Former Mayor Martino Asks Penetrating Questions about the Stadium

Michael Martino sent a letter to the Palm Beach Gardens City Council on November 4th, 2013, along with a long list of questions that he feels need to be addressed about the Stadium.   You can read his cover letter here.

The former Mayor and City Council member separates his questions into 3 categories – Transparency, Comprehensive Planning and Financial, and then has a series of suggestions.  These are all worth reviewing and we residents should challenge our current council to consider and respond to the points made:

Transparency Questions
1. It has been reported that the Houston Astros’ owner, Mr. Jim Crane, first contacted the City about the stadium complex 18 months ago, approximately April of 2012. If that is true why hasn’t the City Council had a publicly advertised meeting to discuss this major policy issue?
2. If the City Council has not publicly discussed it’s interest in this very hyped stadium complex, why would an astute, obviously very successful businessman and owner of the Major League Baseball franchise known as the Houston Astros, infer that the Astros’ plans to move their spring training facilities to Palm Beach Gardens are “95 per cent” complete and “need only a final vote by the Palm Beach Gardens City Council”?
3. According to newspaper articles discussions have been held between certain unknown city officials and major league baseball officials. Who were these city officials?
4. Has the City Council established policy at a publicly advertised meeting to instruct the city administration to pursue a stadium complex to house major league spring training facilities in Palm Beach Gardens? If no policy concerning a stadium complex for Palm Beach Gardens has been discussed or established by the City Council why did the City hire a private public relations firm to market a stadium complex? Who authorized the expenditure? Was the request to hire a private public relations firm publicly advertised? If the City Council has not publicly stated a policy to pursue this massive stadium complex, who has or is directing the city administration to do so?
5. Assuming the private public relations firm that is marketing the stadium complex was hired and is working for the City where are the funds coming from and what is the contract costs and how is it structured? To what degree, if any, are city employee man hours being used to support this public relations firm?
6. Who prepared and paid for the preliminary sketches and information that have been used in various presentations by city representatives as reported in newspapers? Who prepared and paid for the site plans and various other information boards for the October 16th public meeting? Are these available for the public to peruse?
7. Who authorized the presentation of said stadium complex to the public at the Doubletree Hotel on PGA Boulevard on October 16th and what was the cost? Did the City Council either individually or collectively review this presentation prior to this date?
8. 82 acres of land purchased with bonds for recreational and cultural use off Central Boulevard owned by Palm Beach County is being considered in consort with some 35 acres of adjacent city owned land for said stadium complex. When did the City Council publicly discuss purchase of the County land for a stadium complex?
9. I believe the City is declaring “confidentiality of records” under Florida Statute 288.075 F.S., which exempts 119.07 (1) F.S. and Article I of the State Constitution, the Sunshine Law. I would argue that Section 288.075 is not pertinent to the stadium complex issue. However, that debate is now not necessary because…
a. In 288.075 F.S. section (2) Plans, Intentions, and Interests, paragraph (b) states “… in this state is confidential and exempt from s. 119.07 (1) and s. 24 (a), Art. I of the State Constitution for 12months after the date an economic development agency receives a request for confidentiality or until the information is otherwise disclosed, whichever comes first”.
b. The City and the Houston Astros’ owner, Mr. Jim Crane, have been both been publicly vocal about their Plans, Intentions, and Interests and according to reports the City was contacted about this stadium complex over 18 months ago.
10. In a recent mailing I received thanking me for my attendance at the October 16th presentation it states “the City has no future public meetings planned”. Hopefully, there are no private meetings planned. I strongly urge the City Council to hold an advertised Public Hearing very soon to announce to their intentions concerning this massive stadium complex development. The residents deserve to know your policy positions both individually and collectively.
These are just a few of the many questions that have been raised. There will be many more.

Comprehensive Planning Questions
1. Does the City of Palm Beach Garden’s Comprehensive Plan consider, recommend, or speculate that a stadium complex of the magnitude and massiveness that is being considered should be located in the city?
2. Regardless of how well planned and built a stadium complex may be, or how many safeguards are promised or legislated to protect the neighbors, if it’s located in an area of the city that is not appropriate, the question remains how does a stadium complex enhance the quality of life for the immediate neighborhoods and for all of the residents of Palm Beach Gardens?
3. The land under consideration for this stadium complex is in the middle of predominately planned residential neighborhoods, in close proximity to the City’s tennis complex, and very near the desirable and first rate educational facilities, known as Timber Trace Elementary School and Watson B. Duncan Middle School. 82 acres of the site under consideration is land purchased by the County for cultural and recreational considerations. Those considerations could, would, and should blend and harmonize with the existing residential neighborhoods. Will a stadium complex of the magnitude proposed stretch those considerations beyond their limitations?
4. With existing development already in place in this general neighborhood, development approved but not yet built, and future considerations for development under the guidance of the City’s existing comprehensive plan, is it not questionable whether this same neighborhood can handle the stress of a massive stadium complex?
5. Recently the State Department of Transportation reported that an interchange to I-95 is being considered in the same general neighborhood of the proposed stadium complex which further complicates an already complex situation. Should this interchange not be planned and coordinated with a regional approach to the vehicular traffic needs generated by all the existing and planned growth for this area of the city? If the stadium complex becomes a reality should its traffic consequences not be a part of this conversation?
6. As suggested by the stadium complex site plans and information presented at the public presentation on October 16th I question the planning for traffic concerns in the immediate area and neighborhoods. I also am not satisfied with, or perhaps I did not fully comprehend, the City’s approach to alleviating the regional traffic concerns this major addition to this area of the city will cause.
7. Traffic performance standards will be further taxed by the year-round use and magnitude of this stadium complex. As the City requested and the County granted when the Mirasol Development was approved, traffic performance standards may have to be suspended, waived, or ignored at many of the city’s major intersections. PGA Boulevard and Military Trail is only one example.
These are just a few of the many questions that have been raised. There will be many more.

Financial Questions
1. Assuming the City will own the stadium complex, all royalties, incomes, expenses to pay for and build, to operate, and to maintain, to insure, etc., are responsibilities accrued to the City. Is the City prepared for these huge fiscal requirements? Is the City prepared to be a landlord to the degree that this stadium complex will demand?
2. It has been reported and presented by city officials that the financing for the stadium complex will come from two sources, the State of Florida and a Palm Beach County tourist tax known as the “Bed Tax”. Assuming a bond of some kind would be the financial instrument to underwrite the stadium complex will these funding sources be sufficient without the full faith and credit of the City or any portion thereof being exposed? Are there any “strings” attached to these funding sources? What will be the consequences for the City if these funding sources do not measure up to expectations in the future? As an example the “Bed Tax” will undoubtedly fluctuate with the condition of the national and local economies. As referenced to me at the October 16th meeting, another concerning example is that the state funds will be disbursed over a 37 year period, so, without stringent safeguards I find this troubling for future city fiscal responsibilities.
3. How will the city pay for the 82 acres under consideration for purchase from Palm Beach County for this stadium complex? Is it possible to fold the cost of the 82 acres into the financial instrument that will be created to fund the stadium complex?
4. How will the City be reimbursed for the portion of the 35 acres it is giving up to the stadium complex site? How will the City be reimbursed for the improvements it may lose that exist on the City owned 35 acres? Is it possible to fold the costs of the City owned 35 acres into the financial instrument that will be created to fund the stadium complex?
5. A natural disaster, such as, a hurricane could prove to be catastrophic both in a physical and financial way. How will the stadium complex be insured and how will those costs be paid for now and into the future?
6. I strongly support the City Council members desire to not use ad valorem taxes for this stadium complex now and in the future. To keep a no tax pledge for any good reason, however, will be difficult. This City Council and future ones will have to be vigilant, creative, and tough. As an example, I would speculate that the no ad valorem tax pledge has already been tarnished with still more ad valorem monies being contemplated according to the information given to me at the October 16th presentation. The City has incurred costs for the public relations firm, city employee man hours, and the site plan and presentation materials used at the October 16th presentation. In an answer to a question I posed concerning how the City contemplated paying for the County’s 82 acres I was informed that the non ad valorem recreational impact fee accounts and the City’s reserve accounts which are ad valorem funds, were possibilities. Also, answers to questions about future fund sources for maintenance and other extraneous costs sure to be incurred received fuzzy responses. How will this City Council ensure that no ad valorem taxes now or in the future will be used to supplement the fiscal needs of this stadium complex?
7. A funding source which we have not heard from is the two baseball organizations that are mentioned as the other interested parties in this stadium complex proposal. I would point out according to a respected news organization that of the 30 major league baseball franchises the very motivated Houston Astros are the 16th most valued franchise at $800,000,000. The other less vocal team considering this stadium complex is the Toronto Blue Jays valued at $950,000,000 which is 12th on the value list. Together the two teams suggested market value is $1,750,000,000. That is a lot of digits and zeroes! Will these financially well off organizations be asked to finance any portion of this stadium complex?
These are just a few of the many questions that have been raised. There will be many more.

Suggestions for Consideration
1. Find another location with less existing neighborhood intrusiveness for this stadium complex.
2. If the City Council determines its policy should be to continue with the present site selection then a complete and thorough review of all the major facets of the proposal for the stadium complex needs to be accomplished which should include but not be limited to site planning, regional and neighborhood traffic concerns, all safety aspects for immediate neighbors, adequate buffering for immediate neighbors from all noise, lights, etc., financial and contractual aspects, purchase of the County land, and so on.
3. I would suggest that the planning strategy for the overall acreage being considered for the stadium complex development be treated similar to a Planned Community District (PCD) as PGA National, Ballen Isles, and the Gardens Mall developments were. In my opinion this will better accommodate and integrate all of the infrastructure needs, such as, drainage, roads, sidewalks, environmental concerns, etc. The stadium, practice fields, and other development parcel considerations could then be considered as individual Planned Units of Development (PUD) inside the PCD. Even though they are already built and in place the two schools, the City’s tennis complex and park, should be considered as existing PUD’s inside the PCD also. This type of planning approach may allow for more interest and creativity to the development, as well as, make it safer and less intrusive to the neighborhood. In my opinion the site plans which were displayed to the public lacked the Gardens imagination. Again I stress the need to plan for the regional affronts this complex will cause to this area of our city.
4. Municipal services, such as, police and fire protection, public works maintenance requirements, etc. must have a place in the overall plans for this stadium complex.
5. Speaking to the internal traffic needs of this complex, my approach would be to segregate the impacts…
a. Abandon any consideration of linking Shady Lakes Drive with 117th Court North or any new road under consideration, if there is one. No access from PGA Blvd. should be considered.
b. Development plans should include two ingress and egress accesses from the site onto Central Boulevard with signalization if deemed necessary. A new ingress/egress access road should be planned on the north side of the site to primarily serve the stadium.
c. I would suggest major improvements to 117th Court North to accommodate the existing schools, tennis facilities, city recreation areas, and proposed new practice fields.
6. External traffic considerations I would suggest may be needed are…
a. Coordinate site requirements with planned I-95 interchange in this region of the city
b. Intersection improvements at Central Boulevard and Hood Road
c. Intersection improvements at Central Boulevard and Military Trail
d. Intersection improvements at Alternate A1A and Hood Road
e. As feasible and possible provide for road improvements to Hood Road and Central Boulevard as needed and required.
f. Improve other major intersections which may be affected by the stadium complex, such as, PGA Boulevard and Military Trail.
g. PGA Blvd. from Military Trail west to possibly the western most entrance of PGA National may receive stress from this stadium complex that will require improvements of some sort. Of particular concern would be the Turnpike Interchange area from Central Boulevard west. The ingress and egress into commercial developments and existing residential developments, such as Ballen Isles, Old Palm, PGA National and Mirasol, may require some improvement considerations.
h. Undoubtedly other roads that will be used to traverse to this stadium complex, such as, Military Trail, Hood Road, Central Boulevard, and possibly Alternate A1A in some areas, will need improvement considerations.
i. Again I stress the need to plan for the regional traffic and transportation offenses this complex will cause to this area of our city.
Please accept the above as my suggestions in the constructive way they are offered.

Next City Council Meeting is this Thursday, November 7th at 7pm

We hope you had a chance to attend the Open House on the proposed Stadium.

November’s City Council meeting will be held this Thursday, November 7th at 7pm at City Hall.  It is possible that many people will be attending to comment about the stadium during “Comments by the Public”.  If you are on facebook and haven’t read recent articles related to the stadium – we’ve linked to several on the PBG Watch facebook page.

The agenda  is not a long one – there are several resolutions on the Consent Agenda as well as proclamations.  One item on the Consent Agenda (Resolution 68, 2013) involves a Borland Center request for 20 additional events in the next year.  If you live in one of the adjoining communities – take a look at it and make public comment if you have any issues.

Also on the agenda is 2nd reading of Ordinance 18, 2013 which is the annexation of the Capital Lighting property and 1st reading of Ordinance 20, 2013 which will allow for a CVS to be located at the NE intersection of Northlake and Military Trail.  Appointments will also be made to various boards:

• Recreation Advisory Board
• Art in Public Places Advisory Board
• Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board
• Budget Oversight Committee

The full agenda can be accessed here  – with each section linked individually.

We get the government we deserve – and it’s up to us to watch what they do.  Hope to see you there.

PBG Public Exposition on Concepts for Baseball Stadium

There has been criticism in the recent past that the baseball stadium proposal for the Gardens off Central Boulevard was on a fast track for approval before the public had been informed. Judging by the public exposition yesterday at the Doubletree Hotel, the city is doing its part to open up the process for public scrutiny and comment, and the criticism may be premature.

According to the Palm Beach Post, about 300 residents showed up to “kick the tires” on ideas for developing currently vacant county land near Watson Duncan Middle School and the Gardens Tennis Center into a spring training facility for the Houston Astros and Toronto BlueJays.

A room had been setup with about 6 “stations” giving information about baseball in Florida, economic impact to the area, the site plan, roads impact, financing, and the process to come (most of which is “TBD”). Much of the information had been discussed prior to the meeting, but the site plan pictures were new. What we gleaned from about an hour perusing the exhibits and talking with City Manager Ron Ferris and others was:

• The facility is needed to provide a “critical mass” for baseball in southeast Florida and prevent the loss of teams currently using county-owned Roger Dean stadium in Jupiter.
• Economic activity resulting from the facility (eg. hotel rooms, restaurants, etc.) is estimated at $80-$100M per year (Roger Dean is said to account for $56M.)
• The site plan includes the stadium in the northeast corner adjacent to I95, practice fields west and southeast, and a grassy parking area that would be used for athletic fields in the off season. All of the space is utilized and the plan would take advantage of the “25% set-aside” waiver for public development that was passed by the Council recently.
• Spring training lasts 6 weeks. During the rest of the year, the facility could be used for semi-pro teams, public events, and other Gardens athletic programs.
• Construction financing, estimated at $100M, would come from the state ($50M already set aside for this purpose by the legislature) and county bed tax receipts. Allocation of the bed tax is too complex to describe here, but it is useful to know that the two largest consumers of bed tax dollars are the debt service for the county convention center and Roger Dean Stadium. The Roger Dean bonds will be paid off by 2016, and the new stadium would be funded from the new dollars that are then available.
• The city plans to buy the land from the county (it already owns part of the footprint) in any case. An appraisal has not yet been completed.
• We asked what developers have expressed interest in the project but no names were forthcoming. There would be a competitive bidding process if the time comes.
• The city plans to own and operate the facility (either directly, with city employees) or through a concessionaire. The teams would play some role in that. Operational financing was only discussed in vague terms. It is our understanding that Roger Dean operates at a profit and requires no subsidy from the county other than debt service on the construction bonds (a pleasant contrast to the convention center which consistently loses money). When asked how the Gardens facility operational model would compare with Roger Dean, no one we spoke with knew enough about the Jupiter facility to answer.

Before forming an opinion whether the construction of the stadium is a good deal for Palm Beach Gardens, we would have to know a great deal more about the financing, including the operational business plan, future revenue projections, city liability for losses, agreement with the teams to stay in the Gardens for the forseeable future, etc. Concerns with the residents in close proximity to the facility about noise and traffic would also have to be addressed. But as a public relations campaign begins to educate and get buy-in from Gardens citizens, we thought the event was successful and that City Manager Ferris is managing the expectations well.

Gardens weighs widening roads, Changes would benefit two schools and baseball stadium

Details on proposed Stadium, Open House on 10/16

We wrote up a summary of last week’s City Council meeting including discussion about the proposed Baseball Stadium.

Please make every effort to attend next week’s workshop on it.  Ask your questions.  Read the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs).  Note that the presumption appears to be that this project will happen.  Please inform your friends and neighbors and encourage them to attend as well.  Get your questions answered.

Here is a link to the City’s notice about the Open House and FAQs are here.

Willie Howard covers the workshop thoroughly as a front page story in today’s Palm Beach Post.   If you subscribe you can read the whole story online, or here is a text version.

We get the government we deserve – and it’s up to us to watch what they do.  Hope to see you there.

Stadium discussed at October 3rd Council Mtg – Save the date for the 10/16 Workshop!

The proposed baseball stadium came up at several points in the Thursday, October 3rd City Council meeting. Early in the evening, City Administrator Ferris announced that there will be a Public Workshop to be held at the Double Tree Inn on October 16th. This had also been announced in the Palm Beach Post earlier.  Written invitations will be mailed to residents in subdivisions directly adjoining or affected by the project, however all are welcome and encouraged to attend the workshop. Save the date! More information as well as FAQs will be posted on the Palm Beach Gardens City website in advance of the workshop.

Councilman Joe Russo countered the media, which had quoted the deal as almost 95% complete.  Overall, the tone by all on the council, (as pointed out by some making public comment), was that the Council wanted the stadium deal to happen, but they haven’t yet started selling it to the public.  “We’re going to make this happen the right way“, said Russo.

Sal Faso, President of the North County Neighborhood Coalition, made an informative presentation about the coalition which includes communities from West Palm Beach up through Tequesta.  One of the coalition’s key goals it to get accurate  information to residents of member communities.  Avenir was of concern to his group and they were eager to hear more about the stadium.

During Public Comment, Tom Carnes of the PGA Corridor praised the ballpark, as did Joel Channing – also of PGA Corridor. Others, including Lauren Miller, Mike Peragine, Iris Scheibl and Richard Rosenblatt were concerned about hearing about the stadium first through the paper, expressed general anxiety on how much seemed to have already been decided, looked forward to additional information,  and questioned the potential tie-in of the stadium to the later agenda items Ordinance 16, 2013/Ordinance 19, 2013, and related zoning issues.

Ordinances 16 and 19 were presented as a single item, since both are necessary in order to accomplish the waiver criteria and 25% set-aside capability.  Director of Planning and Zoning Natlie Crowley presented the ordinances and credited Councilwoman Tinsley’s questions from the September meeting and her involvement with the team in making it a better and more solid set of proposals.  Public comment included – Vito DeFrancesco who was concerned that the comp plan changes could jeopardize wetlands and historic properties. Responses by Councilman Levy and affirmation by Ms. Crowley were that there were federal and state regulations that would prohibit such actions.  Barbara Grossman related the proposed changes to Seven/50. Iris Scheibl was concerned that the criteria would allow almost any project to be approved, whether there were mitigation requirements for governmental entities as there were for private developments and finally – asked if the stadium project be completed without these ordinances. Mike Peragine seconded the question on the stadium. Answers given were that the comp plan changes were not required for the stadium, that they could be applied to other upcoming projects, and that mitigation would still be possible with the comp plan changes. The Council’s vote was 5:0. The Comp Plan change will now go to Tallahassee, where after approval, the two Ordinances will once again appear for 2nd Reading, most likely in the November time-frame.

Also passing 5:0 were Ordinance 17 (2nd Reading) – rezoning and site plan approval for the Chase Bank to be located near US 1 and PGA Blvd; Ordinance 18 (1st Reading) – which would achieve a voluntary annexation of the land associated with the former Capital Lighting and Parking lot), and Resolution 58, 2013 – which was a modification replacing the fountain in front of the Waterford Hotel with plantings and renovated sculptures.

The Greenmarket also begins its Eleventh year on Sunday, October 6th.  The Council gave its thanks to Joel Channing for hosting the Summer Greenmarket at his facility.

We all have a lot of questions about the impact of Baseball on our community – so make it a point to get to the Workshop on Wednesday, October 16th.  Let your friends and neighbors know.

 

Set-aside waivers on the agenda for October 3rd PBG Council Meeting

The October City Council meeting  will held this Thursday, October 3rd at  7pm at the city hall.  It is not a very long agenda but does have two key proposed ordinances that you should review and which are .pdf attachments to this email.

Ordinance 16, 2013 has returned to the agenda with modifications and now added to the agenda is Ordinance 19, 2013 which coupled with Ordinance 16, 2013 allows the City to waive the 25% environmental set aside for government developed projects meeting one or more of the stated criteria.

Modification proposal in Ordinance 16, 2013 states:

“The City shall provide for relief from the requirements of this policy for publicly owned lands upon which environmentally significant lands and/or listed species are located through the Land Development Regulations.  Any such regulations shall establish criteria that the proposed public development must meet in order to qualify for relief from this policy.”

and from Ordinance 19, the criteria:

“The City Council has the authority to grant waivers based on the specific criteria set forth in Section 78-158 of the City’s Land Development Regulations (LDRs). The proposed amendment allows the City Council to waive the City’s 25% environmental set aside pertaining to viable uplands for publicly owned lands. In order to provide relief, the request must satisfy one (1) or more of the following criteria in addition to the requirements of the existing waiver criteria contained within Section 78-158:

(1) The proposed development fulfills a critical government infrastructure need.
(2) The proposed development will have a substantial and beneficial economic impact through revenue generation and job creation.
(3) The request demonstrates that granting the waiver will result in a development that makes a significant contribution to the city’s recreational and/or park space needs.

The subject petition is being processed concurrently with a City-initiated Comprehensive Plan amendment (Ordinance 16, 2013), which is a proposed amendment to Policy 6.1.4.5 of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Ordinance 16, 2013 establishes that the process for receiving a waiver from the City’s 25% environmental set aside requirements is done through the LDRs.”

One could ask – what is driving the need for these modifications?  Is it the Stadium?  Is there another project coming up?  Couldn’t almost any government project fit under criteria 1, 2 or 3?   Why should criteria be waived for government projects when developers are required to provide mitigation when getting waivers?  I don’t know the answers, do you?

Some other ordinances on the agenda are:

• Second reading of Ordinance 17, 2013 – regarding rezoning for the Chase Bank to be located near the intersection of PGA Blvd and US 1
• First reading for Ordinance 18, 2013 – a voluntary annexation of the land formerly housing the Capital Lighting Building and parking lot
• Resolution 53, 2013 – Art in Public places modification for Waterford Hotel – also located near the intersection of PGa Blvd and US 1

The short form of the agenda can be found here and the long form here 

We get the government we deserve – and it’s up to us to watch what they do.  Hope to see you there.

Public Comment dominates an otherwise short Final 2014 Budget Hearing

The Final Budget Hearing on September 19th went smoothly, as expected. So too did the 2nd readings on the 2013 budget update, and the changes to the Investment Policy.

More interesting were the topics brought up during Public Comment.

Polly Taormina  from Sun Terrace at the Oaks, spoke about the subdivision’s reroofing project which she believes is being done improperly and not in accordance with the Master File. City Administrator Ferris directed several managers from the City to meet with Ms. Taormina immediately after her comments.

Barbara Grossman spoke about 7/50 and Agenda 21 – wanting the Council to have a workshop or discuss this regional planning concept, stating that the public isn’t knowledgeable about what’s going on in the county.

Vito DeFrancesco picked up where he left off at the prior agenda meeting – stating his concerns about the proposed Stadium and Ordinance 16, 2013. He’d read in a Houston paper, that Palm Beach Gardens is very close to a done deal on the Stadium – yet there is nothing in the upcoming document on PBG accomplishments in 2013 about the Stadium. He felt that the City would be the developer and as such, would have a conflict of interest in deciding the Ordinance. He wants to see everything that has done to date on the Stadium and has received nothing to date from his records request. Vito felt but couldn’t prove there were Sunshine violations and that City money has been spent on exploring the stadium, despite assurances that there would be no impact to residents. Councilman Russo took strong issue with any claims violations of Sunshine law, stating that he has seen no plans. He also took issue with the Council being classified as developers. He said it was no different than exploring any park and that looking into this IS THEIR JOB. There is nothing to tell the public yet because there is nothing to say yet.

City Watchers – continue to monitor what is said about the Stadium and Ordinance 16, 2013 when it goes back on the agenda at the October 3rd City Council Meeting. See  a summary of the discussion on the ordinance at the September 10th meeting.

 

Final 2014 Budget Hearing plus City Council Meeting on September 19th at 7pm

PBG will have what might be expected to be a fairly short City Council meeting on Thursday September 19th at 7pm at City Hall.

The primary purpose for this second meeting is the Final Public Hearing for the 2014 Budget. Also on the agenda is 2nd reading of Ordinance 13, 2013 which amends the 2013 budget for items already voted upon, and Ordinance 14, 2013 adopting modifications to the City’s Investment Policy. Neither ordinance was controversial on First Reading and both passed 5-0. The Consent Agenda consists of two items – approval of August’s City Council Meeting MInutes, and Resolution 60, 2013 “Partial Release of Three (3) Existing Easements and Acceptance of a Utility Easement from Palm Beach County to Facilitate a Northbound Right-Turn Lane on Alternate A1A onto RCA Boulevard to be Contructed by Palm Beach County”

Here are links to the short form of the agenda and the long form (which is only 75 pages long).

September Council – from Budget to Domestic Partner Benefits

2013-2014 Budget

Key on the September 10th Palm Beach Gardens City Council meeting was the First Budget Hearing on the 2013-2014 budget. Allan Owens, Finance Administrator took the Council through an easy to follow presentation highlighting actions taken and economic factors that improved the City’s financial picture. These included:

• 2nd year in a row that property values increased
• Proactive dealing with both Police and Fire/Rescue pensions
• Strong reserves position

The Budget Oversight Committee, chaired by Dr. Mark Marciano also stressed that they were satisfied with the budget and its diversification and he congratulated the city on our improvement in the Fitch Bond Rating.

An other point made by staff was that ad-valorem taxes, while still the largest source of revenue, are a smaller percentage than in most of the other municipalities and that our revenue stream is appropriately used for intended purposes. An example made earlier in the evening was that funding for Bridge Refurbishment comes entirely from Gas Tax revenues.

The council was pleased with the presentation. However Mr. Russo, looking at the 5-year outlook, suggested that should inflation or increased valuations pose tax increases on the residents, that Operating Millage be brought down accordingly. The 5-year projection showed flat operating millage and a downward trend in debt millage. The council was in general agreement with Joe’s comments and the budget passed 5/0.

Final millage is “a proposed operating millage rate of 5.7404 mills and debt millage rate of .1733 for a total tentative rate of 5.9137 mills for fiscal year 2013/2014” and “the proposed rate exceeds the roll-back rate by 2.4%”. The final budget hearing will be on September 19th at 7pm.

Ordinance 16, 2013

This proposed Amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan resulted in quite a bit of discussion. Natalie Crowley, Director of Planning and Zoning, presented a city-initiated proposal to exempt all government-owned/publicly-owned lands from the requirement to set-aside 25% of the upland property for conservation. Palm Beach Gardens in unique in the County for already having over 40% of total land dedicated to conservation. Ms. Crowley argued that the city of Boca Raton and Palm Beach County have similar exemptions and it would make handling government development for the public good easier.

Vito DeFrancesco spoke very skeptically about this proposal. He suggested that the amendment was driven by the proposed Stadium, and was concerned that the currently wooded land – across from two schools, would be cleared for such a project. He also believed that the proposed site might have been purchased under a bond that required that the land be wooded in perpetuity.

Council discussion ensued. Mrs. Tinsley was strongly against the proposed amendment. She argued that it is easier to make an exception or mitigation to a proposal to avoid the 25% set-aside than it would be to try and force the 25% set-aside if exempted. The council may not share views toward land management in the same way in the future. She would be amenable to changes that would keep the requirement but allow for waivers. Mr. Levy also had problems with the proposal. Mr. Russo, while not opposed, would not vote for it if 2 on the council had issues. After further discussion involving all the council and the City Attorney, it was decided to table the amendment until October 3rd.

This ordinance warrants watching and comment by the Public at the October meeting.

Benefits for Domestic Partners

At the end of the meeting, City Manager Ferris brought up providing additional benefits for Domestic Partners/Same-Sex Marriage employees. Some benefits had been provided since 2007. Mr. Ferris suggested that cost to the city would range from $50-$100k on an annual basis, and that the government (labor law) has strict definitions and criteria for domestic partnerships and for children of such partnerships. All on the council felt that the City’s economic situation had improved sufficiently to allow for this expansion and asked Mr. Ferris to come back with a plan.

Other topics for the evening included:

• Bridge Refurbishment – of the City’s 7 bridges, 4 were built in the 50’s and 60’s and need to be upgraded to meet FDOT standards. First on the list is the bridge on Lighthouse Dr in 2013, and next is Allamanda – which will be done in the summer of 2014 – since the bridge will have to be closed. All bridges will be completed by 2017.
• 40th Terrace/Sunset Drive – Possible utility plans were shown, some of which may necessitate land acquisition or right of way for roadway and easements. Eminent domain would only be used if owners wouldn’t deed land for the easements. The current schedule is unchanged from last time it was shown; in Nov-Jan a meeting will be scheduled with the homeowners with final costs.
• Passed were Gardenia Isles 2nd reading, proposed modifications to the investment policy, and the first reading of the proposed Chase Bank on US 1 passed.
• The City Golf Course is on schedule and budget with a soft opening targeted for mid-November.
• The Green Market will open on October 6th.

« Previous Page — Next Page »