which is another $270,000 for a total of $540,000. If they sit-out 3 years and get elected again that gravy train keeps on rolling for another 9 years and they bank another $540,000 salary and benefit package. How does 18 years and $1,080,000 comport with term limits? It doesn’t! And the current City Council members can continue with their perceived power while carousing with and satisfying the developers and landowners who contribute large sums to their campaigns, as exampled above.

I see no benefit or “fix” for the people whose home rule rights are guaranteed in the City Charter. Rather those home rule rights would be diminished and some would disappear.

Preserve Your Home Rule Rights; Vote NO, NO, and NO on Tuesday, August 28, 2018.

Misleading Signage Says Vote YES – Keep Term Limits

Palm Beach Gardens voters may be confused by signs paid for by the Political Committee “Voters in Control“, on their way to the polls…. how can Vote Yes mean Keep Term Limits?

The City already has term limits passed in 2014 by over 16,000 voters, about 80% of the vote – for 2 3-year terms.

Voting YES would CHANGE  term limits by adding a 3rd term.

A NO vote KEEPS term limits the way the voters passed them!!!!!

So who is Voters in Control?

A look at the FEC campaign treasurer reports listed on the City’s website shows that the Treasurer is Kim Lee Bove.  Interestingly enough Kim Lee Bove is Director of Operations at Cornerstone Solutions, LLC – which is the same company that the City hired to ‘market’ the proposed charter changes.

One can review the listed donors in the March and April 2018 reports – the fairly short list includes mostly developers with business before the city. Why would they want council people to serve longer or not have term limits at all?  We can think of lots of reasons…..

Who benefits by misleading the voter?  You decide.

There is nothing wrong with donating to a PAC or having one – but their signage is highly misleading and we think that the voters should know.

Police Life-Saving Action and 12% Salary Increase Bookends Council Meeting

The August 2nd Council Meeting began with an update by Sherri Pla (the City’s Head PGA Professional) on the Junior Ryder Cup Challenge Trip to Scotland. Also covered during Announcements and Presentations were the Florida Law Enforcement Traffic Safety Award (where the Gardens won first place in the category for departments with 101-200 officers) and American Heart Association’s Mission Life Gold Plus Award to Fire/Rescue for the 4th year in a row. Throughout the beginning of the meeting the exclamations of a young child could be heard. Thus Mayor Marino segued to an early City Manager Report.

Quick action by Officer Robert Ayala saved the life of young Lucia Graham while Officer Rafael Guadalupe called for Fire/Rescue and comforted her mother. See Gardens Cops who Saved Choking Baby…. for details and watch the segment of the Council Meeting recounting the event and honoring of these two officers here.

The last item on the Agenda was Resolution 45, 2018 approving and ratifying an agreement with the Police Benevolent Association granting an immediate 12% increase across the board and bringing the City to 2nd in salary only to Boca Raton among the local municipalities. This was presented to the Council as a ‘Fait Accompli’ and it was interesting that none on the Council even questioned the agreement nor addressed the implication on future labor negotiations. The only comments addressed impact on the budget, and then only as a done deal.  See details from the Palm Beach Post here.

All resolutions passed 5:0 including Adoption of 2018-2019 Fees and Charges, the Annual Community Development Block Grant Action Plan, and the first of many to come presentations before the Council on Avenir. City Attorney Lohman also gave an update on the Rustic Lakes Annexation lawsuit, where Rustic Lakes has 20 days to respond to the latest ruling against their suit.

There will be two Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Budget Hearings on September 6th and 20th.

Please vote on the three Charter Amendments on the ballot on August 28th!

Next Page »